Mahatma Gandhi’s great grandson Krishna Kulkarni’s open letter to Rahul Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi’s great grandson Krishna Kulkarni’s open letter to Rahul Gandhi in response to the Congress VP saying the RSS had killed Gandhi.

Dear Rahul Gandhi,
Gandhiji was my great grand father. He was assassinated by Mr. Nathuram Godse. Many inquiry commissions have researched the case and none has implicated the RSS.

My grandfather Ramdas Gandhi wrote to the then Home Minister, Sardar Patel to spare Mr. Godse the capital punishment.

Our family had moved on even then, and for your information, when Ramdas Gandhi lay dying in Mumbai(1969), Mr. Gopal Godse,
the younger brother of Mr. Nathuram Godse did pay him a visit. So as  it stands, this issue is over squarely in the past and my family has moved on..

My humble suggestion- your folks who own Congress (I) and your goodself, should move on and QUIT milking the name Gandhi and this issue for your SELFISH BENEFITS.

Have the magnanimity to accept the verdicts of the various commissions.

To keep harping that the RSS killed Gandhi is akin to saying the Sikhs killed your GRANDMOTHER.. which would be such a petty
falsehood isn’t it? A couple of guys don’t make for a community. So please stop this charade, this opportunistic usage of the Gandhi name.

YOU ARE NOT FROM THE GANDHI FAMILY. YOU HAVE FOOLED TOO MANY PEOPLE FOR TOO LONG USING GANDHI NAME IN INDIA. STOP IT NOW.

Feroze Gandhi was in reality Feroze Khan, son of a Gujarati Pathan from Junagadh in Kathiawad, whose wife happened to be a Parsi..

Your grandmother Indira was also Muslim having converted to Islam to marry Feroze. You are a mixture of Muslim and Christian.

There is no Rahul or Gandhi in you!

YOU are nowhere close to being a HINDU but a combination of MUSLIM/CATHOLIC DNA. With due respect to all the communities.

I am putting this in the public domain as someone from the Gandhi family has to call your bluff. A forward long overdue.

Truth About Rahul’s MPhil

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Truth-About-Rahuls-MPhil/2009/04/07/article55419.ece

Published: 07th April 2009 02:55 AM

Last Updated: 03rd December 2014 05:37 PM

A facsimile of certificate issued by University of Cambridge in the name of ‘Mr Raul Vinci’, the pseudonym given to Rahul Gandhi by British authoritie
A facsimile of certificate issued by University of Cambridge in the name of ‘Mr Raul Vinci’, the pseudonym given to Rahul Gandhi by British authoritie

Rahul Gandhi appears to have been economical with the truth on his affidavit while filing his election nomination papers in Amethi this weekend.

In the affidavit, he states that he obtained an MPhil from Trinity College of the University of Cambridge, UK, in 1995, in Developmental Economics. A certificate from the University shows that not only has he got dates wrong, he has even got the name of the course he took incorrect.

Worse, the man touted as a future prime minister failed one of his four papers.

Rahul got 58 per cent in “National Economic Planning and Policy” (according to the grading scale given in the certificate, 60 per cent is the minimum for a pass).

The certificate, shown alongside, was issued a year ago by Diana Kazemi, the secretary of the department of Development Studies (and not Developmental Economics) in which Rahul Gandhi studied.

He enrolled under the name ‘Raul Vinci’, a pseudonym given by the British authorities in a common practice as there are a good number of VVIP wards from around the world enrolled at British educational institutions. The pseudonym came to light during the 2004 elections in the Telegraph and the Hindu.

According to the University, Rahul read for the MPhil in 2004- 05, and not in 1994-95, as stated in his affidavit.

His affidavit’s other claim, to have obtained his Bachelors from Rollins College in Florida, USA, is true (and is a departure from earlier claims by ‘supporters’ that he graduated from Harvard). He also briefly attended St Stephen’s College in Delhi, gaining admission through the sports quota.

His mother (and Congress president) Sonia Gandhi was also in a minor controversy in 2004 over her educational qualifications.

Her nomination papers’ affidavit claimed she obtained a certificate in English from Lennox Cook School, University of Cambridge, in 1965. After it was revealed that the school had no affiliation to the University, Sonia claimed that the error on the affidavit was the result of a secretarial typing mistake.

Explosive revelations about Rahul Gandhi and a British company

  • Explosive revelations about Rahul Gandhi and a British company

Here is a copy of the letter Dr. Subramanian Swamy wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Rahul Gandhi declaring himself as a citizen of United Kingdom with an address located in London…

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 001 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 001 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 002 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 002 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 003 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 003 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 004 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 004 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 005 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 005 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 006 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 006 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 007 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 007 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 008 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 008 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 009 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 009 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 010 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 010 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 011 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 011 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 012 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 012 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 013 scanned copy

Subramanian Swamy’s letter to PM on Rahul Gandhi and his British nationality 013 scanned copy

Documents reveal Nehru govt shared information on Netaji with Britain’s MI5

Here is how the kept press of India gives news without news!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Documents-reveal-Nehru-govt-shared-information-on-Netaji-with-Britains-MI5/articleshow/46893271.cms

NEW DELHI: Not only did the Nehru government snoop on Netaji Subhas Bose but also shared confidential information with British intelligence agency MI5. Recently, declassified documents reveal India’s Intelligence Bureau shared with MI5 a letter between close Netaji aide AC Nambiar and nephew Amiya Nath Bose acquired through “secret censorship” and even sought more information on the subject.

The MI5 documents have become public at a time when Indian secret documents reveal that the late PM Jawarharlal Nehru had authorized surveillance on freedom fighter Netaji Bose’s family including nephews Amiya Bose and Sisir Kumar Bose.

DID NEHRU BETRAY NETAJI, (Extracts from Samar Guha M.P.’s NETAJI – DEAD OR ALIVE?)

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/politics-society/60685-how-nehru-gandhi-treated-netaji-indias-independence.html

There was a time when strong doubts persisted if Netaji was still alive or indeed dead in that airplane accident. The British Intelligence must have had pursued the matter further at Kabul and at Tehran for ascertaining the truth about the report of Netaji’s arrival at Moscow and submitted their findings to the GoI. But no report of such follow-up action was placed either before the Shah Nawaz Committee or the Khosla Commission. The Government under Mrs. Gandhi told Khosla Commission that many confidential files of Nehru connected with the reports about Netaji were either missing or destroyed. These files were dealt with by the personal secretary of Pandit Nehru – Mohammad Yunus . These files are still with this man and NOT in the public archives of the GoI. Can anyone believe it?

The British intelligence team informed their Government that Pandit Nehru “received a secret communication from Bose”. This report was confirmed by a witness, Shri Shyamlal Jain of Meerut, while he deposed before Khosla Commission. In 1945-46, Shri Jain was working as a confidential steno of Asaf Ali (remember him? The traitor who handed over a ship-load of weapons to Pakistan, purchased by the GoI!) who was Secretary to the INA Defense Committee with Bhulabhai Desai as its Chairman and Pandit Nehru as one of its prominent members. This confidential steno of the INA Defense Committee, in the course of his deposition, made a shocking revelation about Nehru’s attitude toward Netaji.
Shri Jain told Khosla Commission:
“I solemnly affirm and state on oath that one evening (the date may be Dec. 26 or 27, 1945) I was called by Shri Jawaharlal Nehru on telephone to come to the residence of Shri Asaf Ali with a typewriter as he had a lot of work to be typed by me, which I complied. After getting some papers typed by me, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru drew out a paper from the pocket of his achkan and asked me to make four copies of it for him. The said paper was a hand-written matter and was somewhat difficult to read. Now, what was written on that paper, I am trying to reproduce from my memory:”
“Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose proceeding by aeroplane from Saigon arrived today, August 23, 1945 at Dairen (Manchuria) at 1:30 afternoon. The said plane was a Japanese bomber plane. It was full of gold in the shape of bars, ornaments and jewelry. Netaji carried two attache cases, one in each hand. On alighting from the plane, Netaji took tea with bananas. When Netaji finished tea, he along with four others, out of which one was a Japanese named General Shidei (and others have lapsed from memory), took their seats in a jeep standing nearby. The said jeep proceeded toward Russian territory. After about 3 hours the said jeep returned and informed the pilot of the plane who flew back to Tokyo.”
“After handing over the said paper to me for typing, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru went to Mr. Asaf Ali and remained busy in conversation with him for 10 or 15 minutes…I could not complete the work, because the name of the writer on that letter was not readable, and I kept waiting for Shri Jawaharlal to come and tell me the name. In the meantime, I went through the letter several times and that is all that I could remember to the present day. Shri Jawaharlal could not discern the name of the writer and asked me to pull out the papers and hand them over as they were.

“I solemnly affirm and state on oath that thereafter Shri Jawaharlal Nehru gave me four papers from his writing pad to make four copies of a letter, which he would dictate to me on typewriter, which I also complied. The contents of the letter, as far as I could remember, were as follows:

“To Mr.Clement Attlee,
Prime Minister of Britain,
10 Downing Street, London.
Dear Mr. Attlee:

I understand from a reliable source that Subhas Chandra Bose, your war criminal,
has been allowed to enter Russian territory by Stalin. This is a clear treachery ad betrayal of faith by the Russians. As Russia has been an ally of the British-Americans, it should not have been done. Please take note of it and do what you consider proper and fit.
Yours sincerely,
Jawaharlal Nehru.”

One has to rub one’s eyes many times to read and then to believe what Shri Jain told the Khosla Commission. Can the evidence of Shri Jain be relied upon? It appears as unthinkable that Pandit Nehru could stoop down so low to ask Mr. Attlee to see that “their war criminal Bose” was buried alive in Russia. But from the circumstantial facts the testimony of Jain cannot be discarded as a figment of any ugly imagination.

1. The British Intelligence affirmed that Pandit Nehru received a secret communication from Netaji and Jain confirmed it further without knowing anything about this secret report.
2. Col. Tada, one of the principal architects of Netaji’s escape plan confided to S.A. Iyer in 1951 that the Japanese agreed to make necessary arrangements to convey Netaji to Russian territory across the border of Manchuria.
3. Neither the Government Counsel appearing before the Inquiry Commission, nor Mr. Khosla either challenged or refuted the veracity of Jain’s testimony.
4. Most of the secret files about Netaji, that were maintained by Pandit Nehru himself as “P.M.’s special” files, one of which included all communications connected with INA Defense Committee, were reported by the Government as “either missing or destroyed”. It will not be easy to presume that Netaji’s communication to Nehru and a copy of Nehru’s letter to Attlee have also been destroyed.
5. Pandit Nehru’s attitude toward Netaji completely changed after he met Mountbatten at Singapore in 1946. Late Amritlal Seth, former editor of the Gujarati Daily Janmabhumi, who accompanied Nehru during his visit to Singapore told late Sarat Chandra Bose immediately after his return from Singapore that Panditji was warned by the British Admiral that, according to his report, ‘Bose’ did not die in the alleged air crash and if Nehru played up too high with the legends of Bose and demands for re-absorption of the INA in the Indian Army, he would be taking the risk of presenting India on a platter to Bose when he reappeared.
6. The report of Amritlal Seth is corroborated by two facts. On arrival at Singapore Pandit Nehru was given a rousing reception by the INA there, when Panditji agreed to their request to place a wreath on the INA Martyr Monument, which was demolished under orders from Mountbatten immediately after British re-occupation of Singapore…Strangely, next day, Nehru refused to attend the INA Martyr Memorial ceremony organized at Singapore. About three decades later, Mountbatten boastfully stated in the ‘Nehru Oration’ speech that Nehru acted very compliantly on his advice regarding the treatment about the INA.
7. After his return from Singapore, Nehru never uttered a word about Netaji for over a decade even after he became the Prime Minister of India. Till fifties, AIR was instructed not to cover any special talk on Netaji or broadcast any news about Netaji’s birthday, exceeding a few minutes. All army barracks were prohibited from displaying any portrait of Netaji and this ban-order continued for years even after withdrawal of the British Power.
8. After coming to power, Pandit Nehru got all the secret British reports which informed the Wavell Government that Bose reached Russia, but as Prime Minister of India he never inquired anything publicly about these reports from the Russian Government.
9. Nehru all along opposed any demand of a full-fledged judicial inquiry about the Netaji mystery and appointed Shah Nawaz Committee mainly for the purpose of scuttling the move for a non-official inquiry about Netaji under the chairmanship of Dr. Radha Benode Pal.
Thus, Nehru’s changed attitude lends credence to the testimony of Shyamlal Jain.

How Nehru, Gandhi treated Netaji and India’s independence

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/politics-society/60685-how-nehru-gandhi-treated-netaji-indias-independence.html

The contribution made by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose towards the achievement of freedom in 1947 was no less, and perhaps far more important than that of Mohandas Gandhi

by Dipin Damodharan / www.theviewspost.com
History is like that, it always shows leaning towards the ruling class. It happened in the case of India too. When the Indian National Congress (INC) came to power in 1947 after India’s independence, they had distorted Indian history in their own way.

And the true national hero, many historians call him the real father of modern India, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose moved out to trash bin. India’s first Prime Minister, also the creator of the country’s many problems including Kashmir, had tried his level best to put Netaji in the hidden shades of history.

In other words we can say Nehru’s congress and independent India had shown unpardonable ingratitude to the real man behind India’s freedom. ViewsPost tries to go back to some historical facts to expose the betrayers (including Nehru) of Netaji.

Lt. Manwati Arya, Rani Jhansi Regiment, Ex. INA (Indian National Army), candidly exposes many facts regarding the ant-Netaji policy of Congress and Nehru in her 2010 book, Judgment, No Air crash, No Death.

In this book she says that Jawaharlal Nehru had given a very cold response to initiate any action to decipher the truth about Netaji’s death.

Lt. Manwati Arya also explains that the Nehru government had adopted an anti-Netaji policy to banish steadily the contributions of Netaji and his struggle against the British rule for the independence of the country.

Nehru’s shoddy plans

Nehru’s substandard actions to insult Netaji had no boundaries. The ‘great’ prime minister of India had also tried to put a ban for hanging up Netaji’s portraits in public places including offices and army mess halls.
“I also asked Attlee about the extent to which their decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhiji’s activities. On hearing this Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered slowly, putting strong emphasis on each single letter: ‘MI-NI-MAL’.”

In a confidential memo dated February 11, 1949, under the signature of Major General P N Khandoori, the government recommended:”The photos of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose be not displayed at prominent places, Unit Lines, Canteens, Quarter Guards or Recreation rooms.”

Lt. Manwati Arya, in her book on Netaji, remembers that during her talks in All India Radio (AIR) she was always briefed by her programme producers, without fail, about the national policy to be careful and not mention any reference of the INA including the name of Netaji in her discourse on AIR.

All these actions were to be expected from Nehru, a prime minister heavily favoured by the British, at the same time, he had no legacy to project himself as a proud freedom fighter.

Nehru had succeeded in getting support for his anti-Netaji policies even from Netaji’s comrades in INA like Shah Nawaz Khan, S A Ayer etc. These people betrayed Netaji for cheap positions offered by Nehru in the then government.

Remember, Shah Nawaz Khan was the chairman of National Inquiry Committee (NIC) constituted by Nehru in 1956.
The ‘great’ prime minister of India had also tried to put a ban for hanging up Netaji’s portraits in public places including offices and army mess halls
Real man behind freedom
Who is the real father or the man behind India’s freedom? This question is always controversial.

Many eminent historians had neglected the over-exaggerated projection of Mohandas Gandhi as the father of modern India. Dr R C Majumdar in his book, History of the Freedom Movement in India (1948), put forward:
“The honour and esteem with which every Indian regarded the members of the INA, offered a striking contrast to the ill-concealed disgust and contempt for those sepoys (soldiers) who refused to join the INA and remained true to their so-called salt. The British came to realize that they were sitting on the brink of a volcano which may erupt at any moment.
It is highly probable that this consideration played an important role in their final decision to quit India in 1947. So the members of the INA did not die or suffer in vain, and their leader Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose has secured a place of honour in the history of India’s struggle for freedom.”

In the same book, Majumdar candidly states that “the contribution made by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose towards the achievement of freedom in 1947 was no less, and perhaps far more important than that of Mohandas Gandhi, and I hope true historians and all lovers of truth now accept this view.

From the horse’s mouth
Clement Attlee was the Prime Minister of Britain when India got freedom in 1947. Therefore his words on Netaji have relevant and important than any proof.

Attlee had a visit to Kolkata When P B Chakraborti was the acting governor of West Bengal. The following are the words selected from Chakraborty’s thanks note (dated March 30, 1976) for the publication of Dr R C Majumdar’s book.

“I had then a long talk with Attlee about the real grounds for the voluntary withdrawal of the British from India. I put it straight to him like this:
The Quit India movement of Gandhiji practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in Indian situation at that time which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry? Why did you then do so?
In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which are the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundations of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government.

I also asked Attlee about the extent to which their decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhiji’s activities.
On hearing this Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered slowly, putting strong emphasis on each single letter: ‘MI-NI-MAL’.”

But all these historical facts have been neglected by our history text books penned by pseudo-historians.

‘Sonia Gandhi was godmother of 66A’

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/sonia-gandhi-was-godmother-of-66a#.VRfWHXS0T1w.twitter

Key sources claim that Sonia Gandhi wished the amended IT Act to pass to help prevent the publication of uncomplimentary references to her and others close to her on various websites.

MADHAV NALAPAT  28th Mar 2015

ho was responsible for the abomination referred to as Section 66A of a revised Information Technology Act which itself has features which belong less to a democracy than to an authoritarian state? It took Justices Chelameshvar and Nariman of the Supreme Court of India to move the legal system in India closer to what it ought to be in a country which claims to be a democracy. A 24-year-old lawyer, Shreya Singhal was the trigger behind the challenge to the Act in the Supreme Court. For after all, it is the young who have the most to lose unless the shackles of the colonial legal and administrative system carefully preserved by Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors gets scrapped and replaced with methods and laws valid for the 21st century. The Information Technology Act 2000 was replaced by an amended version passed without discussion in both Houses of Parliament on December 23 and 24, 2008, coming into force ten months later. It is not coincidental that it is after the amended version has come into force that this country’s advantage in Information Technology has been severely challenged by other countries, including the Philippines. The amended Act made any internet-related activity operating out of India a hazardous occupation, because of the ease with which both service providers as well as users of the worldwide web can get tossed into jail, in effect at the whim of an official or the political, commercial or other individual controlling the decisions of such a functionary.

From the start, this writer has opposed the amended Information Technology (IT) Act, and in the process, sought to ascertain the inspiration behind its origins. What key political insiders claim is that the amended Act was the result of the “advice from UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi that legislation get passed which would assist in preventing the flood of less than complimentary references to her and others close to her in several websites”. Both the print as well as the broadcast media have treated Sonia Gandhi with the same elevated degree of reverence as shown by Prime Ministers Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and Modi, so it is understandable that the Congress president would have been less than happy at this section of the media being in parts considerably less solicitous of her than the “Establishment” in India and abroad has been over the decades. These insiders say that the UPA chairperson’s pressure on the government to deal with uncomplimentary posts by muzzling online freedom of speech was relentless, especially from end-2007 onwards. They claim that it was because of this informal directive from the Congress president that the amended Act was devised and passed in 2008 with the support of the BJP. Although A. Raja’s name has been tossed about — most recently by H.R. Bharadwaj — as the prime mover of the amended IT Act, insiders say that “Raja was listened-to only when it suited the Congress leadership”. Whenever the Congress leadership was lukewarm towards a Raja proposal, “Sonia Gandhi would speak to Karunanidhi, who would fall in line. Hence, to say that A. Raja was responsible (for the amended IT Act) is laughable”. When asked whether Rahul Gandhi was of the same view as Sonia Gandhi in the matter of laws to intensify online policing, the reply was that “Rahul is considerably more liberal than his mother”. They claim that “incessant oral complaints were made to the UPA ministers about uncomplimentary posts on Sonia Gandhi, sometimes in very strong language” and that it was largely because of such informal communications from the Congress president that Government of India went ahead with the infamous 2008 amendments to the IT Act of 2000.

As was pointed out by this writer multiple times in the past, the UPA has, numerous times during its decade in office, passed pieces of legislation that would appear to have come after consultations with Kim Jong Un, the boisterous boss of North Korea. In practically every sphere of significant activity and operation, already harsh laws have been tightened, often significantly, so that life has become a minefield for those citizens lacking the billions of rupees needed to afford a top lawyer or the good luck to be related to (and possess a soft corner within the heart of) a politician of influence or a senior official. In such writings, this writer placed the blame for such enactments on Kapil Sibal and Palaniappan Chidambaram, but credible individuals reiterate that the brain behind the incessant intensification of colonial-era laws and administrative practices was Sonia Gandhi, and that Chidambaram and Sibal were merely following her wishes with the fealty and dogged determination both have demonstrated in this regard over the years.

Others view such placing of the blame on Sonia Gandhi as unfair, pointing out that she has been vocal on multiple occasions in expressing her love for the common man and the underprivileged, and has shown a partiality towards known campaigners for citizens’ rights such as Aruna Roy, who mentored Arvind Kejriwal during that period when the Chief Minister of Delhi was not yet being informed by his key supporters that he was born to save India from sloth and poverty, and that the most effective way of ensuring success in such a task would be to expel or marginalise from the Aam Aadmi Party all except those holding a similar view. As for Chidambaram and Sibal, the duo have modern views and intellects considerably above the average, which indeed was why it was particularly disappointing that they ensured that Manmohan Singh would enter history as the Prime Minister who in his time created a system of laws, practices and regulations which sought to enslave the people of India as comprehensively as the British did in their time, and which marked a shameful retreat from the low levels of “reform” practised since Pamulaparthy Venkata Narasimha Rao became Prime Minister of India in 1992. Those who defend Sonia Gandhi claim that such measures were actually the result of the combined efforts of Chidambaram and Sibal, encouraged by Manmohan Singh (who seems to believe that the citizens of India need to be constrained and foreign interests liberated from the regulations imposed on locals). They say that this triumvirate was constantly looking for ways of tightening the control of state agencies over the citizen. They add that Sonia Gandhi is in fact “liberal”, as evidenced by the fact that the Congress Party (of course, in a way which had zero practical effect) endorsed the repeal of the Queen Victoria-era law on homosexuality, and asked for the waiver of the death penalty in the case of a lady who was part of the plot to murder Rajiv Gandhi.

Despite the fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has declared his intention to transform the structure of governance in India in a 21st century manner, elements in his government somehow ignored this objective and followed the standard (19th century) practice of the Delhi establishment and justified in court even Section 66A of the amended IT Act rather than get it repealed, as several BJP leaders had promised before coming to power. Now that the Supreme Court of India has reminded the government that Article 19(1)a of the Constitution of India (despite a significant watering down of the provision by Nehru in subsequent years) stands at the core of the democratic process, hopefully, the magnificent judgement of Chelameshvar and Nariman will be followed by other SC decisions which go towards ensuring that India morphs into a country where it is civil society which rules, rather than (as in North Korea), the state machinery. What the NDA needs to do is to repeal the entire amended Act and bring back with some small modifications the original Information Technology Act 2000 passed by Prime Minister Vajpayee.

Prime Minister Modi needs to continue repealing several of the odious enactments that have the simultaneous effect of slowing down progress, while increasing the quantum of bribes collected. Hopefully, sometime in the future, enough of the records hoarded in secrecy by successive governments will get released, so that it becomes known as to whether it was Sonia Gandhi who was the prime mover behind the UPA’s flurry of Pyongyang-style laws and regulations, or the triumvirate of Manmohan Singh, Kapil Sibal and Palaniappan Chidambaram who were responsible for giving the state powers over the citizen that are contrary to any definition of democracy.