CONGRESS CULTURE BREEDS CORRUPT VULTURES

THE OTHERSIDE

Indian Congress founded in 1886 was dilly dallying between Dominion status, which meant independence with a common king and independence with no such binding to a titular head. Only in 1930 it ended its vacillation and proclaimed independence as its goal. After independence the purpose for which Congress party came to the scene had successfully accomplished. Dr.Ambedkar said “Congress was like an army recruited not for the purpose of carrying on Parliamentary democracy, but for the purpose of carrying on political warfare against a foreign government. Seeing this Mr. Gandhi very wisely suggested that the Congress be dissolved and new political parties on party lines are formed for conducting the Government. But leaders of the party were ready in their tents with their clothes to take in their hands the reins of the Government. They refused to listen to Mr. Gandhi’s advice.

Q: Why Gandhi wanted the dissolution of the Congress once India obtained independence? What made Gandhi suggest the dissolution of the Congress party?

A: Andhra leader T.Prakasam went on collecting donations from people and in many meetings purse was handed over to him, which became a debatable topic in the media. Mahatma Gandhi without naming anyone in general wrote against the practice of receiving purses from people in his magazine Harijan. Sardar Vallababhai Patel wrote angrily to Mr.T.Prakasam and sought explanation. Patel wrote it will set a bad precedent. Mr.T.Prakasam replied that people willfully contributed to compensate his sacrifices during freedom movement. Since Mahatama Gandhi condemned strongly Mr.T.Prakasam handed over the money collected into the coffers of the Congress party. Mahatma Gandhi wanted to write calling for expulsion of Mr.T.Prakasam but was persuaded to drop that idea by Jawaharlal Nehru and Patel. Konda Subba Rao, the whistle blower who brought out this corrupt practice also wrote to Congress President Rajendra Prasad. Congress President asked Congress Secretary Shankar Rao Dev to probe the charges against Former Chief Minister T.Prakasam and then Chief Minister Kumarasamy Raja. Since he could not decide the matter it was handed over to a three member committee comprising Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad and Sardar Patel, who exonerated Mr.T.Prakasam and let off other Ministers since they were not in office and thus closed the chapter in February of 1950.

This one case itself justified the suggestion of Mahatma Gandhi that Congress should be disbanded. Corruption was a matter for party to decide and exonerate. This golden rule enunciated by Nehruvian years was sincerely followed till SG scam era. Sorry 2G scam era under Sonia Gandhi’s puppets governing India is what led to SG scam, Sonia Gandhi scams.

The Public Accounts Committee which unearthed the Jeep Scam of then Defense Minister Krishna Menon, in its 9th report , told the matter must be handed over to a single or plural judge and the Nehru led Government of the day wrote on 1954 December 18 to the Public Accounts Committee and urged to reconsider its suggestion for judicial probe. When the Public Accounts Committee stood firm, the Government of the day closed that file.

Thus Congress set another bad precedent by throwing the Report of the Public Accounts Committee into dustbin and made mockery of Parliamentary democracy.

In the famous Mundra scam, the enquiry commission headed by Justice Chagla indicted Finance Minister Mr.T.T.Krishnamachariar and he had to resign, and while accepting his resignation Jawaharlal Nehru gave TTK a conduct certificate hailing his cleanliness, thus brushing aside a Report of an Enquiry Commission. Thus Congress set up a third precedent to throw enquiry commission reports into archives, which resulted in all political leaders inducted by subsequent enquiry commissions getting away without punishment.

Hence Mahatma Gandhi’s timely warning to disband Congress as soon as independence was attained assumes significance.

Q: Nira Radia is now famous, Win Chadha was lobbyist in Bofors deal, and the role of lobbyists wont end, Bofors story has lesions to recall how it was clinched. Tell what happened in Bofors era, keeping aside 2G era for few minutes away from your memory?

A: Let me quote with due thanks to legal luminary Ram Jethmalani {Deccan Chronicle 8th June 2005]: “Defence Secretary Bhatnagar had several meetings, the first of which was on June 7, 1984. There were 4 competing suppliers in the field –Sweden, United Kingdom, France and Austria. Naturally all these suppliers could not be present in person to participate in the negotiations with the Government of India”. All of them acted through one or the other agent. Only the British Government was negotiating through its High Commission.

These countries had Consulate, Embassy or High Commission, then why did they engage agents, you need not break your head, Congress culture of governance needs greasing so many palms, and to do that dirty job agents were chosen, who are capable of exploiting all the weaknesses of our bureaucrats from lowest to the top echelons. It took a heroine like Nirra Radia to expose this kind of governance.

“Offers were invited in sealed covers by July 23 of 1984. After negotiating committee held 14 meetings only by February 28 of 1985, final decision could be arrived. On that day Army short listed French Sofma gun and Swedish Bofors gun. On May 1985 Defence Secretary Bhatnagar summoned the representatives of the 4 suppliers and told them that Government of India does not want any Indian agents to be involved in the negotiations, and whatever amounts are being paid to Indian agents by the supplier should be reflected in the reduced prices. Till that time Bofors was represented by their Indian agent Mr. Win Chadha, originally an accused, but who died during the proceedings. No decision was taken even up to the 18th meeting of the negotiating committee which took place on December 1985. However the Army on February 18th of 1986 informed the negotiating committee its technical opinion in favor of Bofors gun. At the 20th meeting of the negotiating committee letter of intent was issued to Bofors on March 14 of 1986. Few days before that on March 10th of 1986 in a confirmation letter stated “We hereby confirm that we do not have any representative / agent specially employed in India for this project.” Indian Prime Minister Mr.Rajiv Gandhi who attended the funeral of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme announced the decision to buy Bofors gun on that occasion.

Q: Rajiv Gandhi cautiously avoided Indian agents but under Manmohan Singh’s rule lobbyists thrive, and his government taps conversation, makes selective leaks to gain bargaining power for electoral alliances, and works for corporate welfare, how do you substantiate?

A: The basic price of Petrol is only Rs 28.93, whereas excise duty of Rs 14.35, plus education tax of 0.43, dealer’s commission of Rs.1.05, customs duty for crude oil Rs 1.1, VAT Rs 5.5, and customs duty on petrol Rs.1.54, Transport Rs 6.00 makes up the figure of Rs 58.90 per litre in India. In 2008 when petrol was sold at Rs 50.64, in Australia equivalent of Rs Rs.31.99, Canada Rs 31.42, Pakistan Rs 36.09, in USA Rs 17.57, Malaysia Rs 30.12, Saudi Arabia Rs 5.71, UAE Rs 15.95,New Zealand Rs 32.28, Qatar Rs 9.82, Bahrain Rs 9.57 were the prices of per litre of petrol.

In 2010 Malaysia reduces petrol price from Rs.30.12 per litre to Rs.20.99 and our neigbour Pakistan reduces from Rs 36.09 to Rs 31.43. The incompetent unintelligent Finance Ministers of these countries are reducing the burden on the consumer and Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukerjee in this year imposed import duty and excise duty, further thrown out petroleum prices from government control to the play of market prices. This had hiked petrol price, is one side of the story.

Comparing to other countries corporates in India pay less to government to plunder natural resources like gas whereas consumer, the citizen, so called Supreme power in a democracy is burdened. That is why Sunday Indian’s Editor Arindham Choudry says ours is not democracy but demonocracy. American President Obama had said what exists in America is not people’s democracy but corporate democracy.

After 2G scam of so called 1.76,000 crore unruly scenes were witnessed in Orissa Assembly over 3, 00,000 crore mining scam. Supreme Court raised the issue of how out of 341 mines 215 are without valid lease or rights are operating in Orissa. Union Government headed by Manmohan Singh and managed by Pranab Mukerjee cannot brush this 3, 00,000 crore mining scam as that happened under Biju Janata Dal rule.

As per government estimates there are 15,000 mines operating illegally in various states of India with only 8700 legally functioning mines. The loot out of these mines yet to be computed, and in our country .By illegal mining corporates mint millions whereas consumers bear the brunt of price rise. If these looters were taxed and if those taxes are in proportion to their earning we need not hike petrol prices or other essentials.

The iron ore exported by the year 2000-2001 was around Rs 358 crores whereas by 2008-2009 it went up to 21,725 crores. One ton of iron ore was exported from 6000 to 7000 depending upon its grade. The Lok Ayuktha of Karnataka Justice Santhosh Hegde found out that government was getting royalty of Rs 16 to Rs 27 per ton. In 2004, low grade iron ore per ton royalty to Karnataka Government was Rs 4, high grade ore fetched Rs 27 per ton. As per Karnataka government estimates extraction of per ton iron ore costs Rs 150. Even if transport of Rs 250 is added plus royalty of Rs 27, at port the price per ton was Rs 427, whereas export price was equal to Rs 7000. Government was only getting Rs 27 per ton allowing Reddy brothers to pocket huge profits. Santhosh Hegde brought this out. The Planning Commission of India woke up to this loot in 2005 and suggested that at least 10 percent of export price should be taxed. The Manmohan Singh’s clean government waited for 3 years thinking how to subvert this suggestion of the Planning Commission. The Ministry accepted the proposal mooted by Planning Commission in 2009 August, but with a tactic. Government appointed Indian Bureau of Mines to fix the export price in order to calculate taxable royalty. Those officials fixed for low/high grades export price at Rs 1760 and 1949, when actual exports were ranging between 6000 to 7000. To fix 10 percent of royalty for Rs 1760 and 1949 super brain of Pranab Mukerjee got immense satisfaction. Even a child knows that exports are made under Letters of Credit and once loaded in ship, the bill of lading is given and these documents are produced in banks to negotiate bills. If an idiot like me was Finance Minister, I would have ordered for 10 percent deduction for royalty when banks negotiate bills. Ordinary citizen’s taxes could be deducted, but how can corporate be deducted, this government may argue. There is no export duty for minerals but import duty for petroleum products. If this being the case petrol prices have to go up, onion prices should have wings to fly in sky, and our economist Manmohan Singh will be proud of his governance.

Gandhi a prophet wanted Congress to be dismantled, and we are paying the price since his own party had become a puppet of plunderers and profiteers in the corporate world.

N.Nandhivarman, General Secretary, Dravida Peravai

AUROBINDO MUSEUM CONTROVERSY

Archives of Dravida Peravai

Dravida Peravai N.Nandhivarman went to Calcutta in 1999 and there presented a memorandum to then Chief Minister Jyothi Basu dated 3rd June of 1999. Copies were marked to Comrade Budhadeb Bhattacharya, Home, Information and Cultural Affairs Minister, Hon’ble Comrade Indrajit Gupta M.P, Hon’ble Comrade Somnath Chatterjee and Hon’ble Comrade Debabrata Biswas M.P. The letter in verbatim follows:

You might be aware that Calcutta High Court on 10th May 1999 has passed an interim injunction in the writ petition No: 1035 of 1999 at the Court of Kalyan Jyothi Sengupta till next hearing in June in the writ petition filed by Dr.Barin De against Sri Aurobindo Bhavan.

Our party had the opportunity to go through the archival materials with regard to the documents in the life and found that the trustees of Aurobindo Ashram Pondicherry and their appointees in the Aurobindo Bhavan at Calcutta have all along misled the West Bengal Government and the followers of Aurobindo over the birth place of Aurobindo. Before seeking a Government probe we are reproducing from the Volume 1 of the Aurobindo Archives and Research published in 1977 by Aurobindo Ashram Trust, Pondicherry.

Documents in the Life of Aurobindo: Birth: 1.Aurobindo’s birth date and time

15th August 1872, 24 minutes [ one danda= one ghatika] before sun rise at Calcutta, with sun rise calculated at 5.40 AM, the time of birth is 5.16 AM local time or 4.52 AM Indian Standard Time.

A note from the files of Nolini Kanta Gupta :

Footnote: The exact time of Aurobindo’s birth is not known. He writes in “About Astrology” [Cent.Vol.17.page 288] of “inability to fix the precise moment of my birth. The above computations were apparently made on the basis of recollection of a member of Aurobindo’s family that he was born one danda before sunrise on 15th August 1872.

The above statement of the Americans in charge of the archives department indicates that the Trustees are not aware of the exact time of his birth. Similarly the following letters and proceedings of the meeting of the sub-committee of the Aurobindo Centenary committee also clearly reveal that the Trustees are not aware of the exact birth place of Aurobindo. Let me quote all those letters and proceedings:

2.When attention was drawn to several press enquiries particularly in Bengal as to exact birth place of Aurobindo Srijut Nolinikanta Gupta , Secretary of Aurobindo Ghose told PTI “ Aurobindo was born in the house of Late Barrister Manmohan Ghose , a close friend of his father Dr.Krishna Dhan Ghose. The house was in the Theatre Road and the number being most probably 4, we are not aware whether that house still exists or not.

A press release dated 2nd September 1949

Aurobindo Ghose was born in my father’s house at 237, Lower Circular Road. In about 1879 my father moved to 4 Theatre Road. Subsequently Mr.Byomkesh Chakraborti, Bar-at-Law occupied 237 Lower Circular Road and I believe it was purchased by him. Later on Late Nalini Ranjan Sirkar purchased the property and put up the new structure after demolishing the old. It is now occupied by the Chinese Consul General.

Letter of Showlata Das [Mrs.Banbihari Das] youngest daughter of Manmohan Ghose dated 11th June 1956.

4. Proceedings of the Meeting of the Sub-Committee of the Aurobindo Centenary Committee held at 10.30 AM on Saturday January 30 of 1971 at National Library, Belvdere, Calcutta-27.

The following members were present: 1.Surendra Mohan Ghose, Chairman 2.Dr.Niharranjan Roy 3.Devi Prasad Bhaduri 4.K.N.Mukerjee 5.A.K.Ghose 6. Mrs. D.G.Keshwani 7.H.K.Niyogi 8.Kanti Chaudri, Member-Secretary

1. After long discussion on the various suggestions in regard to the house in which Aurobindo was supposed to have been born, it was decided as follows.

A] Arguments in favor of the present 237 Lower Circular Road could not be sustained since this was originally 12 Lower Circular Road, which came to be occupied by the Late Manmohan Ghose not earlier than 1876.

B] According to the Bengal Directory 0f 1871 and 1872 , Late Manmohan Ghose is shown as resident of 48, Chowringhee which was part of then Ballard Building facing Theatre Road. It was therefore; very likely that Aurobindo was born at this house which on August 15th of 1872 was shown as the residence of the Late Manmohan Ghose.

C] In 1872, according to Bengal Directory [Street Directory] No: 14 Lower Circular Road is also shown against the Late Manmohan Ghose. But in the alphabetical list of residents of the same year Manmohan Ghose is shown as a resident of 48, Chowringhee.

D] According to the same directory of 1873, the Late Manmohan Ghose is shown as resident of 14.Lower Circular Road and not 12, Lower Circular Road which is now 237, Lower Circular Road.

2. The Ballard’s Building consisting of numbers 47, 48, 49 and 50 at the corner of Chowringhee and Theatre Road does no longer exist, in fact a multi-storied building is under construction at that place. The question of acquisition of this property does not, therefore arise.

3. But in 1879, the Late Manmohan Ghose rented No: 4 Theatre Road [now No: 8, Theatre Road and continued to live there for about fifteen years. It was in this house that Aurobindo passed a number of his boyhood years from time to time; indeed it is the only house on Theatre Road with which Aurobindo could be associated for a considerable period of time. The committee therefore requests the Government of India and the Government of West Bengal who are now owners of No: 8, Theatre Road to make over and dedicate this property to the nation in the name of Aurobindo.

It is needless to reproduce entire proceeding but we have chosen to reproduce in entirety because we want to establish that persons connected with the Bhavan and the Trust in Pondicherry are basing their claims on their assumption that from 1879 Aurobindo lived in that house. Unfortunately to the Trustees, Aurobindo himself in the book Aurobindo on himself and on the Mother published by Aurobindo Ashram in 1953 in page 9 under the title “Early Life in England “states “while in India they were sent for the beginning of their education to an Irish nun’s school in Darjeeling and in 1879 he took his three sons to England.”

It is thus crystal clear that Aurobindo had left to England on 1879 as per his own words and how come the sub-committee says that he lived in this house from 1879. Based on this untruth the committee and the trustees of the Bhavan and their parental trust in Pondicherry had misled the West Bengal Government and are responsible for waste of public money to proclaim a building as his birth place and are instrumental in getting Aurobindo Memorial Act 1972 passed. The same coterie propped up by the Pondicherry based Trust are aware of the truth and that may be the reason for these groups to offer Aurobindo Bhavan for construction of a commercial complex.

Our party urges the West Bengal Government to probe this matter further and fix responsibility on those who have misled the West Bengal Government and committed a fraud on the Government and followers of Aurobindo…… Yours sincerely N.Nandhivarman, General Secretary Dravida Peravai

THE TIMES OF India Calcutta in a report by Sudha G.Tilak dated 13.06.1999 carried this news under the title FRESH DISPUTE OVER AUROBINDO ABODE with due rebuttal by Himanshu Niyogi , a senior member of Aurobindo Samiti who said “ such controversies are raked by vested interests now and then.

PRINCES and PARTITION: PEEP INTO PAST

THE OTHERSIDE

Q: Concept of Paramountcy and how Princely India came under British umbrella ?

A:Lord Wellesley was Governor General of India between 1797 and 1805. In that eight years he concluded almost 100 treaties with Indian princes. The concept of paramountcy led to the establishment of Princely order in India. Wellesley’s policy of subsidiary alliances was an umbrella thought brought princely states in the defensive alliance and mutual guarantee. So when India awaited Independence in August 15th of 1947, it had to break its head over 564 princely states.

Q: When British Prime Minister Atlee announced the policy decision on 20th February 1947 to withdraw from India by June 1948, what was the scenario in India ?

A: Let me quote The Times London “ Muslim separatism is deriving encouragement from the language of the white paper.” The Princes started dreaming of Third Dominion. Winston Churchill named it as Princestan. The Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes Nawab of Bhopal asked the Princes not to immediately decide joining Indian Constituent Assembly but to wait and watch. Nawab of Bhopal inducted pro-Pakistani officials in the Secretariat of the Chamber. He made a Pakistani Mohammed Zafrullah as his constitutional adviser. Indore was with Bhopal, Jodhpur too joined the bandwagon. With the blessings of Jinnah and with the backing of the Secretary of the Political Department Sir Conrad Cornfield it seems Princely India will be separate entity once India got independence.

Q: Among the princely states who declared independence first, and who changed his colours like chameleon and headed a committee to ban political parties that sought separatism ?

A: Diwan of Travancore Sir C.P.Ramasamy Iyer declared on May 9th of 1947 that on the lapse of Paramountcy on August 15th simultaneously with the transfer of power to India, Travancore would declare herself a free and independent State. The wily Brahmin was arrogant that in Delhi he even declined the invitation for lunch extended by Sardar Patel. Sardar Patel directly spoke to the Maharaja over telephone in commanding tone. The question, who is standing in your way ? made the Maharaja shiver in fear and he conveyed his decision to accede to India.

Q: How all the princely states were brought into the Indian umbrella ? To whom the credit should go ?

A: Definitely not to Nehru. The credit to make 562 princely states accede to India rests on the shoulders of Sardar Patel. In June 1946 Patel spelt his policy: “ The time has arrived when it is necessary for Indian people to deal with the States problem on the basis of collective approach to the Princes as a whole and not to fritter away their energies in isolated battles”. Mountbatten too facilitated by declaring separate negotiations with each and every princely state is ruled out.

Q:Plundering natural resources and land scams are not new, even in British India such things happened, and even in independent India it continues, especially in naxal infected Bastar. Tell about this ?

A: In September 1946, Bastar had a Raja who was a minor and weakling and a foreigner as its Prime Minister. Bastar had and has rich mineral resources. Then it was mortgaged to Hyderabad State for a long lease. Patel took up the issue with the Political Department of the British. He was told that as the guardian of the minor prince, foreigner Prime Minister can enter into mortgaging a whole state. Patel saw the Prince of Bastar and said “ I felt it was a sin to make him sign such agreement. It was then that I was made fully conscious of the extent to which our interests were prejudiced in every way by the machinations of the Political Department and came to the conclusion the sooner we were rid of these people the better. Their main aim was to further their interests and to cause much damage to India as possible. I came to the conclusion that the best course was to drive out foreigners even at the cost of partition of the country.It was also then that I felt that there was only one way to make the country safe and strong.. and that was unification of rest of India.

Q: What did Dr.B.R.Ambedkar suggest when Partition became inevitable ? What happened during partition ? What did Ambedkar think on Gandhiji’s attitude at that time ?

A: Dr.Ambedkar proposed partition with complete transfer of the population of the Hindus and Muslims from their respective zones to avert blood shed. As he feared partition brought unprecedented blood shed with mass exodus of 7.30 million Hindu and Sikh refugees to India. Ambedkar felt why did Gandhi never went to fast to prevent Partition, in spite of saying again and again that India can be partitioned only over his dead body ?

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai

http://www.dravidaperavai.org.in/

INDIAN BUREAUCRACY IN DOCK

Borders and Boundaries: Follies galore

India must publish maps showing Tibet as independent country under occupation of Chinese. Only then Chinese maps on Jammu and Kashmir could be countered effectively. There is a Tibetan Government in exile within Indian soil and we are within our right to declare Tibet as disputed area which belong to Tibetan people. Having said the way to counter Chinese moves, as impassionate observer of history let me share my thoughts with readers and invite a debate.

The maps of 1930 show Indian border in North East sector, which is McMahon line between India’s Assam and Tibet region as Boundary Un-demarcated. In Northwest, North sectors [from Kashmir Ladakh to Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh it was inscribed as boundary undefined. Miss Dorothy Woodman in her book Himalayan Frontiers in 1969 wrote, “The innumerable discrepancies on maps might lead to the most naïve student of cartography to the view that the devil can quote maps to serve its own purpose.” The discrepancies in maps are a disease infecting both sides. Both countries based their claims on erroneous maps.

In Indian side as per eminent parliamentarian and scholar Kuldip Nayyar “ The Government itself with drew several official maps and books which did not indicate meticulously a curve here or a bend there or which left the boundary undefined. Many maps of the Survey of India and the books of Publications Division were withdrawn, and there was a circular sent to return all such materials “[Between the Lines p 137-138]. Similarly Chinese Premier Chou–en-lai made it clear in April 1955 during Bandung Conference, that China’s borders with neighbouring countries had not yet been fixed.

BANGLADESH BORDERS:

The legacy of past not only haunts India and China, it also hurts India and Bangladesh. There are 111 Indian enclaves in Bangladesh and 51 Bangladesh enclaves in India.” The legacy of high stake card games between two kings, rulers of Cooch Bihar and Rangpur within old Bengal State centuries ago where they used estates as stakes when they ran out of cash, resulted in our nation having Bangladesh enclaves and Bangladesh having our enclaves. This is an issue, which had not been sorted out yet; it applies to the Indo China border dispute.

The sudden raking up of a claim over Arunachal Pradesh by China had created heartburns amidst Indian people. Indian people did not expect that Chinese would go on digging a past, a creation of colonialism, to put roadblocks to normalcy between two great civilizations and countries. But whatever China does aims to cut India down to size and to dwarf India as super power, eating into its geo-political spheres of influence.

BUREAUCRATIC BLUNDERS

India had spent crores of public money to safeguard our borders; thousands of our brave men have given their lives to secure our borders. The War with our neighbour is not a footnote in history, but a chapter of sacrifice made by our army men. The cat on the wall Maharaja Harisingh’s clan[ Dr.Karan Singh ] till today enjoys patronage from the ruling establishment as reward for bartering their loyalty to India. The Indian Army only needed a nod from Indian Prime Minister at a crucial period of Indian history to drive Pakistan out of Kashmir. The Indian Home Minister Sardar Vallabai Patel was urging Indian Prime Minister to give green signal to our Army Chief Major General Kariappa to secure Hyderabad and Kashmir at one go. While Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru consented for army intervention in Hyderabad, which fell for Indian arm in a day, hesitated to give his consent with regard to Kashmir. This indecision resulted in ever bleeding never-ending Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. It is not treason to look back at history. This today BJP claims that nation had paid heavy price for Nehru’s folly.

Similarly it is not a sin to pin point the blunders committed by our bureaucrats. Only politicians are portrayed as villains but bureaucrats enjoy immunity. This is bad practice. While workforce of the country, the real masters in a democracy are subjected a hire and fire policy, why not hire and fire policy be framed for bureaucrats and only such a whip will make them deliver goods without delay to the people.

I reproduce a letter addressed by me to then Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on 5.1.2004. His government did not act norI hope any government by bureaucrats and for bureaucrats will punish the guilty. But people of the country, the supreme power in a democracy have the right to know where and how it went wrong.

Hon’ble Prime Minister of India Thiru.Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Respected Atalji

Subject: A white paper sought on the Kashmir issue to evolve national consensus and fix responsibility for faulty maps

All Indians will echo your feelings with regards to the Pakistan’s bartering away of Kashmiri territory to China, our neighbour. At the moment out of the total area of 222.336 square kilometers of Kashmiri state the possession is as follows:

Area of Jammu and Kashmir in possession of India: 101,387 square kilometers.

Illegally occupied by Pakistan: 78,114 square kilometers

Illegally handed over to China by Pakistan: 42,735 square kilometers

Illegal occupation of China and Pakistan: 120,849 square kilometers

All this is shown as total area of Jammu and Kashmir 222,336 square kilometers. This figure is shown from 1988/89 to 1999 in all manuals brought out by the Ministry of information and Broadcasting.

So while with spirit of nationalism and patriotism we are ready to share your feeling of hurt for Pakistan’s handing over an area of 42,735 square kilometers to China. But let me request your office to trace out my letter-dated 24.8.1999 in which I had complained first about the following grave mistake.

I humbly submit that from the Source of INDIA: A REFERENCE MANUAL 1953 brought out by the Publications Division of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in page 1…. “THE AREA OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE WAS GIVEN AS 92,780 square miles which is equivalent to 240,300.20 square kilometers. How could this become 222.336 square kilometers in 1988?

Pakistan holds 78,114 square kilometers. China owns 42,735 square kilometers. India owns 101,387 square kilometers. By mistakes committed by our bureaucracy in preparing faulty maps, we have lost 18,036.20 square kilometers. Are we to take it for granted that 18.036.20 square kilometers vanished into thin air? Like Bermuda’s triangle in our earth’s oceans do we have a Bermuda’s triangle in our Ministries, which had swallowed 18,036.20 square kilometers? Who is responsible for this? Who is going to be held accountable for this? Are we going to find scapegoats? Or whether The National Democratic Alliance Government has the moral guts to fix the responsibility on the Congress governments that caused this national loss to our country?

While 1953 Manual says 92,780 square miles equivalent to 240.300.20 square kilometers, in 1960 Edition the area becomes 86,024 square miles equivalent to 222.802.16 square kilometers. Official reference journal published by a Ministry of the Government of India in 1960 at page 24-25, a district wise break up of the area of Jammu And Kashmir State is given. The total of this area arrives at a figure of 84,476 square miles, which is equivalent to 218,792.84 square kilometers.

In 1964 Edition page 7 has a different story to tell. It contains two different figures. In the column area figure a) shows 86,023 square miles equivalent to 222.799.57 square kilometers. Figure (b) shows 56665 square miles, which is under Indian possession. This amounts to 146,762.25 square kilometers? In 1965 Edition page 7 changes over to 222.896.78 square kilometers? In 1966 Edition page 7 Area of Jammu and Kashmir once again changed to 222,800 square kilometers? In 1968 Edition page 8 area of Jammu and Kashmir once again changed to 222,870 square kilometers .In 1988-89 edition the area of Jammu and Kashmir was shown as 222.236 square kilometers. In the very same edition in a different page693, the area of Jammu and Kashmir was shown as 222.236 square kilometers and a note inserted which stated “That this area includes 78,114 square kilometers under illegal occupation of Pakistan, 5280 square kilometers illegally handed over by Pakistan to China and 37,555 square kilometers illegally occupied by China “

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary 5.1.2004

After recalling the effort of Dravida Peravai six years ago, now when scam after scam hits head lines, I felt the need to overhaul our bureaucracy, purging them, and enacting stringent acts to punish them. Unless bureaucracy is tamed, blunders like this will only be in history.

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai

CHINA ALERT : INDIA ENCIRCLED

THE OTHERSIDE

India’s foreign policy makers must watch the Chinese moves in each and every issue in international arena. China had been for years scheming to become the sole Super Power of Asia. Nothing wrong in any nation to aspire for higher status, but that status when it tends to downsize India, it is our duty to counter Chinese dragon.

The handing over of Coco island by the Indian foreign policy experts of seventies to Myanmar had paved way for China obtaining it in lease from Myanmar and to build a harbour apart from installing Russian made radars and satellites to spy on Indian Missile programme operated from Orissa, a state of India just facing Coco islands in the west of the Bay of Bengal. Sitting entrenched in Eastern side of Bay of Bengal that too just 40 nautical miles away from Indian Territory of Andaman Nicobar islands, China had established its access and control over Bay of Bengal. The intelligent foreign policy experts who had no broad vision had opened the gateway of Bay of Bengal to the Chinese dragon.

But the threats from China are not only in our border but everywhere. Unless India watches every move of China, we will fail in our patriotic duty to preserve our nation and its status among comity of nations. “India and China are now members of the Financial Stability Board, the apex institution to monitor global risks of financial crisis. Their voting shares in the International Monetary Fund will also be slightly increased through an accelerated quota reform process. However post-reform the USA will retain its de-facto veto power with a 17 percent share and the US, EU and Japan will control 53 percent of IMF shares. Individually the shares of US, UK, France and Japan will still be larger than China’s share of fewer than 4 percent.” Hence China had planned a new offensive according to Professor of National Institute of Public Finance and Policy Mr.Sudipto Mundle.

“Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor of the Chinese Central Bank had in past suggested that dollar should be replaced with SDR’s as the new reserve currency. The huge dollar reserves held by Central Banks and other global investors would be severely eroded if the dollar were to suddenly depreciate. Yet these investors cannot easily diversify away from the dollar since this itself would trigger dollar depreciation. The Chinese are particularly concerned, an estimated 1 trillion dollars of their total reserves of around 2 trillion are held in dollar asset. The SDR exchange rate is a weighted average of exchange rates of the major convertible currencies. Accordingly under Zhou’s proposals, China and other countries could convert their reserves from dollars to SDR’s at current exchange rates without any erosion in their value. Implementing such a proposal would also mark the end of the dollar as reserve currency.” This is the game plan of China which has let the cat out of its bag. Only Dr.Sambandam of Puducherry University is competent to deal at length the currency games, and as whistle blower in politics, I can only issue alet

If China launches SDR missiles to strike at the Dollar regime, India had to toe Chinese line, if Indo-China-Srilanka partnership to ethnic cleansing of Tamils is a forerunner to such cooperation.

USA realizing the Chinese designs had been urging India to sign End-use Monitoring Agreement, Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum agreement, and Logistics Support Agreement. China causes grave concern for USA, hence USA urges India to sign these pacts. China had become emboldened to say to USA to concentrate on western Pacific and China will look after eastern Pacific. Pacific Command Chief Admiral Timothy J Keating had recently exposed this game.

Are we with USA or are we with China? Is USA a grave danger to the territorial integrity of India or is China, the aggressor who claims our Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh will be a threat with high magnitude?

China had encircled India with tie-ups starting from Myanmar to Srilanka, Maldives to Pakistan and Bangladesh. With harbours in all these countries carefully built from 1990, China had acquired a might India cannot challenge. If China could suggest to USA to divide Pacific Ocean as eastern zone and western zone between them, will it not say to India confine to your coast in Bay of Bengal and from Myanmar China will control half of Bay of Bengal.

Will not China with harbours in Pakistan and Maldives suffocate Indian presence in Arabic Ocean? Sitting in Srilanka’s southern tip China could block passage to Bay of Bengal and from Myanmar control Malacca Straits. Each and every step China plans is to establish it as Super power of Asia. It is the neo-colonial power which will colonize Myanmar and Srilanka. In Indian state of Bihar, the influx of Chinese women to marry Indians born in Buddha’s land is silently establishing a Chino-Indian population like early Anglo-Indians.

Our foreign policy must be debated in Indian Parliament. Few individuals should not decide the foreign policy of a continent like India with 100 crore population. Ours is Indian Union, though it became unitary due to the trauma of partition, it must be borne that Indian States have a right to shape India’s foreign policy. Consensus can emerge in our National Integration Council, debates in Parliament can offer constructive course corrections, and Cabinet should not be bypassed, few people should not be shouldered with crafting nation’s foreign policy, however super brains they may be. But seeing how China had outwitted us by encircling India, and within India opening a Red corridor from Nepal to Andhra Pradesh where Maoists rule the roost, it becomes evident that China wants India again to become a colony, this time a colony of China will only get conduct certificates from Communist parties and not from Indians with common sense.

N.Nandhivarman, General Secretary, Dravida Peravai

MALAYSIA and PAKISTAN REDUCE but INDIA INCREASES: NAKED FACTS

India is 12th in the rank of gas producing countries. The Total gas reserves in KG basin is estimated at 35.5 trillion cubic feet.

Feb 1999: A consortium led by Reliance Industries (RIL) wins an exploration block in the KGD6 basin, in a global auction. March 2000: Contractor renamed Global Fuel Management Services, and then Reliance Natural Resources (RNRL). April 2000: RIL and the government execute production sharing

September 2003-May 2004: RIL submits bids for supply of gas to NTPC.

April 2004: Production sharing contract executed.

June 2004: RIL signs pact with Uttar Pradesh for world’s largest gas-based power plant at Dadri.

June-July 2004: NTPC issues letter of intent to RIL.

THE RIL is having all its offices and infrastructure in YENAM. Why Pondicherry Government had failed to obtain its share in the gas and why it failed to set up a power plant through NTPC and pass the power by national grid to Pondicherry, is a question without answer.

The Radia tapes which appeared in Open magazine records for getting permission and for getting gas RIL had spent 1000 crores. In the Supreme Court 3 Judge panel headed by then Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, Justice P.Sathasivam, and Justice B.Sudharsan Reddy have stated “ Government is the owner of natural resources including gas available in the country, no individual or commercial entity could claim right over such resources”

The royalty under Production sharing contract is US $ 4.20 per million british thermal unit mmBtu. In KG basin D6 block for five years. IF THIS royalty had been fixed in comparison with other countries, that revenue could have reduced the burden on consumers.

The Basic Price for Petrol : 28.93

Excise duty : 14.35

Education Tax : 0.43

Dealer Commission : 1.05

VAT : 5.5

Crude Oil custom duty : 1.54

Transportation : 6.00 THUS PER LITRE PRICE comes to 58.90 petrol

In 2008 Malaysia sold petrol per litre for Rs 30.12 but in 2010 they have reduced to 20.99

In 2008 Pakisthan prices were 36.09 per litre brought down to Rs 31.43 in 2010.

Those Governments have political will. Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukerjee turns blind eye in fixing royalties for Natural Gas, Iron Ore and Minerals, and 2G spectrum licenses, where he favours the corporate democracy, instead taxes the consumers who suffer in a non existent peoples democracy.

Further the when every time the prices of petrol is hiked almost all political parties do protest, but they fail to note that Indian consumer is robbed every time petrol price gets hiked, over and above the hiked price.

This time Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited had hiked the price of petrol by Rs 2.96 per litre. Indian Oil Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation etc are going to follow this.

Can anyone buy one litre and pay Rs.2.96 ? Is there 5 paise one nayapaise coins in circulation. Even 10 paise coin is out of circulation. So naturally consumer had to pay Rs 3.00 instead of hiked Rs 2.96. Where does the balance 4 paise goes ? If you calculate the litres sold in a day throughout the country and multiply it with 4 paise you will get a figure to compete with 2G losses.

Finance Minister Pranab Mukerjee nor the Petroleum Minister Murle Deora have ever thought about this loot. The Corporations too are happy as if they are reducing 4 paise burden from the consumers shoulders..

Dravida Peravai demand CAG audit into the losses incurred by Indian consumers. RTI activists must question these Corporations.