Monday, 24 September 2018

Real reasons behind Rahul Gandhi’s attacks on Rafale deal





Crash of MIG 27



The Rafale deal finalised by the Modi government has become such a hot topic that hardly a day passes without attack by Rahul Gandhi or his lieutenants and defence by ministers and BJP spokespersons.

The attacks and counter-attacks are about the price and allegations of corruption and favouritism. Prima facie, Rahul Gandhi wants to make these allegations an election issue as V. P. Singh had made the Bofors deal and that is why he is keeping the issue hot and will continue to do so until the election day.

However, in my opinion, there are more dangerous reasons the government and the BJP are ignoring.

The real reasons are explained by the realpolitik, domestic as well as international.

The manufacturers of aeroplanes, civilian as well as military, arms and ammunitions, drugs (I mean medicines), medical equipment, etc. spend huge amounts of money on lobbying to sell their products.  They adopt all sorts of dirty tricks to sell their products.  They believe that they can purchase anything and anybody. Quite often, they are right.

These manufacturers would not like India to slip out of their clutches. India being a very big importer of aeroplanes and arms and ammunitions, their agents are always active here.  Their targets are corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and men in the armed forces.  The Rafale deal has unnerved those who lost the market.  They would do anything to create misapprehensions about the deal and bet on a favourable politician becoming Prime Minister of India.

The intelligence agencies of several countries also spend a lot of money and adopt all sorts of dirty tricks to halt the progress of other countries. We Indians should know it very well. How can we forget the false espionage cases in which sincere and honest scientists of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) were implicated in late 1994 when there was a Congress government at the Centre? Not only was their career ruined, but the cryogenic engine project on which they were working also suffered a serious setback. Had our scientists who went to jail succeeded in completing the project, India would have been much ahead in the space technology. Unfortunately, the Indian Intelligence Bureau fell into the trap of foreign intelligence operators. The Congress government did not act when the CBI investigated and found that the charges were baseless.

Rahul Gandhi’s efforts to sabotage the Rafale deal is very much like the attempt to derail the cryogenic engine project. In the latter case, the foreign operators succeeded. Their mission to keep India weak will succeed only if Modi is defeated in 2019.

To add to India’s worries, we have Sonia Gandhi.  She is a course on our country.  She can never be a well-wisher of India.  A semi-educated girl, she married Rajiv Gandhi who became Prime Minister after Indira Gandhi’s assassination, even before the Congress Parliamentary party had formally elected him a leader, simply because he was her son.  Sonia Gandhi became Congress President only because she is Rajiv Gandhi’s widow.  She did and got whatever she wanted.  She used most offensive language against her detractors, especially Narendra Modi.  She earned wealth beyond anybody’s estimate.  She enjoyed power without any responsibility.  She converted the Congress party into a private association of sycophants.  She converted the assets of the party into her family assets.

Without occupying any position in the government or in the party, she lives in a house bigger than the official residence of the Indian Prime Minister. Now her only ambition is to see her good for nothing son as the Prime Minister of India.

During a period of 10 years (2004 – 2014), she ruled India through a puppet prime minister.  She did everything possible to make India corrupt and weak. In 2007 when she was ruling the country, the Indian Air Force had requested the government to provide Medium Multi-role Combat Aircrafts. The fighter planes with the Air Force were becoming aged and outdated. The UPA government, rather the Sonia government, moved leisurely as if India’s defence was not a high priority. It took five years do select Rafale but price negotiations dragged on.

Another harsh reality is that all the defence and other big deals inked by the Congress governments have been scandalous. Heavy financial gains were expected in the Raffle deal as well. Had the Sonia rule continued, the negotiations with the French government would have continued and would have remained under consideration until all those who ‘deserved’  had benefited.

The Congress cannot digest the fact that such a big deal was finalised when it was out of power. At least one name of the potential beneficiary, had the Rafale deal been finalised under the Congress rule, is in public domain.

When Sonia Gandhi became India’s ruler, her son-in-law, Robert Vadra, got a ‘license’ to mint money, left and right, directly or through the name lenders. One such name lender was Sanjay Bhandari, a little known small car importer of Delhi. After 2004, he not only became a big and much sought-after name in the imported car market, he started diversifying in the areas of which he had absolutely no knowledge, what to say of experience. He became a defence consultant. He started a company, Offset India Solutions-Advanced Technology Private Limited, in 2008 with an investment of just Rs. 1 (one) lakh. Enterprising persons like Robert Vadra and his friends are very modest when setting up new companies.

Bhandari’s outfit got some highly sophisticated contracts. It became one of the serious bidders for the manufacture and supply of some components for Rafale. It was his bad luck that despite the strong political backing, he did not succeed. Anyway, the entire Rafale deal remained only on paper during the Sonia rule.

Bhandari duly rewarded his friend and benefactor Robert Vadra who became the owner of a posh property in London.

Both are now under investigation by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate. They are hoping that once Rahul Gandhi becomes Prime Minister in 2019, all their worries will be over.

Consider the finalisation of the Rafale deal in this background.

In May 2014, when the Modi government took over, the Indian Air Force was in a very precarious condition. It had just 32 squadrons (16-18 planes in a squadron), the lowest in a decade, as against the minimum requirement of 42 squadrons (the number may be corrected by experts). Worse, the ageing MIGs and other aircrafts also needed to be replaced by latest fighters. The indigenously designed and developed Tejas was yet to be found suitable. The Modi government took up the issue on a priority basis and signed the Rafale deal with the French government in September 2016.

All hell broke loose. Rahul Gandhi lost his cool. Since then he has not recovered. Rather, he is becoming more and more aggressive.  Rahul Gandhi and Congress have ‘valid’ reasons to be angry with Modi.  The chance of making big money is lost.  Modi will get credit for making India a strong.  Therefore, everything possible must be done to sabotage the Rafale deal.  So much noise should be made, so much lies should be spread that people will start believing that there must be something fishy.

Some people may say that Rahul has no brain of his own.  May be.   But his interests are in tune with the interests of all those who lost hopes to make money and all those who would like to see India weak.  China, Pakistan and several lobbyists must be very happy.

Rahul has become part of a very big conspiracy.  He is very useful to the anti-India forces.   He is dancing to their tune.  The former French President’s lie about the Indian government’s pressure to benefit an Indian businessman is part of the conspiracy.

The bottom line is that whether Rahul Gandhi is intelligent or foolish, his attacks on the Rafale deal should not be taken lightly. Even if he succeeds in convincing a small percentage of Modi supporters that he, Modi, is not above board, in a closely contested election, Modi may lose and the country would be exposed to serious threats from internal as well as external enemies.

Instead of being defensive, the Government should take an aggressive stand. It is high time that intelligence agencies (Intelligence Bureau and RAW), as well as all investigating agencies (CBI, ED, Income Tax), are directed to unearth the conspiracy against India’s security and expose the enemies, internal as well as external.

Devendra Narain
September 24, 2018

Friday, 21 September 2018

Swachh Bharat Abhiyan











Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission) will be incomplete until Rahul Gandhi is also thrown in the dustbin of history. He is making Indian politics dirtier day by day. He represents the rot in Indian politics.

Monday, 17 September 2018

When Muslim Brotherhood founder shared Congress ideology







Speaking at the Grand Committee Room of the British Parliament on August 24, 2018, Rahul Gandhi said that the RSS ideology was similar to that of the Muslim Brotherhood in the world.

Well, Rahul Gandhi being a scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty and unquestioned leader of the dynastic party, whatever he says becomes the gospel truth for the members of the party (if they want to remain part of it). The BJP being poor in countering Rahul’s nonsense with facts and figures, merely cries foul and blames him for spreading falsehood. This is what happened after August 24 also.

Neither Rahul nor BJP knows that if the Muslim Brotherhood and any organisation of India ever shared a common ideology, it is the Congress Party.

To know this historical fact, one has to look at the historical records about (a) the decline of the Ottoman Empire i.e. the Ottoman Caliphate, (b) a communal movement known as the Khilafat Movement in India in support of the Turkish Sultan and Caliph and the ideology behind the movement, (c) political and ideological implications of the of the Congress support to the Khilafat Movement, (d) ideology of Sheikh Hassan Ahmed Abdel Rahman Muhammed al-Banna (October 1906 – 12 February 1949), an Egyptian schoolteacher, imam and founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and (e) the ideology of the present leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Ottoman Empire was a Caliphate (Khilafat in Urdu) i.e. an Islamic state ruled by a Caliph (Khalifa in Urdu) who is revered as the religious "successor" to Prophet Muhammad and religious leader of the entire Muslim community. The decline of the Ottoman Empire had started much before the First World War. In his bid to mobilise support to protect his empire from dismemberment due to foreign attacks and his position as the Sultan-Khalifa of the world Muslim community from the growing influence of the Western lifestyle and democracy, in the late 19th Ottoman emperor Abdul Hamid II (1876–1909) launched a pan- Islamic programme. As a part of the programme, he sent an emissary, Jamaluddin Afghani, to India. Afghani met several Muslim leaders and succeeded in arousing religious passion among the Indian Muslims.

In 1914, Britain attacked the Ottoman Empire that was with the Central Powers. The war made the Muslim leaders of several countries worried about the future of the caliph.  Most worried were the prominent Indian Muslim leaders. Several Muslim leaders including the Ali brothers (Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali) were imprisoned because of their sympathies for the Turkish Sultan. They were released only after the war was over.

The war ended in the defeat of the Central Powers. The Turkish Sultan faced two threats, external threats from the Allied Powers who wanted to liberate several parts of the Ottoman Empire and internal threats from a Turkish military officer Mustafa Kemal who was spearheading a pro-Western secular nationalist movement to depose the Sultan, abolish the position of Caliph and establish a non-Islamic rule.

The Muslim leaders of India who were sympathetic to the Turkish Caliph viewed the European attack upon his (Caliph’s) authority as an attack on Islam and their religious freedom in India. At the 11th session of the All India Muslims League held in December 1918, the party president condemned the Western powers for dividing and distributing the territories of the Ottoman Empire. In 1919, Mohammad Ali went to England with a delegation of Muslims to persuade the British government to preserve the status of the Sultan as Caliph of Islam even after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and not to allow Mustafa Kemal to depose the Turkish Sultan. The British government turned down this pan- Islamic demand as unrealistic. The Treaty of Versailles (1919) was followed by the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) that disintegrated the Ottoman Empire into several independent countries.

Having failed to convince the British government, Mohammad Ali mobilised support to continue the Khilafat movement. He, his brother Shaukat Ali, several other Muslim leaders including Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Ulemas and head of the Deoband madrasa formed a political alliance. The movement became very active, especially in Bengal, Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. They observed October 17, 1919, as the Khilafat Day. Five weeks later, on November 23, 1919, the first All India Khilafat Conference was held at New Delhi. Next day the conference released a Khilafat Manifesto that appealed to the British government to protect the Caliphate. Another Khilafat Day was observed on March 19, 1920.

Meanwhile, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (MKG) was planning his first non-cooperation movement. To enlist the support of the Indian Muslims, MKG not only supported the Khilafat Movement, but he also became a member of the Khilafat Committee. At the Nagpur session (December 1920), the Congress adopted a resolution to pursue the non-cooperation movement (that had already been launched on August 1, 1920) to attend the objectives of Swaraj (self-government) and the Khilafat demands.

The Khilafat movement was most widespread in Bengal where it had become a mass movement in which Hindus (important Congress leaders included Bipin Chandra Pal and PC Ghosh), as well as Muslims, participated. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad spread the message in rural Bengal. There was a mushroom growth of khilafat committees. Often the khilafat committees and the Congress committees had common members. One significant effect of the movement was the emergence of local leaders who learned the technique of organising protest rallies. Another effect, bad of course, was exploitation of the situation by several Muslim zamindaris in the areas of Dhaka. Claiming to be the representatives of the Turkish Sultan, they extracted 'Khilafat Salami' from the Muslim tenants, a practice that continued for years even after the abolition of the Caliph.

Despite all the public agitation, neither the Congress led by MKG nor the Muslim leaders succeeded in their Khilafat mission. After the withdrawal of the non-cooperation movement following the Chauri Chaura incident in February 1922 (in which 3 civilians and 22 or 23 policemen were killed), the Khilafat leaders felt betrayed. The Congress did not succeed in winning over the Muslim support as it had expected. Many Muslim leaders were not in favour of a boycott of educational institutions and legislative councils. They considered such boycott suicidal for their community.

The Khilafat leaders’ extraterritorial loyalty received a final and deadly blow from the Turks themselves. The charismatic Turkish nationalist leader Mustafa Kemal captured power in Turkey. The Sultanate was abolished in November 1922. The same month Mehmed VI, the last Turkish Sultan, boarded a British warship and fled to Malta. Later, he moved to the Italian Riviera where he spent his time catching butterflies.

In October 1923, Turkey became a republic and Mustafa Kemal its first President. In March 1924, the Khilafat was abolished and its powers the transferred to the Turkish Grand National Assembly.

Mustafa Kemal blamed Islam for the backwardness of Turkey and declared that the foundation of the state must be science and reason, not religion. He relegated religion to the private sphere. Later, he introduced several revolutionary programmes to reform the Turkish society, religion, economy, politics, and education. Women got equal rights with men. He abolished all Islamist institutions and introduced Western legal codes, calendar and alphabet (by abolishing the use of Arabic script).

The fast developments in Turkey took the ‘Khilafatists’ unaware. With such revolutionary changes, the Khilafat Movement in India had no raison d'être . It dissipated.

In 1926, some Muslim leaders (I am not sure whether some Indian Muslim leaders also) called a conference to discuss the revival of the caliphate. However, most Muslim countries boycotted it and no action could be taken to implement the resolutions of the conference.

However, when the echo of the protests against the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate reached Egypt, it deeply influenced an 18-year-old student Sheikh Hassan Ahmed Abdel Rahman Muhammed al-Banna, known as Hassan al-Banna. He considered the end of the Caliphate as a “calamity”. When he grew up, became a teacher and Imam, and indulged in Islamic politics, he called the events “declaration of war against all shapes of Islam”. For him, Islam alone provided a comprehensive system of life and the Quran was the only acceptable constitution.

In 1928, Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood with the objective of instilling the Quran and the Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state".  In course of time, it became a transnational Sunni Islamist organisation and gained popularity in the Islamic world though, by 2015, several Muslim countries had declared it a terrorist organisation.

From time to time, the Muslim organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood have been raising their voice for the revival of the caliphate. Last year, one of the Brotherhood leaders, Magdy Shalash, reminded his followers that the main objective of the organisation was to establish an "Islamic Caliphate" based on "Sharia" law. For him, the “Ottoman Caliphate” remains the model.

Perhaps, MKG took only a short-term view that by supporting the Khilafat movement, he would win the support of the Muslim population for his political movements. He could not achieve the objective but the ideological and political support to the Pan-Islam i.e. extra-territorial loyalty, deeply affected the Indian politics. It gave a big boost to the orthodox Muslims who place religion above national identity. Had MKG been a man of vision, he would have opposed this movement and given a call for composite culture in India. A golden opportunity was lost. I am not saying that the Muslims who stayed in India after partition have extraterritorial loyalty but the fact is that the majority of the Indian Muslims India insist on having a separate identity based on the Sharia, their own system of education and code of conduct for the members of the community. The country is torn between two opposite systems, secular and religiousI.  integration of two cultures is nowhere in sight. This unfortunate division is dominating the Indian politics and is responsible for a lot of tension in the country. The efforts to gain the support of the orthodox Muslims continue to dominate the Congress politics. In fact, all the so-called secular political parties including the Congress continue to treat the Muslims as a vote bank to capture power.

Poet Alexander Pope had said “…Angels fear to tread”. One political leader who vehemently opposed the Khilafat Movement was Mohammad Ali Jinnah. I am not saying that Jinnah was an angel or the Congress leaders were fools. However, at that stage in his political career, Jinnah was not a communal leader. At the 1918 session of the Muslim League, he called the support to the Turkish Khalifa ‘a false religious frenzy’ which did not concern India and which could not do no good to India. At the Nagpur session (December 1920) of the Congress, he opposed the non-violent non-cooperation movement as well as the Khilafat Movement and resigned from the party that he had joined in 1906. (At that time, he was also a member of the Muslim League.)  About the Khilafat Movement, he said, "I will have nothing to do with this pseudo-religious approach to politics. I do not believe in working up mob hysteria. Politics is a gentleman’s game".

In 1922, in his book "Gandhi and Anarchy” Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair, an Indian jurist and statesman famous for being very frank and outspoken, blamed MKG for supporting Pan-Islamism.

The bottom line is that religion should be relegated to private sphere, as Mustafa Kemal did.

Hope, the readers will realise the dangerous consequences of the ideology behind the Khilafat movement launched by some Muslim leaders and supported by MKG and the Congress party. The Muslim Brotherhood is keeping such a dangerous ideology alive.
Devendra Narain
September 17, 2018

Sunday, 26 August 2018

Baghdadi’s letter to Rahul Gandhi



(Beyond satire)



Respected Rahul Bhai,

As-Salaam-Alaikum. If you would not mind, henceforth I will call you Rahamat Bhai because you have been so kind to me. Your analysis of the reason behind the origin of my movement has touched my heart. When I read it, I became emotional. Outside of my close circle, you are the only one who has understood me and the purpose of my struggle. You are the only intelligent person in India. In fact, there is no intelligent person like you anywhere outside my circle, certainly not in America or Europe. No one knows so much about India and the world as you do.

Rahamat Bhai, there is a lot of similarity between you and me. When the Western imperialists destroyed Iraq, I had to come forward to take up the cause of the unemployed, poor and downtrodden. In your country, when the ‘merchant of death’ – a name very appropriately given by your respected mother to the person you know whom I mean –is destroying India by creating unemployment, harassing and killing the poor and downtrodden, particularly the people of my community, you have taken up the cause of the unemployed, poor and downtrodden.

Your stand on 1984 riots in your country has opened my eyes and given me new courage to face the world. As you have denied the involvement of your party in the 1984 riots, I will also deny my involvement or involvement of my people in massacres in the areas under my control. Only a man of your courage of conviction can stand by the loyal people. Thank you very much for such a courageous stand and brilliant idea.

Rahamat Bhai, you are senior to me in age. Even then, please permit me to make a request. Please do not compare the RSS of your country with the Muslim Brotherhood. As you know, the RSS is a terrorist organisation, a Hindu terrorist organisation, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood stands for brotherhood of all the favourites of Allah. My organisation also stands for the brotherhood of all the favourites of Allah.


Rahmat Bhai, have you forgotten that your loyal Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had invited Mohammed Morsi, a key leader of Muslim Brotherhood, in 2013? At that time Morsi was President of Egypt and your government had signed seven agreements with him. Your comparison of Muslim Brotherhood and RSS has deeply hurt the Brotherhood. Please do not forget such historic moments. You may like to apologise to the Muslim Brotherhood for the sake of  mutually beneficial relationship. This is my humble suggestion.

Rahmat Bhai, I am sure, sooner or later you will discover that RSS, BJP, and Modi have been responsible for all the sins such as all the communal riots since pre-partition days, partition of India in 1947, imposition of Emergency in 1975, assassination of your grandmother, 1984 riots, assassination of your father, recent atrocities on minorities and dalits, floods and droughts.

Rahamat Bhai, like me, you have chosen a difficult path to get rid of anti-poor leaders. I know, you are quite resourceful to carry on your struggle against Modi. However, please permit me to offer my humble and sincere services. It will give me immense pleasure if I can be of any help to you. My loyal person Hafiz will get in touch with you. You can blindly rely on him. He will do anything for you. He has at his command powerful forces like Army and ISI. The ISI is only one letter less than my ISIS.

I wish you could come to my state and enlighten the people here with your ideas on how to fight poverty, injustice, and infidels. Your visit will be a big slap on the face of my enemies.

Rahamat Bhai, Insha Allah, RSS, BJP and Modi will be routed and you will be Prime Minister in 2019. Please do not forget to invite Hafiz and me to witness your historic oath-taking ceremony.

Please give my regards to your mother. Now, she is like my mother.

With warm regards

Yours truly
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
August 26, 2018
To Rahmat alias Rahul Gandhi

Would-be Prime Minister of India

Presently in London (part of foreign tour to win support)



Friday, 24 August 2018

Recalling Ambedkar’s prophetic warning against selfish politicians






In his last speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar expressed his anxiety about the future of independent India and reminded the politicians how and why India had lost its independence in the past. It would be relevant to recall his memorable words.

“Will she (India) maintain her independence or will she lose it again? …. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Gohri to invade 'India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki Kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput Kings were fighting the battle on the side of Moghul Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh Kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators. 

“Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is deepened by the realization of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds .we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indian place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know. However, this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost forever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.”

Ambedkar did not name any political party but had he been alive today, quite a few political parties, the Congress party in particular, would have told him in his face that for them remaining in power was above the country. What is the use of the country to a selfish politician who is deprived of power?

I have named the Congress because today it is ahead of all other parties that are placing their interest above the national interest. It is not the same Congress which it was during the freedom movement. During the freedom movement, in the words of Ambedkar, the Congress was more like a platform on which people with diverse political and economic ideologies assembled for the common cause of India’s independence. During the 1920s, even K. B. Hedgewar, who later founded the RSS, actively participated in Congress in the 1920s; he left after getting disillusioned with Gandhi’s support to the communal Khilafat Movement.

Today it has become a personal property of a family. A semi-literate Italian girl married Rajiv Gandhi and gradually completed the process of converting the party into a family affair and the party’s assets into the family property.

Ever since Modi became Prime Minister in 2014, the only job of the Congress leaders and their cronies is to make baseless allegations against him and defame the country. They are crying that since 2014 India is being ruled by the worst Prime Minister ever in the history of the country, a Prime Minister who is directly responsible for the attack on minorities and Dalits, who has ruined the Indian economy and who is snatching poor’s money and handing over the same to his favourite capitalists. Not satisfied with attack on the Prime Minister, they are shouting that the security forces of the country are killing more innocent persons than terrorists (remember what Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad had said some time back) and that, in the words of the Congress leader Sandeep Dikshit, the Indian Army Chief is a ‘sadak ka goonda’ (‘goon on the street’).  

Then there is a Congress leader called Mani Shankar Aiyar who calls Prime Minister Modi a ‘neech aadmi, goes to Pakistan and requests for help to remove Modi from power and bring Congress back to power. Since in Pakistan the real power is in the hands of the army and the ISI, Aiyar actually invited these two anti-India organisations to intervene in Indian politics in favour of the Congress party.

I have no doubt that these lesser mortals of the Congress are not making such irresponsible statements without instructions from above.

Rahul Gandhi being the leader, he has to be more forceful in presenting the Congress as above the country which he does by attacking the democratically elected Prime Minister and downgrading the country. During a speech at Bucerius Summer School in Hamburg, Germany, on Aug 22, last, he crossed all the limits. Launching a scathing attack on the Modi government, he blamed the latter for joblessness, incidents of lynching and depriving tribals, poor farmers, lower caste people and minorities of the benefits available to the elite.

He said that demonetisation and poor implementation of the GST led to joblessness and destruction of small business and made the people angry. The ruling alliance excluded tribals, Dalits, and minorities from the development narrative, which “could be a dangerous thing". He compared the Indian situation with what had happened in Iraq a few years back. He said, ‘After the US attacked Iraq in 2003, they brought a law that stopped a particular Iraqi tribe from getting jobs in the government and in the army that resulted in a large number of people joining insurgency to fight the US and cause massive casualties. It did not end there. That insurgence slowly entered the empty space in Iraq and in Syria and then it connected with a horrific idea called ISIS.’ 

Patting his own back, he said that he responded to Modi’s "hateful remarks" against him by hugging him (Modi) during the recent debate on the No-Confidence motion in Lok Sabha. He lamented, “there is a huge amount of violence against women in India.”

     From Germany, Rahul went to England. Today, on August 24, speaking at the Grand Committee Room of the British Parliament, he said that the BJP-RSS people were dividing India and spreading hatred. He further said that the RSS ideology was similar to that of the Muslim Brotherhood in the world.
    
  
Not only politicians, even some senior bureaucrats who hate the Modi government are behaving like Congress politicians and maligning the country. Readers may recall that on April 16, 2018, 49 retired civil servants had written a highly objectionable letter to the Prime Minister describing the prevailing environment as “our darkest hour” in post-Independence India and the Sangh Parivar for the culture of majoritarian belligerence and aggression in Kathua.  Now, one of the 49 fellows, Dr. E. A. S. Sarma, a retired IAS officer and a former Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs and a former Director, Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad,  has filed a PIL in the Supreme Court accusing the security forces of “cold-blooded fake encounter killing of two suspected members of National Democratic Front of Bodoland (Songbijit) faction” on March 30 , 2017 in Assam’s Simalguri village. The PIL is based on a newspaper report and has sought thorough probe into the allegation. (This is in addition to an old PIL filed against the security forces.) The security forces have filed two PILs in the Supreme Court seeking the court’s intervention to allow them to do their duty i.e. defending the country from the internal and external enemies. ( https://devendranarain.com/dont-push-securi…es-into-a-corner/)




The politicians have every right to criticise the Prime Minister and his policies and to highlight the social, economic and political problems of the country. However, when they do so from foreign platforms to win support and sympathy of the foreigners, they are placing their self-interest above the country and demeaning the self-respect of their country.

The readers may argue that criticism of Prime Minister is not a criticism of the country. True, but when the Pprime Ministerial candidate of the second largest party of the country says that the situation in India is as dangerous as in Iraq before the rise of the ISIS, the criticism of the incumbent Prime Minister degenerates into the criticism of the country. When he says that “there is a huge amount of violence against women in India”,  he is demeaning the country.

Readers may argue that the attack on BJP and RSS does not amount to attack on India. True, but comparing the RSS with the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organisation that considers the Quran and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community, and the state”, he not only betrays ignorance but also tries to make the non-Islamic worried about India.

The readers may argue that India is not Iraq and no country will ever attack India the way America attacked Iraq. True, India is not Iraq and prima facie, there is no fear of direct military intervention. However, do Rahul Gandhi and his cronies, whether in active politics or working from behind, realise that they are making the country vulnerable to non-military foreign interventions? When the political leadership is called anti-people, the army is neither respected nor allowed to function by powerful sections of the country, a country becomes a hunting ground for foreign intelligence agencies. If politicians continue to present a dismal picture of the country ad nauseam, the Western democratic countries may get suspicious that there is something seriously wrong with the Indian democracy. The self-appointed defenders of democracy in the West, officially as well as unofficial, are ever in search of excuses to give lectures to other countries. The foreign intelligence agencies may try to influence the political process and vital decisions of the country. This has happened in the past and may happen again. Pakistan in particular will become bold if it has sympathisers who are not condemned as terrorists.

This is the real danger today. Ambedkar's prophetic warning has to be interpreted in the context of what the world is today. 

Devendra Narain
August 24, 2018

Wednesday, 22 August 2018

Captain Amarinder SIngh, a real leader



Only leader in a party of followers and sycophants.
Unlike other Congress leaders who behave like courtiers of the dynasty, 76 year old Capt Amrinder Singh has his own independent mind and position. He won the assembly election and became Chief Minister of Punjab because he did not allow Rahul Gandhi to campaign.


While all other Congressmen are justifying what Navjot Singh Sidhu did in Pakistan, he is the only one who openly pulled up Sidhu. He should show a little more guts and dismiss this court jester from the Cabinet.

If he does that, he will prove that he is a Prime Ministerial material.


Devendra Narain

Thursday, 16 August 2018

Don't push security forces into a corner






The integrity and sovereignty of the country is on a higher pedestal than even the Constitution which the judges take oath to protect.’ (Source: PIL filed by 356 army men in the Supreme Court.)


It is really shocking that the security forces, working in most difficult conditions and sacrificing their lives to defend the country from the external and internal enemies, have also to face humiliations and judicial restrictions on their duties.   

After the ‘surgical strike’ in September 2016, almost all opposition politicians united to question its veracity, as if they had got a ‘cause’ to form a grand alliance against Prime Minister Modi. Not satisfied with disbelieving the Government and the Army, in July 2017, Congress leader Sandeep Dixit called army chief a sadak ka goonda (‘goon on the street’). In June this year,  without any basis, Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad declared that Army operations in Jammu & Kashmir killed more civilians than terrorists. He said, “They (forces) take action against four terrorists and kill 20 civilians.” 

On January 27, 2018, when a security force convoy passing through Ganovpora village in Shopian district of Kashmir opened firing in self-defence to stop stone-petters (the incident resulting in some casualties) the then Mehbooba Mufti government filed FIRs against some army personnel. Not only the separatists, several so-called human right activists and politicians feel more disturbed when stone-petters are stopped, not when terrorists and infiltrators kill the men of the security forces and civilians.

We should salute the security forces and the Army Chief who quietly swallowed these insults and continued to perform their duty to defend the country.

However, the actions being taken by the Supreme Court (SC) of India may exhaust their patience.

For the last few years, the Supreme Court has been hearing a PIL filed by the Extra-Judicial Execution Victims Families Association Manipur (EVFAM), an association of wives and mothers of persons who were killed by the security forces during anti-insurgency operations, formed in July 2009. The EVFAM claims that between 1979 and 2012,  1528 civilians were ‘extra-judicially’ killed by the Manipur police and the security forces (mainly the Assam Rifles and the Army) in Manipur.  In 2012, EEVFAM and a sister organisation, Human Rights Alert, filed a PIL before the SC seeking investigations into all 1528 cases.

In July 2017, the SC ordered the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) to investigate over 90 cases. The CBI investigated some cases and filed charge-sheets. On July 31 this year (2018) the SC had called and pulled up the CBI Director for the delay in filing of FIRs against the Manipur police commandos and armed forces personnel allegedly involved in ‘extra-judicial killings’. Justice Madan B Lokur asked why the CBI was not arresting those charge-sheeted. His exact words were: “according to you, there are 14 murderers in these cases and they are loafing around Manipur freely. You have not arrested any of them. What happens to society? If somebody commits rape, what is there to recover? So you (CBI) will allow him to roam free?” The CBI Director’s reply that after the agency filed its charge-sheets, the trial court concerned has to decide whether to grant the accused bail or send them to judicial custody, did not satisfy the Court.

Disturbed by these developments, on August 14 this year, 356 army me, including 75 officers — a brigadier,  29 colonels, 15 lieutenant colonels, 19 majors and 11 captains — who command thousands of soldiers in anti-militancy and anti-insurgency operations in the disturbed areas of the northeast and J& K filed a PIL in the  SC to register their protest against the Court’s order to the CBI. They have said that they have been constrained to file the petition in view of an extremely hostile situation on the ground due to the prosecution of officers and soldiers for bona fide actions during military operations. Their fear that is that the Court order to the CBI amounts to taking away the shield provided by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in force in Assam and Manipur that protected them from any legal action for anti-insurgency operations.

In the PIL, they have expressed their deep anguish, raised some very valid issues and asked some disturbing questions with far-reaching consequences for the defence of the country.

§    “Soldiers never hesitate to lay down their lives in the line of duty in order to uphold the dignity of the Indian flag. However, the extraordinary circumstances in which their colleagues are being persecuted and prosecuted for carrying out their bona fide duties, without making any distinction or determination whether the acts in question were done in good faith, without any criminal intent.”

§    “A country that doubts its soldiers and their martyrdom is bound to lead to a collapse of its sovereignty and integrity. Questioning honest actions has a demoralising effect on officers and soldiers deployed in disturbed areas for counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations in J&K and northeastern states.”

§    “If the armed forces were not given the protection they required to engage with enemies at the frontiers and within in actions that could mean dying in the line of duty, there would be grave peril to national sovereignty, endangering India’s existence as a constitutional sovereign democratic republic.”

§    “When soldiers get ambushed, they have to make split-second decisions to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the country, which is on a higher pedestal than even the Constitution which the judges take oath to protect.

§    The soldiers “are asking their commanders whether they should continue to fight against militants and insurgents engaged in proxy war against India or operate as per peace time yardsticks guided by the Criminal Procedure Code.”

They have a point. The government asked them to act and gave them protection from any legal action against excesses committed during operational exigencies and now the court has withdrawn that with retrospective effect. 

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra has agreed to hear the petition on August 20 after counsel Aishwarya Bhati said the matter required urgent adjudication as the issues raised affected the morale of armed forces, tasked to maintain security and integrity of the nation.

Separately, Six Manipur police commandos facing prosecution have also moved a petition before the Supreme Court. They are apprehending that notwithstanding several SC orders that free and fair trial was part of an accused person’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, they may not get a fair trial. They are aggrieved by what Justice Lokur told the CBI director on July 31 last. They too have read flagged some thought-provoking issues.

§    They are accused of ‘fake encounters’ by vested interest groups. They have stated that, “Calling the members of armed forces and police force ‘murderers’ and comparing them with rapists has dealt a serious blow to the morale of the forces and their families, little realising that (responsibility to maintain) sovereignty and security of the nation is placed on the shoulders of these members of the forces, who very often lay down their lives for the safety and security of the motherland and its citizenry.”

§    “With hostile neighbours around, the country can ill-afford to have a demoralised, confused and low morale force that may imperil the very existence of the nation, its Constitution, the rule of law and fair and impartial administration of criminal justice system of the country.”

In the interest of fair trial, they want the case to be referred to a five-judge bench excluding Justice Lokur.

As if the action already being taken by the SC is not enough to demoralise and weaken the security forces, Dr. E. A. S. Sarma, a retired IAS officer and a former Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs and a former Director, Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad,  has filed a PIL accusing the security forces of “cold-blooded fake encounter killing of two suspected members of National Democratic Front of Bodoland (Songbijit) faction” on March 30 , 2017 in Assam’s Simalguri village. The PIL is based on a newspaper report and has sought a thorough probe into the allegation.

A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice has issued notices to all the authorities concerned as well as the Human Rights Commission.

I have no idea of Sarma’s real agenda but readers should know that he was one of the 49 retired civil servants who wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on April 16, 2018, about rapes in Kathua (Jammu) and Unnao (Uttar Pradesh). They described the prevailing environment as “our darkest hour” in post-Independence India.  They blamed the Sangh Parivar for the culture of majoritarian belligerence and aggression in Kathua.  Some passages from the letter need to be re-read. They called upon the Prime Minister

§    ‘to reach out to the families of the victims of rape in Unnao and Kathua and seek their forgiveness’
§    “to offer special protection to Muslims, to Dalits, to members of other minority communities, to women and children so that they need not fear for their life and liberty and any threat to these will be extinguished with the full force of State authority.”

Ask anyone to read these passages without mentioning who the authors are, the first impression would be that all these words have been spoken by the Congress President Rahul Gandhi. The political overtone the letter is so blatant. I had written a blog to reply to that politically motivated letter.
I wish I had resources to hire a Supreme Court advocate to file a PIL to demand an enquiry into sources of finance for all the campaigns and PILs against the security forces.

Perhaps, it is for the first time that in any country the security forces are fighting a legal battle to do their duty.

The SC has to give its verdict on whether the Criminal Procedure Code is above the integrity and sovereignty of the country, whether the democratic constitutional system of the country can survive if the security forces are not given respect and support to carry out their duties.

If the SC verdict goes against the security forces, the consequences could be disastrous. What if the jawans refuse to work? The Army rules provide for their court-martial but how many persons can be court-martialed? What if their revolt takes an ugly turn? Two joint PILs mean already serving officers have formed some sort of unions to protect their interest.

The apprehensions should not be dismissed as hypothetical baseless. In 1946, the revolt of the Navy had frightened the colonial rulers of India and probably hastened their departure.

Hope, we do not prove German philosopher and historian G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) once again right. He has said: “What experience and history teach is this – technicians and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it.” (Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, 1830).

Don’t push the security forces in a corner. It can be disastrous for the country. 



Devendra Narain