Tag Archives: Sonia gandhi

Dr.Kalam’s New Book and the PM Controversy

Yesterday’s news was full of “Breaking News” of how Dr.Kalam did not disuade Sonia Gandhi from staking claim during government formation in 2004.

As usual, the TV channels chose their news hour to talk about this old and stale news and presenting it as a sensational revelation.

What is so special about this revelation ? The President’s secretariat gave a press release on 19th May 2004 itself stating that the discussion about citizenship did not figure at all. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=8509. So whats new that Dr.Kalam has said now that he has not said earlier. At the same time, people like Dr.Swamy have been maintaining a different position on this issue which can be debated endlessly.

Earlier a book would be marketed by book launches etc but but now TV News Channels seems to be doing the job of marketing by publicising excerpts as sensational and create debates out of non-issues.

What is of relevance is that Sonia created a precedent and made a mockery of democracy by putting up a non-elected person in the office of Prime Minister. If at all she did not want to be PM, she could have put up another elected representative as the Prime ministerial candidate. But, she chose to put up Dr.Singh as PM and thereby ensuring that she pulls the strings. This speaks about the abyssmal state of affairs in our democracy. If at all the news channels were to do something, they should have been focussing on this degeneration of democracy.

Communal Violence Bill – Dr.Subramaniam Swami file complaint on Sonia

From:

Dr Subramanian Swamy , President of Janata Party, A-77, Nizamuddin East, Sector 18, Rohini, New Delhi-110013:

To:

SHO/Insp: D.P. Singh, Sector 18, Rohini, Crime Branch, New Delhi.

Re: 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;

or,

(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 )

Source : http://www.samvada.org

WHY SONIA AS OUR PRIME MINISTER IS A NATIONAL CALAMITY ?

This is an article written in 2004 when Sonia Gandhi was projected as a Prime ministerial candidate. Some of the material is summarised from material collected from Dr.Subramanya Swamy and Sri Gurumurthy’s articles. Some of the predictions that Rahul Gandhi would become the General secretary of the congress have come true and it does seem that the dangers that are before the nation remain.

WHY SONIA AS OUR PRIME MINISTER IS A NATIONAL CALAMITY ? – Written in May 2004

Over the past few months, and more so over the last few days the debate on whether Sonia (Antonia Maino) should be allowed to become Prime Minister of the World’s largest democracy, Bharat is under fierce debate.

People who defend her say that our culture has always been open and those who oppose her are narrow-minded and insult the women folk of our country since she is our “bahu”.

As an attempt to explain why we are opposed to Sonia ( Antonia Maino) as Prime Minister of our country, we have listed some of the issues that require examination. We request you to read them and decide for yourself whether you can accept her as the Prime Minister of our country OR would join us in our effort to expose and oust her thereby keeping the pride of our nation high.

1.The Prime Minister & Access To Nuclear Weapons : The Prime Ministerhandles a particular file, which contains all the secrets of the government. Where the nuclear weapons are , where the missiles are, who can press the button, which missile points in which direction, who are our spy links in different countries? This single file contains all this information. That file is not handled by anybody other than the Prime Minister of India. If it falls into wrong hands, it will strip India naked before inimical forces. `Can we afford to hand over these secrets to her? ` Even the Defence Minister cannot do anything; he cannot look at that file. Even the services chiefs know only their part of the secret. The combined, collective national secret would be in the hands of this foreigner.

2. Sonia’s Relation With India :
a. Citizenship: Unlike foreigners like Sister Nivedita & Annie Beasant, Sonia’s love was not with our country but with Rajiv Gandhi. Compare Nivedita with Sonia Maino. When Sonia came to India in 1968, she was wedded to an Indian who was the son of our Prime Minister. She did not apply for Indian citizenship in 1968 when she married Rajiv and came to India. She applied for India Citizenship in 1983 only when a case was filed against her that it was improper to have a foreigner living permanently in the prime minister’s house.

b. Spy Connections: It has been alleged that she had connections with the Italian spy network since 1968. She even brokered a security deal for Indira Gandhi’s bullet-proof car through her brother at Italy. The car was contracted from Germany.

c. Lack of faith on India: When Rajiv Gandhi was alive, the security of their entire family was organized by Italian security agencies. Jack Kunzi, Commissioner of Police at Geneva taunted a RAW official “Your Prime Minister’s wife does not seem to trust you or your embassy. She gets the security for her children co-ordinated by Italians.” George, her secretary, used to directly communicate to western agencies through Italian Embassy in Delhi and the Italian foreign office in Rome.

d. Her Bofors Connection : . Among those who are the suspected beneficiaries of the Bofors deal is Ottavio Quattrocchi, Italian family friend of Sonia Gandhi, who tried to cut into the commissions, Bofors were paying to their long time agent

e. Land Grabbing: She showed immense cunning after her husband’s demise in starting the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. She grabbed the land allotted to the Congress party for its national headquarters. During the Narsimha Rao government, she got allocated one billion rupees even as part of the nation’s gold lay mortgaged abroad. She has since then obtained total control over the wealthiest cultural institution of the country, having a corpus of one billion rupees and 21 acres of prime land in New Delhi valued at 50 billion rupees.

f. Abandoning the Country During Crisis: During the 1971 War, she ran away with her husband breaching the discipline of commercial pilots.

3. The Mystery Behind Her & Her Pretensions: How she met Rajiv Gandhi in England? What she was doing in England when she met him is still a mystery. She brought her family into the security matters of India even when Indira was alive. She forced Italian security on India even when Rajiv Gandhi was alive. She openly distrusted Indian security and diplomatic system and privately liaised with the Italian diplomatic system for her security. If she did this when Indira was
alive; if she went as far when Rajiv was alive; if she did this when she was just out of the Congress and out of power, what will she do when put in power?

Or what she will not? Yet she pretends to die for India. This is not real Sonia. The whole western world, not exactly the friends of India, knows about her. But not we, in India. We do not know the real Sonia.

Have You Ever Asked These Questions?

Why do we have rules in the army which prohibit a foreigner, a foreign born person, even though he is a citizen, from occupying certain high-ranking offices in the army? Why do we say that our IPS officers should not be of foreign origin? Why do we say that our IPS officers cannot marry foreigners? Now, herein comes the idea of the modern nation-state. A modern nation-state has a built-in insecurity and that is the reason why it has to secure itself. But can the Prime Minister have a foreign wife? Can the Prime Minister’s son have a foreign wife? Or More so Can We have a Foreigner as Prime Minister?

The Legacy Would Continue:
Rahul, who like Rajiv Gandhi may become the general secretary of the Congress and is being groomed as the successor to her mother, is set to marry a foreign national. So, this demeaning thought will not stop with Ms Gandhi. This can be countered only by arousing the spirit of India which was the drive of the freedom movement. In the first freedom movement, we became free to think and act independently, but we never turned the freedom into Independence. Will the spirit of our freedom movement manifest again to make the free India really independent India?

Will You Join This Movement for Restoring National Pride, Or Would you prefer Someone else to do the Job For You ?

Sonia Gandhi, Do you know her?

Sonia Gandhi, Do you know her?
By Dr. Subramanian Swamy

Ms. Sonia Gandhi’s background as is publicized by her and her Congress Party today, is based on three lies to hide the ugly reality of her life.

First, her real name is Antonia not Sonia. The Italian Ambassador in New Delhi revealed this in a letter dated April 27, 1983 to the Union Home Ministry which letter has not been made public. Antonia is Sonia’s real name in her birth certificate. Sonia is the name given to her subsequently by her father, Stefano Maino [now deceased] following his return from Russia where he had been a prisoner of war. Stefano had joined the Nazi army as a volunteer. Sonia is a Russian not Italian name. While spending two years in a Russian jail, Sonia’s father had become quite pro-Soviet; especially after the liberating US army in Italy had confiscated all fascists’ properties including his.

Second, she was not born in Orbassano as she claims in her bio data submitted to Parliament on becoming MP, but in Luciana as stated in her birth certificate. She perhaps would like to hide the place of her birth because of her father’s connection with the Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists, and her family’s continuing connections with the Nazi-Fascists underground that is still surviving since 1945 in Italy. Luciana is where Nazi-Fascist network is headquartered, and is on the Italian-Swiss border. There can be no other explanation for this otherwise meaningless lie.

Third, Sonia Gandhi has not studied beyond High School. She has falsely claimed in her affidavit filed as a contesting candidate before the Rae Bareli Returning Officer in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, that she qualified and got a diploma inEnglish from the prestigious University of Cambridge, UK .

The truth is that Ms. Gandhi has never studied in any college anywhere. She did go to a Catholic nun run seminary-school called Maria Ausiliatrice in Giaveno [15 kms from adopted home town of Orbassabo]. Poverty those days forced young Italian girls to go to such missionaries and then in their teens go to UK to get jobs as cleaning maids, waitresses and au pair. The Mainos were poor those days. Her father was a mason and mother a share cropper.

Sonia thus went to the town of Cambridge and first learnt some English in a teaching shop called Lennox School [which has since 1970 been wound up]. That is all her “education” is—learnt enough English language to get domestic help jobs. But in Indian society education is highly valued. Thus, to fool the Indian public, Sonia Gandhi willfully fibbed about her qualifications in Parliamentary records [which is a Breach of Ethics Rules] and in a sworn affidavit [which is criminal offence under IPC, severe enough to disqualify her from being MP]. In popular parlance, this is called 420 or 10 (Dus)”numberi” [not to be confused with 10 Janpath].

These three lies indicate that Ms. Sonia Gandhi has something to hide, or has a hidden agenda for India. We need to find out more about her.

Ms. Sonia Gandhi upon learning enough English became a waitress in Varsity Restaurant in Cambridge town. She first met Rajiv when he came to the restaurant in 1965. Rajiv was a student in the University, but could not cope with the academic rigour for long. So he had to depart in 1966 for London where he was briefly in Imperial College of Engineering as a student. Sonia too moved to London, and according my information, got a job with an outfit run by Salman Thassir, a debonair Pakistani based in Lahore, and who has a export-import company headquartered in Dubai but who spends most of his time in London. Thisfits the profile of an ISI functionary.

Obviously, Sonia made enough money in this job to loan Rajiv funds in London, who was obviously living beyond his allowances [Indira herself expressed anguish to me on this score in late 1965 when she invited me to a private tea at the Guest House in Brandeis University]. Rajiv’s letters to Sanjay, who was also in London then, clearly indicate that he was in financial debt to Sonia because he requested Sanjay who obviously had more access to money, to pay off the debt.

However, Rajiv was not the only friend Sonia was seeing those days. Madhavrao Scindia and a German by name Stiegler are worth mentioning as other good friends of Sonia. Madhavrao’s friendship continued even after Sonia’s marriage to Rajiv. Scindia in 1982 was involved in a traffic accident near IIT, Delhi main gate while driving a car at 2 AM. Sonia was the only other passenger. Both were badly injured. A student of IIT who was burning midnight oil was out for a cup of coffee. He picked them up from the car, hailed an auto rickshaw and sent an injured Sonia to Mrs Indira Gandhi’s house since she insisted in not going to a hospital. Madhavrao had broken a leg and in too much pain to make any demand. He was taken to hospital by the Delhi Police who had arrived a little after Sonia had left the scene. In later years, Madhavrao had become privately critical of Sonia, and told some close friends about his apprehensions about Sonia. It is a pity that he died in mysterious circumstances in an aircrash.

The circumstance under which Rajiv hastily married Sonia in a Church in Orbassano is controversial but that was his personal matter that has no public significance. But what is of public significance is that Indira Gandhi who was initially dead set against the marriage for reasons known to her, relented to hold a registry marriage with Hindu ceremonial trappings in New Delhi only after the pro-Soviet T. N. Kaul prevailed upon her to accept the marriage in “the larger interest of cementing Indo-Soviet Friendship”. Kaul would not have intervened unless the Soviet Union had asked him to.

Such has been the extensive patronage from the beginning extended to Sonia Gandhi from the Soviets. When a Prime Minister of India’s son dates a girl in London, the KGB which valued Indo-Soviet relations, obviously would investigate her and find out that she was the daughter of Stefano, their old reliable Italian contact. Thus, Sonia with Rajiv meant deeper access to the household of the Indian Prime Minister. Hence cementing the Rajiv-Sonia relations was in the Soviet national interest and they went to work on it. And they did through their then existing moles in the Indira Gandhi camp.

After her marriage to Rajiv, the Soviet connection with the Mainos was fortified and nurtured by generous financial help through commissions and kickbacks on every Indo, Soviet trade deal and defence purchases. According to the respected Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate [November 1991 issue], Rajiv Gandhi had about $ 2 billion in numbered Swiss bank accounts, which Sonia inherited upon his assassination. Dr. Yevgenia Albats, Ph. D [Harvard], is a noted Russian scholar and journalist, and was a member of the KGB Commission set up by President Yeltsin in August 1991. She was privy to the Soviet intelligence files that documented these deals and KGB facilitation of the same. In her book, The State Within a State. The KGB in Soviet Union, she even gives the file numbers of such intelligence files, which can now be accessed by any Indian government through a formal request to the Kremlin.

The Russsian Government in 1992 was confronted by the Albats’ disclosure; they confirmed it through their official spokesperson to the press [which was published in Hindu in 1992], defending such financial payments as necessary in “Soviet ideological interest”.

When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, things changed for Ms. Sonia Gandhi. Her patrons evaporated. The rump that became Russia was in a financial mess and disorder. So Ms. Sonia Gandhi became a supporter of another communist country to the annoyance of the Russians.

The national security ramification of this ‘annoyance’ is now significant: The President of Russia today is Putin, a former dyed-in-the-wool KGB officer. Upon Dr. Manmohan Singh’s government taking office, Russia called back it’s career diplomat Ambassador in New Delhi and immediately posted as the new Ambassador a person who was the KGB station chief in New Delhi during the 1970s. In view of Dr. Albats confirmed revelation, it stands to reason that the new Ambassador would have known first hand about Sonia’s connections with the KGB. He may have in fact been her “controller”. The new Indian government which is defacto Sonia’s, cannot afford to annoy him or even disregard Russian demands coming from him? They will obviously placate him so as not to risk exposure. Is this not a major national security risk and a delicate matter for the nation?

Of course, all Indians would like good normal and healthy relations with Russia. Who can forget their assistance to us in times of need? Today’s Russia is the residual legatee of that Soviet Union which helped India. But just because of that, should we tolerate those in our government set up having clandestine links with a foreign spy agency? In the United States, the government did not tolerate an American spying for Israel even though the two countries are as close as any two countries can be. National security and friendship are asdifferent as chalk and cheese.

In December 2001, I had filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court with the photocopies of the KGB documents, and sought a CBI investigation, which the Vajpayee Government was refusing. Earlier, Minister of State for CBI, Vasundara Raje [now Rajasthan CM], on my letter dated March 3, 2001, had ordered the CBI to investigate. But after Sonia Gandhi and her party stalled the proceedings of Parliament on this issue, the then Prime Minister Vajpayee cancelled Vasundara’s direction to the CBI.

The Delhi High Court issued a direction to the CBI to ascertain from Russiathe truth of my charges. The CBI procrastinated for three years, and finally told the Court without an FIR registered the Russians will not entertain any such query. But who stopped the CBI from registering an FIR? The next hearing of the case is on September 8th.

After Sonia married Rajiv, she went about minting money with scant regard for Indian laws and treasures. Within a few years the Mainos went from utter poverty to billionaires. There was no area that was left out for the rip-off. On November 19, 1974, as fresh entrant to Parliament, I asked the then Prime Minister Ms. Indira Gandhi on the floor of the House if her daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi was acting as an insurance agent of a public sector insurance company [Oriental Fire & Insurance], giving the Prime Minister’s official residence as her business address, and using undue influence to insure all the officers of the PMO while remaining an Italian citizen [thus violating FERA]? There was uproar in Parliament, but Mrs. Indira Gandhi had no alternative but to cut her losses. She made a rare admission that it was so, and that it was by mistake, but that Sonia had resigned from her insurance agent status [after my question]. But Sonia was incorrigible. Her contempt for Indian law continued to manifest.

The Justice A. C. Gupta Commission set up by the Janata Party government in 1977 came out with a voluminous report on the Maruti Company then owned by the Gandhi family, and has listed eight violations of FERA, Companies Act, and Foreigners Registration Act by Sonia Gandhi. She was never prosecuted, but can be still prosecuted because under Indian law, economic crimes not subject to the statute of limitation.

In January 1980, Indira Gandhi returned as Prime Minister. The first thing Sonia did was to enroll herself as a voter. This was a gross violation of the law, enough to cause cancellation of her visa [since she was admittedly an Italian citizen then]. There was some hullabaloo in the press about it, so the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer got her name deleted in 1982. But in January 1983, she again enrolled herself as a voter! Such is her revealed disdain for Indian laws and that is her mindset even today.

The bottom line observed in Sonia’s mindset is that she can always run back to Italy if she becomes vulnerable at anytime. In Peru, President Fujimori who all along claimed to be “born Peruvian”, faced with a corruption charge fled to Japan with his loot and reclaimed his Japanese citizenship.

In 1977, when the Janata Party defeated the Congress at the polls, and formed the government, Sonia with her two children, abandoned Indira Gandhi and ran to the Italian Embassy in New Delhi and hid there. Rajiv Gandhi was a government servant then [as an Indian Airlines pilot], but he too tagged along and hid in that foreign embassy ! Such was her baneful influence on him. Rajiv did snap out Sonia’s influence after 1989, but alas he was assassinated before he could rectify it. Those close to Rajiv knew that he was planning set things right about Sonia after the 1991 elections. She did too know of it because he had told her. Ever wonder why Sonia’s closest advisers are those whom Rajiv literally hated? Ambika Soni is one such name. Ever wonder why she asked the President of India to set aside, on a mercy petition, the Supreme Court judgment directing that Rajiv Gandhi’s LTTE killers be hanged to death, when she was not similarly moved for Satwant Singh who killed Indira Gandhi or recently for Dhanajoy Chattopadhyaya? The explanation for this special consideration for the LTTE lies in what Rajiv had told her in 1990.

Those who have no love for India will not hesitate to plunder her treasures. Mohammed Ghori, Nadir Shah, and the British scum in the East India Company made no secret of it. But Sonia Gandhi has been more discreet, but as greedy, in her looting of Indian treasures. When Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were PrimeMinisters, not a day passed when the PM’s security did not go to the New Delhi, or Chennai international airport to send crates and crates unchecked by customs to Rome. Air India and Alitalia were the carriers. Mr. Arjun Singh first as CM, later as Union Minister in charge of Culture was her hatchet man. Indian temple sculpture of gods and goddesses, antiques, pichwai paintings, shatoosh shawls, coins, and you name it, were transported to Italy to be first displayed in two shops owned by her sister [ i. e., Anuskha alias Alessandra]. These shops located in blue-collar areas of Rivolta [shop name: Etnica] and Orbassano [shop name: Ganpati] did little business because which blue collar Italian wants Indian antiques? The shops were to make false bills, and thereafter these treasures were taken to London for auction by Sotheby’s and Christies. Some of this ill-gotten money from auction went into Rahul Gandhi’s National way into the Gandhi family account in the Bank of America in Cayman Islands.

Rahul’s expenses and tuition fees for the one-year he was at Harvard, was paid from the Cayman Island account. What kind of people are these Gandhi-Mainos that bite the very hand of Bharat Mata that fed them and gave them a good life? How can the nation trust such greedy thieves?

Since I failed to persuade the Vajpayee government to defend India’s treasures from plunder by the Mainos, I approached the Delhi High Court in a PIL. The first Bench of the court issued notice to the Government, but since the Indian government dragged it’s feet, the Court directed the CBI to seek Interpol’s and Italian government’s help. The Italian government justifiably asked for a Letter Rogatory for which a FIR is a pre-requisite. But the Interpol did oblige and submitted two voluminous reports, which the Court directed the CBI to hand over to me. But CBI has refused, and has claimed privilege! The CBI has also been caught lying in court by telling the judges that Alessandra Maino is a name of a man, and Via Bellini 14, Orbassano is a name of a village [not the street address of the Maino’s residence]. Although the CBI counsel had to apologise to the court stating he made a mistake, he has been promoted to Additional Solicitor General by the new government! The Vajpayee-Sonia mutual assistance pact is in full view. The case now comes up on September 8th.

But the most sinister aspect of Sonia Gandhi’s character is her connection with terrorists. I am still working on it, but she has had long connection with the Habash group of Palestinian, and has funded Palestinian families that lost their kith and kin in a suicide bombing or hijacking episode. This, Rajiv Gandhi himself told me and was confirmed to me [the funding] by Yassir Arafat when I met him in Tunis on October 17,1990 at the request of Rajiv Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi and I were good friends from 1978, but became very close buddies after V. P. Singh had betrayed him in 1987. We met practically every day, mostly in the early hours from 1AM to 4AM. It was at my suggestion that he made Chandrashekhar the PM. And contrary to public impression, he was not mainly responsible for the fall of Chandrashekar government in which I was a Minister.

Besides the Palestinian extremists, the Maino family have had extensive business dealings with Saddam Hussein, and surprisingly with the LTTE [“the Tamil Tigers”] since 1984. Sonia’s mother Paola Predebon Maino, and businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi were the main contacts with the Tigers. The mother used the LTTE for money laundering and Quattrocchi for selling weapons to earn commissions.

Sonia’s conduit to the LTTE has been and is through Arjun Singh who uses Bangalore as the nodal point for contact. There is a string of circumstantial evidence pointing to the prima facie possibility that the Maino family may have contracted the LTTE to kill Rajiv Gandhi. The family may have assured the LTTE that nothing would happen to them because they would ensure it is blamed on the Sikhs or the evidence so much fudged that no court would convict them. But D. R. Karthikeyan of the CBI who led the SIT investigation got the support of Narasimha Rao and cracked the case, and got the LTTE convicted in the trial court, and which conviction was upheld in the Supreme Court.

Although on the involvement of Congress Party in the assassination, DRK soft peddled on a number of leads perhaps because he did not want political controversy to put roadblocks on his investigation as a whole. The Justice J. S. Verma Commission, which was set up as the last official act of the Chandrashekhar government before demitting office on June 21, 1991, did find that the Congress leaders had disrupted the security arrangements for the Sriperumbudur meeting. The Commission wanted further probe into it but the Rao government rejected that demand. In the meantime under Sonia’s pressure, the Jain Commission was set up by the Rao government, which tried to muddy the waters and thus exonerate the LTTE. But the trial court judgment convicting the LTTE came earlier, and that sinister effort too failed.

Nowadays, Sonia is quite unabashed in having political alliance with those who praise Rajiv Gandhi’s killers. No Indian widow would ever do that. My investigations into Sonia’s involvement in Rajiv’s assassination is therefore still on. I am also author of a best seller titled Assassination Of Rajiv Gandhi, Unasked Questions and Unanswered Queries [published by Konark in 2000] in which I have given some indications.

Is it not significant that the political career of Sonia Gandhi advances concomitantly with a series of assassinations and apparently accidental deaths? How did Sanjay’s plane nosedive to a crash and yet the fuselage not explode? There was no fuel! Why was there no inquiry conducted? Is it not a fact that Indira Gandhi died because of loss of blood from the wounds and not directly due to a bullet impacting her head or heart? Then is it not strange that Sonia had insisted that the bleeding Indira be driven to Lohia Hospital — in the opposite direction to AIIMS, which had a contingency protocol set up for precisely suchan event? And after reaching Lohia Hospital, did not Sonia change her mind and demand that they all drive to AIIMS thus losing 24 valuable minutes.

The same kind of mystery surrounds the sudden deaths of Sonia’s other political roadblocks such as Rajesh Pilot, Jitendra Prasad, and Madhavrao Scindia. Such things happened in the dark ages in Italy. Should we allow it India like dumb cattle?

What Can We Do?

We have to ensure that the Maino clan does not stay in power. Dr. Manmohan Singh may be PM, which is a small relief, but he is not a fighter. The real power in government today is wielded by the Maino mafia gang. Can they be dethroned?

In Indian democracy, only a shocking scandal can unseat a government other than by losing majority. Today’s priority is not for toppling the Congress government as such since Manmohan Singh is a decent and scholarly person, but in driving the Maino clan out of India. It will however not be long before Sonia will give Manmohan Singh marching orders, and he will march out meekly. We should not expect him to resist.

With Sonia’s defacto government in place, it is also unrealistic to expect that I can get an early victory in the courts on the KGB and antique smuggling cases.

The most potent weapon therefore to dislodge the Maino clan [including Rahul and Priyanka] is by exposing their Italian citizenship. In 1992, Sonia revived her citizenship of Italy under Article 17 of the Italian Citizenship Law [Act 91 of 1992]. Rahul and Priyanka were born Italian citizens because Sonia was Italian when she gave birth to them [Italian law based on jure sanguinis]. Hence, they continue be Italians since they never renounced it. Both have been traveling abroad on Italian passports. They may now acquire Venezuela passports since Rahul’s girl friend Veronica is a Venezuelan. That means one more foreign bahu for us tolerant Indians. The Maino-Gandhis are certainly getting globalized. So what can patriotic Indians do?

There is an urgent need to document these facts on notarized paper, for which we need a network in London, Milan, Hongkong and Venezuela. Those persuaded by my above stated facts and arguments may join in and help set up this network.

Westminister Bank and Hongkong & Shanghai Bank, London accounts, but most of it found it’s

Patriotic Indians should thank the President of India for having the courage by citing a legal hitch to dissuade Ms. Sonia Gandhi from staking her claim to form the government in May this year. She therefore did not as expected on May 17th become the Prime Minister of 1 billion plus people of India. It can now be said that the nation has been saved from a monumental, devastating, and permanent injury to India’s national interest and patriotic psyche of Indians. And therefore every effort that can be made in a democracy should be made to ensure that Ms. Sonia Gandhi is permanently out of reckoning for any public office. For those who instinctively understand that, this Note is to explain the factual basis for this conclusion, and suggest what patriotic Indians can do now .

My opposition to Ms. Sonia Gandhi is not merely because she is Italian—born. In other democratic countries, including in Italy, such an issue [of foreign-born aspiring to be head of government] would not even arise at all because the issue has already been settled by law, that a person cannot hold the highest public office unless he or she is native born.

In India there is no such law, but the President according to my knowledge, correctly acted on a proviso to Section 5 of the Indian Citizenship Act[1955] which empowers the Union Home Ministry to lay down conditions that apply to Indian citizenship acquired by foreigners by registration, which conditions would be based on the principle of reciprocity, viz., in Ms Gandhi’s case such of those conditions that apply to Indians on becoming citizens of Italy would apply to her.

The President reportedly told her that if she insisted on being invited to form the government, he would want first to clarify, on a reference to the Supreme Court, whether in view of this proviso her appointment as PM could be successfully challenged in the court. It is fair to assume that this report of the President’s decision, is correct since the President had before him my petition dated May 15, 2004 making just that point— that Ms. Gandhi’s citizenship is conditional, and in particular she cannot be the PM legally. The President had also given me an appointment at 12.45 PM on May
17, 2004 to explain my submissions in person, which I did. I also told him that I would challenge such a constitutional appointment in the Supreme Court just as I had in 2001 when the Tamil Nadu Governor illegally swore in Ms Jayalalitha as Chief Minister.

In that case, the Supreme Court had after hearing me and many other institutional luminaries, upheld my contention that mere majority in the House is insufficient for being sworn in to a constitutional office. There must be no disqualification as well. Ms. Jayalalitha had therefore to step down because she was disqualified by a conviction handed by a trial court in the TANSI corruption case filed by me as private complaint [she subsequently was acquitted by the Madras High Court, and hence became eligible the next year]. I also cited to the President a 1962 Allahabad High Court case, which held that this proviso in the Citizenship Act was binding and lawful.

The nation in the Sonia matter has thus got an unexpected but temporary reprieve, a reprieve received not only because her citizenship of India by registration is not equal to one by birth even by Indian law, but also a reprieve more because of what national security risk was averted. To comprehend that risk, we must first understand who Sonia Gandhi really is and what danger she, her family and her friends in Italy hold for India’s national security.

Even for an Indian born citizen, we find it difficult to know a person’s true background, but for an Italian born it is extremely hard because of the remote access for most people to Italy in language and familiarity. This note is about that danger that Sonia represents to the nation, which the people need to know.

Nomination of Sonia should be scrutinised

06.04.2009
PRESS RELEASE, Janata Party

The nomination of Ms.Sonia Gandhi as a candidate for Lok Sabha from Rae Bareli is liable to be rejected because her name does not appear in the Home Ministry records of all registered citizens of India. There is a name of one Ms.Antonia Maino, born in Luciana, Italy, who has been granted citizenship of India in 1983. But Ms.Sonia Gandhi claims, according to Lok Sabha records, as having being born in Orbassano, Italy. Moreover there is no G.O or official notification which is required, that Sonia Gandhi is the changed name of Ms.Antonia Maino.

Moreover, Ms.Sonia Gandhi, even if she is Ms.Antonia Maino, has not submitted an official certificate from Italy Internal Affairs Department that she has formally renounced her Italian citizenship. This is a mandatory requirement for grant of Indian citizenship. Hence on these two counts Ms.Sonia Gandhi must produce proof of Indian citizenship at the time of scrutiny of her nomination forms. Otherwise her nomination papers must be rejected.
(SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY)