ALL U WANTED TO KNOW ABT SONIA

[anujkadyan]

This is too big an article... even i dint have the patience to read thru the whole thing..



>Go through the whole document.
>An article from TOI-By Gurumurthy
>It is certainly not a matter of pride to have Sonia as the Prime
>Minister. You cannot be electing a person as Prime Minister and not feel
>proud of having elected her. When someone wants to lead this country, it
>must be a matter of pride for its people to have that person as their
>leader. Imagine the depths to which this issue has descended.
>"What is wrong if she is the Prime Minister," is an argument that comes
>not from the ordinary people of India, but from the educated Indian.
>This comes from the Chidambarams and from the Rajdeeep Sardesais of this
>country; this comes from editorial writers sitting in cities. So let us
>analyse this issue with all its implications for a country like India,
>which has an unbroken civil! isational continuity.
>India is indeed a civilisation behind the facade of a nation. It is now
>facing the might of the nation-state, which has evolved in the west. The
>nation-state mechanism in the west is basically aggressive, violent,
>conquering, invasive, dominating, imperialistic. It is a concept which
>the Indian mind cannot internalise, understand, or exhibit in its
>attitude. So, now we are conceding that foreigners can become prime
>ministers and presidents of India, provided they hold a citizenship
>certificate.
>Odious comparisons are being made by a few who are bent on justifying
>Sonia as the prime minister. Look at Sister Nivedita, they say. She
>rebelled against the British for India. And her name was Margaret. Swami
>Vivekananda called her Nivedita because she had surrendered herself to
>this country. Where then is the comparison?
>Compare Nivedita with Sonia Maino. She came to India! marrying a very
>good-tooking man. When she came to India in 1968, she was wedded to an
>Indian who was the son of that country's Prime Minister.
>People say it is our tradition that when a woman enters her husband's
>home, she becomes part of that family, and so Sonia too is an Indian. It
>is a sentimental attitude. Look at the acts. Sonia did not apply for
>Indian citizenship in 1968 when she married Rajiv and came to India. It
>is what any good Indian wife would have done.
>She filled an application in 1968 for permission to stay as a foreigner
>in India for five years. She said, "I am married, I am married into
>theIndian Prime Minister but I would still like to remain a foreigner."
>So she was given a certificate in 1968 to reside in India as a foreigner
>for five years. In 1973, after the first five-year period expired, she
>again applied for the permit to stay on in India for another five years
&! gt;as a foreigner. And this is the person who is going to live and die for
>us. My friend Cho Ramaswamy told me not to believe what she says, There
>is not only a complete divorce between what she says and what she does;
>there is also a clue that she will do precisely the opposite of what she
>says. I will come to it later; there are instances and instances.
>So, she again applied for a foreigner's permit. You know why? Between
>1968 and 1973, there were indications of war with Pakistan over East
>Pakistan. And sure enough there was the Bangladesh war. During that
>conflict, when all commercial pilots were asked to forego their leave
>and enter service, she asked Rajiv to go on long leave. He was given
>special permission and they left the country. Throughout the period of
>the war, they were in Rome. Why? Because the American Seventh Fleet was
>moving towards India, and Sonia Gandhi probably had serious doubts about
>India's survival!
>So she deserted the country with her husband. She returned only after
>peace was restored, and after India had won the war because of Indira
>Gandhi. This is where the stark contrast between Sonia Gandhi and Atal
>Bihari Vajpayee is most glaring. Look at their conduct after the two
>wars.
>After the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, Vajpayee, who was the Leader
>of the Opposition, stood up in Parliament and congratulated Indira
>Gandhi for her courage and vision and praised her as Durga. He was a
>patriot. At that important moment, he never thought that acknowledging
>the achievement of his political adversary will cost him votes. Yes, he
>and his party lost votes in both Partiament and Assembly polls, but not
>because Vajpayee stood tall in his praise oflndira Gandi. After the
>Kargil war, Sonia Gandhi told the NDA Government, "Please do not ask for
>any credit! ." This is meanness, pettiness, smallness, and
>foreignmindedness.
>Sonia Gandhi played politics even with the self-esteem of this country
>by choosing the wrong moment to demand an explanation from the
>government, to raise issues of corruption in defence deals. Her praise
>of our armed forces came after she realised that the people of this
>country were not taking her criticism very well. That she was a
>foreigner and had no business asking for explanations came across very
>clearly. Every intelligent lndian knew there were problems, including
>corruption associated with some sections of the army and that it was
>these problems that resulted in the Kargil invasion.
>
>Should it be used as an occasion to expose a small number of people and
>defame the entire army in the process? The army today represents the
>core of Indian nationalism. This was the occasion for the nation to rise
>above ever! ything and pat the army for its heroism, courage and
>sacrifice.
>But only a nationalist will think like this. However, Sonia Gandhi, who
>was after votes and political power, could not think like this. Now let
>us come to the period between 1973-1978. In 1977, when Indira Gandhi was
>defeated, Sonia sensed the mood of the nation, took refuge in the
>Italian Embassy and refused to come out of it. She said she was going
>back to Italy. Sanjay Gandhi had to go and plead with her to return.
>Is this is the person who is going to live and die for India? To live in
>India is very different from living for India. And to live in India in
>such glory, with such protection and resources, is very different from
>dying for India. Nationalism will not come by merely wearing saris. It
>is as much a fancy dress today as any other dress can be. But some
>Indians are very happy to see Sonia in a sari, and regard her stay in
>India as their good fortune. Why? I am going to say something which many
>of you may not like.
>Some of you may even say I am a racist. I was discussing this issue with
>Cho Ramaswamy. He told me something he may not write but I will share
>this with you. Cho said, and I quote, "If Sonia Gandhi had been black,
>had been a person of African origin, this problem would never have
>arisen."
>Do you understand what this means, unpalatable though it may be to some
>of you? It is this fascination for the white skin and it is we, the
>English educated Indians, who are responsible for this. Tamil patriot
>and poet Bharathi said, " Ayiram undingu jathi, enil anniyar vanthu
>pugal enna neethi. " Yes, we may have hundreds of castes but that is no
>reason for an alien to fish in our troubled waters and play arbiter
>here. That is what Tilak mean by Swaraj first. We may fight among
>ourselves, w! e may even kill each other, but we don't want a foreign
>arbiter.
>I know of several political leaders saying that the Indian English Press
>will stand against us. Only because the Indian English Press is bound to
>take a hostile attitude towards those who consider Sonia as a foreigner
>and a reluctant citizen, many political parties are unwilling to make
>this a national issue. This is the terrorising influence that the
>English educated Indian intellectuals have on the political class.
>Another argument is that this is not an issue in the rural areas. If you
>do not make it an issue, how will it become an issue there?
>The Emergency was imposed in India. The national TV, the Press,
>everything was controlled by the government. The cities revolted against
>the Emergency; in six months it spread and percolated, and then the
>villages revolted, too. Ideas always percolate, but if they are edited
>a! t the top, the nation remains confused. Never in the history of the
>world has a foreigner ruled another country except by invasion.
>But what is abnormal here is that we are in danger of electing a
>foreigner to rule this country. Some Indians do not want to be seen as
>being narrow-minded or less liberal. What is this liberalism? One-sixth
>of humanity living together is in itself the greatest symbol of
>liberalism. We are one-sixth of humanity and we live together and live
>well together.
>Let us now recap what Sonia did in 1978, after Indira Gandhi lost the
>elections in 1977. Sonia again applied to stay on in India as a
>foreigner. In 1968, 1973, 1978- for three five-year terms - Sonia
>applied for a resident's permit to stay in India. On April 30, 1983, her
>third five-year permit expired. By that time it was certain that Rajiv
>was to become the heir to Indira Gandhi.
>And so, even on April! 27, three days before the permit expired, she had
>still not opted for Indian citizenship. She wanted to be a foreigner
>till the last day the permit allowed her to be so. And this is precisely
>what Sharad Pawar asked her in the Congress Working Committee (CWC), in
>May 1999 It all happened suddenly. Pawar described to me how it
>happened. On that day, the CWC was to discuss the Goa election and Pawar
>was supposed to present his analysis of the situation in Goa. The lady
>came with a prepared speech (please note, even in the 20-member working
>committee, she comes with a prepared speech).
>She began reading her speech. Everybody was surprised at what she had to
>say. She said that the Sangh Parivar, against which her mother- in-law
>carried on a campaign to finish communalism, against whom her husband
>did this and that, had now decided to destroy her.
>"They are branding me a foreigner. I will figh! t them to the last drop of
>my blood. But, I don't want this issue to drag on till the elections. I
>want it decided today because if it is decided now, we can fight it out
>at the time of the election, and it will be no issue at all. So, I want
>to know first whether any of you have any objection to my becoming the
>Prime Minister,"she said.
>All these fellows remained silent. And then Madhav Rao Scindia spoke,
>"Madam, you do not have to fight the Sangh Parivar propaganda, I will
>fight it. This is not your battle, this is my battle:' This set the tone
>for the rest of the discussion and soon most members began to ask, who
>are these RSS people to dub Sonia a foreigner?
>Soon it was Sangma's turn to speak. Sangma said, "Madam, I have very
>different views on this issue. I don't know anything about you; There
>are people who are saying that for 17 years you lived as a foreigner in
>India. If the vote! rs ask me, how will I explain? Please tell me why you
>did not opt for Indian citizenship in 1968? I cannot convince the people
>of my own State, my own constituency on this." And then it was Pawar's
>turn.
>He told me he was sitting immediately to her right. He was the last to
>speak. He was the first one to organise a public meeting for her, a
>massive rally in Maharastra. He told Sonia, and I quote, "In that rally,
>you said I am an ordinary humble Congress worker. You said I don't want
>any position, I don't want power, and I am associated with the Congress
>family. You also said I don't even want to become a Congress member.
>
>
>can't bear to see a party with which my mother-in-law, her father, her
>grandfather, and my husband were all associated, decaying like this. So,
>I want to strengthen this party. This is what you said on that day."
>Then Pawar told the rally, "If she is willing ! to do such a generous job
>for a nationalist party, there should be no objection. She does not want
>to be the president of the party, she does not want to be in any
>position and she doesn't want to be an MP."
>Pawar told me that he had recounted the statements made at that rally to
>BaI Thackeray in defence of Sonia Gandhi. "But the day she ran to the
>President of India and told him that she had the support of 272 MPs to
>become the Prime Minister of India, which was a lie, all of us changed
>and I changed, too;" Pawar told me.
>Sonia said she was not interested in politics, and that she would never
>enter politics. She said she would not become a Congress member but will
>only help the party as a person belonging to the Congress fami1y. She
>said and I quote, "I am just a four anna member, I will not occupy any
>position." But what happened thereafter? She physically threw out
>Sitaram Kesri f! rom the office. The poor fellow was in the toilet. His
>chair was empty. And do you know what happened? The Congress goons
>bolted the toilet door from outside and made Sonia occupy' his chair,
>The elderly man wept. This is how she became the president of the
>Congress Party.
>In the same way the western armies in the past invaded other
>civilisations and seized power, she seized power in a 'coup d'toilette'.
>This is the disconnect between her word and her action. Her conduct was
>the very reverse of her profession. she said she had no ambition to be
>the Prime Minister. But who ran from pillar to post to bring down the
>Vajpayee government?
>Again, when the media probed her about the money paid by Bofors to her
>friend Quattrocchi, she said, "Yes, the CBI is saying he is a suspect,
>but they have not produced any papers; and unless you produce papers to
>prove that somebody is guilty, you cannot ! say he is guilty."


I am breaking it in parts as The site doesnt accept such a big msg in one go.

[anujkadyan]

>
>
>But what is the truth about Quattrocchi ? In the Bofors deal, the
>quality of the gun was not the issue. It was always rated as a good gun,
>but there was a better gun called Sofma. In 17 meetings, the negotiating
>committee kept the Sofma gun ahead of the Bofors gun from 1984 June to
>early February 1986. For two years, in 17 meetings, the army brass
>involved in the decision making had preferred Sofma to Bofors. But
>everything changed on February 17 that year. Please mark the dates. The
>competition among arms manufacturers to sell guns to India was on from
>1980.
>On November 15, 1985, a company called AE Services entered into an
>agreement with Bofors. It said, "Gentlemen, I will get you the
>Government of India order for Bofors guns. And I will get this order by
>March 31, 1986. And if I get it by March 31, you will give me three per
>cent commission, which is! $36.5 million or Rs 160 crore at the current
>rates of exchange. So, if I get you this order by March 31, you will
>give me this commission and if I don't get it you need not give me
>anything. You owe no obligation to me."
>Who can enter into this kind of a contract except the person who can get
>it? Fina11y, the cat was out of the bag. The person who signed the
>contract filed an affidavit in the Swiss Court saying it was Quattrocchi
>who advised him to enter into this contract.
>The sequence was as fo11ows: On February 17, 1986, the Bofors gun was
>nowhere in the picture. However, on March 15 and 16, Rajiv told the
>Swedish Government ( on a State visit to Sweden) that he will give
>Sweden the order for supply of Bofors guns. On March 17, the negotiating
>committee cleared the deal in 48 hours. Eleven officials and Rajiv
>Gandhi signed the deal and on March 21, 1986, 10 days ahead of the
>deadl! ine to which Quattrocchi had committed himself, the contract was
>signed.
>The bribe agreement between this shady company AE Services, and Bofors
>said: "Bofors will pay AE Services proportionate to the amount the
>Government of India pays to Bofors." The Government of India paid 20 per
>cent of the money to Bofors and exactly three per cent of 20 per cent
>was released in September 1986 to AE Services.
>Within 13 days, that money was transferred to an investment company and
>two years later, after The Hindu and The Indian Express came out with
>exposes on the deal, with documents as proof, it was transferred to
>another company and the Swiss Police unearthed the fact that the persons
>behind all the three companies into which these monies had gone was
>Quattrocchi and his wife.
>
>Only they had the authority to sign the secret accounts. When this was
>found out and the bank documents were be! ing transmitted, Quattrocchi
>filed an appeal against the transmission of documents in the Swiss Court
>but the court said he was a dishonest man and overruled the objection
>saying Quattrocchi was involved in the deal. He has taken bribes and he
>is related to the Indian administration at the highest level, the Swiss
>Court said.
>The Swiss Court order came in July 1993 when Narasimha Rao was the Prime
>Minister and the Interpol told the Government of India that Quattrocchi
>'s appeal in the Swiss Court had been dismissed, which meant "Arrest
>him." The powers-that-be gave Quattrocchi one week's time to escape.
>Just like Win Chadha has been allowed to escape an year earlier. And
>this man too flew out of India. When the CBI raided his home and found
>his diary notes,. these revealed Quattrocchi had been having dinner
>meetings with Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi. They found photographs and letters
>th! at had been exchanged, and everything was seized. Thereafter, the
>Delhi High Court issued an arrest warrant against Quattrocchi. He
>appealed to the Interpol which was dismissed.
>The Delhi High Court also dismissed it saying his presence was needed
>and he had to be arrested. These are all judicial orders printed,
>published, and available in the public domain. Thereafter the matter
>went to the Supreme Court. Quattrocchi told the Supreme Court through
>his advocates that he would come and present himself, and that he should
>not be arrested. The Supreme Court said, since the man says he will come
>and present himself and be available for interrogation, why should he be
>arrested?
>However, Quattrocchi defied the orders of the Supreme Court and did not
>turn up. He filed an affidavit in the Swiss Court saying that India was
>a brute nation and he cannot get justice in the judicial system of
>Indi! a. And Sonia Gandhi is defending this fellow Italian. It is,
>therefore, a blatant lie to say there are no documents to prove
>Quattrocchi's guilt.
>It is also a lie that Sonia did not know his plans to abscond from the
>country. It is impossible that somebody who resided in Delhi for 20
>years, who shared weekly evenings with Rajiv and Sonia, would have
>suddenly left Delhi , without even telephoning to her. She must have
>been privy to all these things and she has the audacity to ask where is
>the proof?
>So, truth has nothing to do with Sonia Gandhi. There is an absolute
>disconnect between her words and deeds. Now the issue is whether Sonia
>in politics is a national shame.
>
>Whether it is a national shame or not, it is certainly a danger to
>national security. Why do we have rules in the army which prohibit a
>foreigner, a foreign born person, even though he is a citizen, from
>oc! cupying 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? Sitting in the
>Prime Minister's Office, in the Prime Minister's home, a foreign wife
>for 15 years; who ran away with her husband when the nation was at war,
>breaching the discipline of commercial pilots is now a well, established
>fact. In India, the MLAs, MPs, and ministers are not subject to any rule
>or discipline. Even today whether an MLA or MP is a public servant is a
>matter that is being debated in courts.
>So, can an MP have a foreign wife.? Can a minister have a! foreign wife?
>This distortion has crept into the system. And what are the consequences
>of foreigners penetrating our polity?
>When George Fernandes spoke on this issue on the national television, it
>was chilling. He spoke of a particular file whlch contained all the
>secrets of the government. Where are the nuclear weapons, where are the
>missiles, 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 Vajpayee ceases to be the Prime Minister and Sonia becomes the
>Prime Minister, he will have to hand over this file to her. It will have
>every nationa1 security secret. If it falls into wrong hands, it will
>strip India naked before inimical forces.
>`Can we afford to hand over these secrets to her?` Fernandes s! aid 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 is in the hands of one man that
>will be handed over to this foreigner, should she achieve her political
>ambition.
>Whether somebody can speak tolerable Hindi or not is not the issue; it
>is far more serious. It goes to the root of the existence of the nation,
>its security and its survival. Sonia's loyalty to India will always be
>in doubt. If there is even a millionth of a chance that her loyalty to,
>this country is in question, it should be enough to disqualify her from
>prime ministership. The issue is not whether Sonia will succeed in
>becoming the Prime Minister, but the very idea that somebody like her
>can nurse such an ambition.
>If the intellectuals of India, whose duty it is to preserve the mind of
! >India have failed, I am certain that at least the ordinary people of
>India will succeed in protecting national interest as they did in 1977.

[virenderk]

Good article.
At least people will start evaluate themselves before admiring her as a new INDIAN Goddess!

[biotechs2001]

Thanks Anuj,
its a wonderful artical, but I didn't find it on TOI or Gurumurthy site.