Monthly Archives: March 2011

Priyanka is the last trump card of the moth eaten Nehru Dynasty but the skeletons in her cupboard are already tumbling

‘After Rahul’s gaffes, Congress hopes shifted to Priyanka’

AFP “Congress insiders are waiting for the day when Priyanka will enter politics.” Rahul Gandhi with sister Priyanka.

U.S. Embassy cables reflect family insider’s ‘brutally frank’ assessment

After Rahul Gandhi, “the heir-apparent of the Gandhi family dynasty,” made a series of political gaffes in 2007, party insiders were waiting for the entry of his sister Priyanka Gandhi into politics, according to an assessment by the United States Embassy in New Delhi.

In a cable sent on April 23, 2007, Charge d’Affaires Geoffrey Pyatt (105346: confidential) said: “Congress insiders complain that he (Rahul Gandhi) is a neophyte who does not have what it takes to become Prime Minister. Their hopes have now shifted to yet another member of the Nehru dynasty, Rahul’s sister Priyanka, as they await her entry into politics.”

Making specific references to statements Mr. Gandhi made during a series of ‘road shows’ as part of the campaign for the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election, the cable said the gaffes suggested an “uneven start” to his active political career. On April 15, in a speech at a campaign rally, he had said: “I belong to the family which has never moved backwards, which has never gone back on its words. You know that when any member of my family had decided to do anything, he does it. Be it the freedom struggle, the division of Pakistan or taking India into the 21st Century.”

Prior to this, he had stated that the Babri Masjid “would have been protected had a member of the Gandhi family been in power.” At another rally, he had said the Congress’s “slide into the political wilderness in UP” started with its 1996 alliance with Mayawati and her Bahujan Samaj Party.

The cable reported an April 18 discussion with “Congress leader and Gandhi family insider” Nachiketa Kapur. Readers will recall that Mr. Kapur figured in the now famous cable dated July 17, 2008 (162458: secret) published by The Hindu on March 17. The cable reported on “two chests containing cash” Mr. Kapur (who was described as Satish Sharma’s “political aide”) showed a U.S. Embassy employee, adding that these were part of “around Rupees 50-60 crore…lying around the house for use as pay-offs” to MPs in the July 22, 2008 confidence vote.

Frank views

In a breezy section headlined ‘The Dynasty Dying Nasty,’ the cable said: “Kapoor [Kapur] was adamant that Rahul’s elliptical statements were spontaneous and off the cuff. Rahul’s speechwriter has reportedly confirmed that the remarks were unscripted and that Rahul refuses to use remarks drafted for him. Opining that Rahul is ‘out of touch,’ Kapoor noted that he has ‘no close friends or advisors,’ and that his own staff keeps him ‘at arm’s length’ as he is ‘arrogant and rude and doesn’t accept guidance from anyone.’ Kapoor exclaimed that Rahul ‘has no future, no talent for politics and will never be PM, as he has done nothing for the past three years.’ Kapoor pointed out that even if Congress wanted to make Rahul PM, it would not be able to do so, as it does not have an absolute majority and must rely on its coalition partners to stay in power. Implying that Rahul’s moment has already come and gone, Kapoor claimed that Congress insiders are predictably pinning their hopes on yet another of Nehru Dynasty member, Rahul’s sister Priyanka, and are waiting for the day when she will enter politics.”

The Comment section of the cable, cattily titled ‘Son Set,’ expressed this view: “In any event, regardless of the outcome of the UP elections, Rahul has made an uneven entry into active politics. While crowds at his “road show” events are often large, Rahul has not yet demonstrated that he has the charisma required to make it in Indian politics.”

In an earlier cable dated October 17, 2006 (82135: confidential), Mr. Pyatt said: “Heir apparent Rahul Gandhi continues to languish with little popular support, but we are told that his mother remains determined to install him as PM at the ‘appropriate’ time.”

In an October 11, 2006 meeting, “Sonia Gandhi confidant” Rashid Alvi insisted that “despite his lack of public appeal and political skills,” Mrs Gandhi will install her son as Prime Minister. “Alvi pointed out that Rahul’s ascension to the Gandhi family seat is not imminent, as it will ‘take time’ for him to be made ready, but there is no doubt that the party’s fortunes are inextricably tied to the young man’s presumed strengths and unexplored weaknesses.”

(This article is a part of the series “The India Cables” based on the US diplomatic cables accessed by The Hindu via WikiLeaks.)

So she doesn’t have to wear her red saree and sindhoor to hoodwink the masses?!

In the eyes of American diplomats, Congress president Sonia Gandhi appeared more comfortable working with the Left than with the regional parties in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). File Photo

The Hindu In the eyes of American diplomats, Congress president Sonia Gandhi appeared more comfortable working with the Left than with the regional parties in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). File Photo



In the eyes of American diplomats, Congress president Sonia Gandhi appeared more comfortable working with the Left than with the regional parties in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA).

In an assessment of Sonia Gandhi during the period of the first UPA government, a cable sent on April 6, 2005 (30212: confidential), under the name of Ambassador David Mulford, said: “Sonia and the Congress leadership complain about Communist obstruction, but are convinced that these parties, although ideological, are not ‘irresponsible.’ In the eyes of Congress leaders, most Communists are ‘pragmatic,’ projecting an image of looking after the poor and downtrodden, in order to mollify the party faithful, while not preventing government from functioning.”

Weekly meetings

According to the cable, she appeared “more comfortable working with the often high-caste and well-educated Communists than with regional satraps” of the State-based parties. “Several interlocutors claimed that the weekly meetings with the Communists, also attended by Mrs. Gandhi, are more important than the UPA Steering Committee meetings, as Congress has determined that it will put forward no significant economic initiative without first vetting it with the Communists, and attempting to gain their assent. In addition to formal meetings, Mrs. Gandhi calls Left Front leaders to her residence for breakfast on an ad hoc basis. The breakfasts take place only when Sonia and her advisors deem that there is an issue so pressing that it requires a conclave.”

The cable added: “While many in the Congress inner circle have some affinity with the Communists and work together with them on selected issues, they view the regional satraps of the UPA allies with disdain, and prefer to keep them at arm’s length. The recent Congress fiasco in Bihar, for example, convinced many in Congress that Bihar-based politicos Laloo Prasad Yadav and Ram Vilas Paswan are ‘loose cannons’ who cannot be trusted. Their disdain for these often rustic regional politicians has prevented Congress from properly managing the UPA coalition. Because of these engrained prejudices, Congress has been unable to focus on the BJP as its principal adversary, and instead has become mired in internecine squabbling.”

The Congress, the Embassy cabled, had evolved an elaborate culture aimed at protecting the Gandhi dynasty. “Mrs. Gandhi’s inner circle carefully controls her access to information, and inoculates her from criticism, while her carefully scripted public appearances protect her from making gaffes or missteps. This has the advantage of preserving the ‘sanctity’ of Mrs. Gandhi and the dynasty, but can also complicate her efforts to wield power. This system prevents Mrs. Gandhi from asserting herself and reduces her charisma, and makes her overly reliant on a selected group, which may not always have her or the party’s best interests at heart.”

Congress culture

Mrs. Gandhi had deliberately attempted to preserve the image of being ‘above the fray’ politically, “taking maximum advantage of Congress culture, which prescribes that the party figurehead be surrounded by an ‘inner coterie’ to provide advice, and shield the leader from criticism and dissent.” The Gandhis, the cable continued, “remain coy as to which of their many advisors are ‘in’ and which are ‘out,’ leading to endless speculation, and large numbers of people claiming to be close to the Gandhi family.”

U.S. Embassy contacts generally agreed that she and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have defined their roles “with the PM acting as a corruption-free technocrat handling governance,” and she concentrating on the “constant give-and-take associated with running an enormous political party with tens of millions of members and a disparate coalition.”

(This article is a part of the series “The India Cables” based on the US diplomatic cables accessed by The Hindu via WikiLeaks.)

Robert Vadra: Proxy Tycoon?

Sandhya Jain
19 Mar 2011
Fallout of the dwindling Dyarchy

Amidst the stench of corruption and malfeasance rising from the second political innings of the UPA coalition headed by Manmohan Singh but presided over by the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi comes a startling revelation – the unremarkable Robert Vadra, small time exporter of artificial jewellery and son-in-law of the Signora, is fast emerging as a virtual tycoon, with fingers in many industrial pies.


The revelations follow a public uproar over the outrageous loot of the exchequer in the Commonwealth Games and 2G Spectrum allotment scams, to mention only the most notorious. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his immediate family; circle of relations on both his own and his wife’s side; and personal friends, are nowhere indicted in any scandal.


The Gandhi family has been tainted with corruption and nepotism for at least four decades. Recently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal subtly revived the Bofors ghost by declaring that the late Win Chaddha had taken a legally banned commission on the Bofors gun deal, and hence owed the State a handsome sum as income tax dues! So while the Signora’s well-oiled protection machinery ensured that her countryman Ottavio Quattrocchi got away with the loot and that the Hinduja brothers did not suffer for their role in the affair, the ITAT decision ensured that the illegal gratification was recorded officially in the country’s legal history. It is a lesson in the limits of proxy rule.


And now, just a few weeks down the line, comes the news that Priyanka Gandhi’s fitness freak polo playing spouse is making strides in the real estate business, a sector riddled with nepotism and scandal as exemplified by the Adarsh housing scam in Maharashtra, which forced Ms Sonia Gandhi to urge Congress chief ministers to give up their discretionary powers in this area.


It is pertinent that facts personally embarrassing to the Gandhi family are emerging on the heels of strong nudges to Dr Manmohan Singh to step down so that Rahul Gandhi, reputedly the born-to-be ruler of India, could receive on-the-job training and redeem his otherwise inglorious existence. But the Prime Minister is no pushover and during a recent interaction with select senior journalists over the Spectrum Scam, explicitly stated he had no intention of resigning (read being driven out) as he had yet to go the metaphorical miles before he could consider an exit. In other words, he would go when the government went, and not before.


That these signals have been understood can be gauged from the fact that Sonia loyalists directly and indirectly sharpened their attack on the Prime Minister immediately thereafter. Senior ministers have urged journalists to target the Prime Minister and his office for the sins of omission and commission in the Spectrum scandal. Although the exposé of the Niira Radia tapes revealed that some journalists had networked with Congress leaders close to Sonia Gandhi to get the Telecom portfolio for Andimuthu Raja once again in the UPA-II – and that Singh had no say in the cabinet formation – senior ministers strove to implicate the Prime Minister enough to make him quit in disgust while publicly mouthing platitudes in his defence. It was schizophrenia at its best.


Dr Manmohan Singh is made of sterner stuff. Like the now forgotten Yuri Andropov who collected a handful of aides to erode the hated Soviet citadel from within, the Sardar too seems to have a set of unknown loyalists. His political ‘guru’ P.V. Narasimha Rao – no one even knew they were acquainted with each other until Manmohan Singh was anointed Union Finance Minister! – had secret Hindu sympathies that permitted the unhindered removal of the Babri structure in 1992 and so tilted the scales against the Congress in Uttar Pradesh that the party could not return to power for over a decade at the Centre, and that too only in coalition.


No one knows yet if Manmohan Singh has a covert personal or political agenda. But it is near certain that he was legitimately offended, if not enraged, at being asked at the very height of his stature as leader of a rising economic power who was being courted as a statesman in the international area, to step down in favour of the Amethi non-entity, who cannot even speak cogently on any issue of national concern and tends to disappear when things get politically controversial.


Sun shines over Robert Vadra


Whispers about the financial rise and rise of Robert Vadra have been doing the rounds for some years, escalating during the Commonwealth Games, but there was no independent corroboration of the same. This growing eminence is obviously a concerted decision of the Gandhi family and its courtiers, but could not have taken place without the knowledge of Dr Manmohan Singh and many others in industry and government. Thus, as in the Radia tapes episode, there are many sources from which the news could have leaked and it would be impossible to impute motives or fix responsibility. What is pertinent is the timing – it coincides with concerted attacks on the Prime Minister.


Robert Vadra’s entry into the real estate business has been accompanied by a partnership with the country’s largest realty firm, DLF Ltd, a staggering feat by any standards (The Economic Times, 14 March 2011). Hitherto known for the export of faux jewellery and handicrafts, the 42-year-old Vadra quietly switched lanes in 2008, buying up land in Haryana and Rajasthan, a 50% stake in a leading business hotel in Delhi, and attempting to enter the business of chartering aircraft, a quantum jump that certainly merits an explanation.
Vadra seems to have floated a number of companies, some of which have received unsecured loans from the DLF group companies, including the Bombay Stock Exchange-listed flagship DLF Ltd. Readers may recall that during investigations into the Spectrum Scam, the CBI found that a number of non-entity (shell) companies had received and passed on unsecured loans that ended up in Kalaignar TV! It believes these were bribes received against the sale of spectrum at throwaway prices, and that the loans would ultimately be cancelled as ‘bad debt’ and the slate wiped clean. Thus, Vadra’s receipt of unsecured loans certainly merits a probe.


Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (wholly owned by Vadra and his mother Maureen Vadra) is a partner, along with DLF Hotel Holdings and others, in a partnership firm that owns the posh Hilton Garden Inn in Saket.
DLF’s generous loans to Vadra companies, some without collateral, include:

–        As on March 2009, Sky Light Hospitality had received unsecured loans amounting to Rs 25 crore from DLF Ltd.

–        As on March 2010, only Rs 10 crore remained. It was unclear from the statement of accounts if the rest was paid back or written off.

–        Sky Light Hospitality in turn loaned money to other Vadra-owned companies such as Blue Breeze Trading Pvt. Ltd, North India IT Parks Pvt. Ltd, Real Earth Estates Pvt. Ltd and Sky Light Realty Pvt. Ltd.


Knowledge of such unprecedented asset escalation naturally took the polity by surprise, though the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party tried to play down the issue owing to the covert proximity of some top leaders with the Congress and Sonia Gandhi in particular. A pathetic argument was forwarded that the party should not target the “family members” of the Congress leadership, an euphemism for Sonia Gandhi, though such sensitivity was not extended to the India-born M. Karunanidhi, and anyway has no place in public life.


For the CPI-M, however, Robert Vadra’s successful entrepreneurship has come as a timely boon, and the party hopes to extract full mileage from the same during the forthcoming assembly elections in West Bengal and Kerala. Sitaram Yechury emphasized that there was a strong case for an independent inquiry into Vadra’s activities.


Ra(h)ul (da) Vinci

Any investigation into Robert Vadra’s entrepreneurial prominence must legitimately cover the coy attempts of his brother-in-law Rahul Gandhi to become a business magnate. Media reports about the Amethi MP are opaque and have been noted perfunctorily only because Gandhi was compelled to reveal the same in his affidavit before the Election Commission.


In 2002, Rahul Gandhi launched a consultancy engineering firm, Backops Services Private Limited, with an authorized share capital of Rs 25 lakhs, divided into 25,000 equity shares of Rs 100 each. Gandhi himself held 83 per cent shares in the firm; the other shareholders were close family friend and aide Manoj Muttu; Anil Thakur, son of Madhya Pradesh Governor Rameshwar Thakur; and Delhi resident Ranvir Sinha.


Gandhi holds a mysterious M. Phil degree in Development Studies from Cambridge University, UK, though nobody knows when and where he completed his graduate and post-graduate studies. To this day not a single person has surfaced anywhere in the world to say that Raul Vinci (his disguise) was his/her classmate at x y or z college. The then Cambridge Master Amartya Sen defended the degree while stoutly declining to give details. However, in the wake of the Saif Gaddafi Ph.D. degree scam, it may be safe to assume that a friendly London establishment “took care of” the academic credentials of the wanna be PM-aspirant.


Similarly Raul Vinci is supposed to have done a stint as financial consultant in London. No colleague has stepped forward to say where, and how good or mediocre he was at the job.


What now merits investigation without delay – and the Supreme Court must urgently look into the same – is how Rahul Gandhi took on the identity of Raul Vinci. The specious plea that this was done for security reasons will not wash: Benazir Bhutto’s son Bilawal studies abroad under his own name, as do the scions of other eminent families.

–        So how did Rahul Gandhi get the Raul Vinci identity?

–        Was he given a Raul Vinci passport by the Indian passport office?

–        If so, what are the names of the alleged parents of Raul Vinci and what is the place of residence given on the document?

–        Or was a passport issued by a foreign country? Does this mean that Rahul Gandhi enjoys dual citizenship of some European country, which is illegal in Indian law?

–        Where is that passport now and how often and where has Rahul Gandhi travelled on it?


On 21 March 2011, The Indian Express reported that some time prior to the 2009 elections, Rahul gave up his business venture, Backops Services Private Limited, to devote himself to full-time politics. It was by all accounts a modest venture, nothing compared to the phenomenal ascent of Robert Vadra. What is pertinent, however, is the suspicious overlap in Rahul Gandhi’s retreat from business and Vadra’s big time leap into the arena.


Wikileaks: Sardar – Signora Dyarchy in distress


The Wikileaks revelations regarding American interest and overseeing of the 2008 cash-for-vote scam due to the Indo-US nuclear deal could not have come at a worse time for Sonia Gandhi, who once stated that the deal was very close to her heart, but did not say why.


On 18 March 2011, Dr Manmohan Singh told Parliament he did not authorise anyone to purchase any votes: “I am not aware of any purchase of votes. Certainly, I am not involved in any such things.” One can readily believe that; it is totally out of sync with the known character of Dr Singh.


More pertinently, all the alleged fixers in the 22 July 2008 cash-for-votes episode are closely aligned with Sonia Gandhi and her family, which lends credence to the view that the nuclear deal was one of her ‘pet projects’ for unknown reasons. To recap the Wiki revelations briefly:


–        Gandhi family loyalist Satish Sharma’s aide Nachiketa Kapur told a US Embassy official that the four RLD MPs [actually three] were paid Rs 10 crores each to vote for UPA-1. [Ajit Singh denied the charges and said his party voted against the government in the no-confidence motion].


–        Kapur allegedly showed the US Embassy employee “two chests containing cash” in July 2008 [to assure him that the nuclear deal would go through] and said Rs 50-60 crores was ready for use as “pay-offs” to win the support of some MPs ahead of crucial vote of confidence following Left withdrawal of support on account of the Indo-US nuke deal.


–        Satish Sharma reportedly told the US Political Counsellor that “PM Singh and others were trying to work on the Akali Dal (8 votes) through NRI businessman Sant Singh Chatwal and others, but unfortunately it did not work out” [robustly denied by Chatwal].


–        Industrialist Mukesh Ambani offered to help secure Shiv Sena’s support.


–        Congress chief Sonia Gandhi might meet Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs.


–        Sharma told US embassy political counselor that Rahul Gandhi was speaking to National Conference’s Omar Abdullah.


–        A Congress insider reported that then commerce minister Kamal Nath was “also helping to spread largesse”.


–        The cables talk of the Left’s troubles with Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee’s refusal to quit and Ajit Singh’s success in getting Lucknow’s Amausi airport renamed after his late father Charan Singh.


–        Satish Sharma quoted to say he was trying to sow divisions in BJP by working on former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s son-in-law Ranjan Bhattacharya.


–        Prakash Karat-Sitaram Yechury fault lines; Yechury admitted it was a mistake to have listed Speaker Chatterjee as a CPM MP in a letter withdrawing support, submitted to the President on July 8. A large group of CPM MPs unhappy at Karat for his “failed” strategy.


–        Regarding Left parties, cables say though defections were a possibility, communist party discipline remained strong and members were unlikely to vote with the government.


It thus transpires that the landmark achievement of the UPA in its first innings – the Indo-US Nuclear Deal – was the agenda of Sonia Gandhi, and she put her entire political weight behind it. Dr Manmohan Singh owned it as a good lieutenant and because he was himself pro-America, but he did not have either the money or the manipulative skills to push it through as happened on 22 July 2008.


Sonia Gandhi’s covert patronage of the deal also explains why CNN-IBN ditched the BJP and refused to air the secret tapes of the behind-the-scenes horse-trading as promised on 22 July 2008. Of course this does not explain why Mr L.K. Advani – who had previously made a veiled pledge to Senator Joe Liebermann regarding the deal – chose CNN-IBN to make the recording in the first place, when the party had its own equipment and talent to make the recordings and had done so successfully in another case.


Anyway, it is now evident that the undeserved elevation of the inane Rahul Gandhi has sundered the Sonia Gandhi – Manmohan Singh Dyarchy. Had it not been for an obliging BJP, the regime would have fallen by now.


This may still happen, as Sonia Gandhi may find it cheaper to cut her losses by sinking the government rather than risk the mild-faced Sardar using the state machinery to put the family in the dock, compelling the Supreme Court to order an investigation à la Hasan Ali.


If the government falls out of its own inner contradictions, the BJP will find itself in an unenviable position.

The author is Editor,

Also see:

Swamy seeks to prosecute Chidambaram, Sonia

CHENNAI: Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy Monday alleged that union Home Minister P. Chidambaram is involved in the 2G spectrum allocation scam and would seek the prime minister’s sanction to prosecute him.”I will seek the prime minister’s sanction to prosecute Chidambaram. I will also seek the sanction of the prime minister for the prosecution of (Congress president) Sonia Gandhi, heading the National Advisory Council (NAC), for corruption,” Swamy said.He said a cabinet committee had directed former communications minister A. Raja and the then finance minister, Chidambaram, to arrive at the price at which the 2G radio waves were to be sold.The then home minister, Shivraj Patil, had prepared a report against allocating spectrum to Swan Telecom and Unitech on security reasons, he added.Swami alleged that after becoming the home minister, Chidambaram did not pass the information to Raja.He declined to say what was the basis of his seeking the prime minister’s permission to prosecute Gandhi.Swamy claimed that Robert Vadra, Gandhi’s son-in-law, had 20 percent stake in Unitech.


`The government will be run under her guidance’ – Manmohan as PM. ‘Her’ refers to SoniaG, the supra-PM.

`The government will be run under her guidance’ – Manmohan as PM.
‘Her’ refers to SoniaG, the supra-PM, beyond the Constitution.

The Myth of the Renunciation

Krishen Kak
13 Mar 2011
“The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, for a lie so `colossal’ that no one would believe that someone `could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously’”

(, 26/2/11).

“…when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it…” – Joseph Goebbels, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel, Jan 12, 1941.

“…people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it…” – “Hitler As His Associates Know Him”,, para 26.


The Constitution of India is the defining text of the Republic of India. The Constitution states “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President” (Art 74.1) and “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People” (Art 75.3).


The Union Cabinet is the inner council of the Council of Ministers. The Indian Prime Minister is Dr Manmohan Singh. He heads the Union Cabinet and the Council of Ministers. The buck stops with him. This is the de jure position.


“Madam, what Cabinet are you talking about? You direct and everything would be done”.[1]

It is popularly acknowledged that “Madam” is Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and that she heads Dr Manmohan Singh. This is extra-Constitutional. She is responsible to no one. No buck stops with her. This is the de facto position in our country.[2] How did this come about?


Through the Myth of the Renunciation.


In Christian mythology (Luke 1.26-38), as also in Islamic mythology (Koran 3.45-51; 19.16-26), the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she was going to bear a son, even though she was a virgin. Her son was to be called Jesus. Roman Catholics celebrate, nine months before Christmas, this story as the Annunciation. Protestants, however, call this story the Myth of the Annunciation. Nevertheless, this myth is accepted as true by an estimated 2.47 billion or more Catholics and Muslims the world over.[3] There is not an iota of factual evidence in support of the Annunciation.


Likewise, in India, we have our Nehru-Gandhi mythology and we have a hagiolatrous myth that is still broadcast and believed by millions not just in India but the world over. This is the Myth of the Renunciation, that “Santa Sonia, our Lady of Renunciation, so graciously handed the reins of power to her chosen subordinate…”[4] There is not an iota of factual evidence in support of the Renunciation.


In December 2010, Wikileaks reported Sonia Gandhi’s freewheeling confession to Maria Shriver that was claimed to “put the lie to cocktail party suggestions that she courts Manmohan Singh’s job”. No, as too ispopularly acknowledged, she doesn’t need to court his job. Courtesy the Myth of the Renunciation, she can and does enjoy our country’s prime minister’s power and perquisites without any of its responsibility or accountability.


A Garrulous Sonia Gandhi Opens Up To Maria Shriver.

Maria Shriver, wife of the governor of California and Sonia Gandhi, the most powerful person in India and the head of the ruling Congress party, have a one hour meeting…For her visitors, Mrs. Gandhi is warm, even effusive, admirable, informed far from her normal reserved self, her “Italian” nature showing through.

Without prompting and at her own initiative Mrs. Gandhi then spoke at length about her personal life……

In a candid revelation of her personal political stance, Mrs. Gandhi stated that “the right was becoming strong in India and Congress weak,” tipping her hand and “compelling” her to enter politics to protect the Gandhi family legacy. She also revealed that her children were “not keen” about the idea, but eventually told her, “whatever you decide, we will back you.”

Mrs. Gandhi was reluctant to provide details regarding her decision to turn down the Prime Minister’s post after the UPA’s surprise 2004 electoral victory, stating that “I am often asked about this, but tell people that I will write a book someday with the whole story.” She would only say that she “felt better” that someone else became PM and “did not regret” her decision. Shriver congratulated Mrs. Gandhi for her resoluteness and described her as “courageous.” Clearly embarrassed by this adulation, Mrs. Gandhi made no response. She elaborated, at Karan Singh’s insistence, saying that she was under lots of pressure, as the “party workers” were “very upset.” They “could not understand” why she, as party President, was not taking up the post, since they had voted for her and won a majority……

Despite her carefully erected Indian persona, her basic Italian personality is clearly evident in her mannerisms, speech and interests.[5]

The Wikileaks report contains all the key elements of the Myth of the Renunciation, cunningly and assiduously constructed and broadcast by our Nehruvian-seculariat.


In the Year of Her Lord 2004, Edvige Antonia Albina Maino alias Sonia Gandhi[6] led her Congress Party to a much-debated win in our country’s general election. Among the first to revel were Italians. The “Cinderella of Orbassano” was preened as the Empress of India, and there was gloating in what “India’s National Newspaper” called her “native town”:

In Orbassano, the mainly blue-collar township where Ms Gandhi grew up, there was jubilation. Major Carlo Marroni, the Mayor of Orbassano told The Hindu: “We are extremely happy and proud that a daughter of our commune is poised to become the Prime Minister of India…”

Claudio Gallo of the Turin-based daily La Stampa said… “We welcome this development. It means we can hope for more secular policies from the new Indian Government…”….

Guido Rampoldi of the daily La Repubblica told The Hindu in a telephone interview: “We are very proud of the fact that Ms Gandhi has succeeded and India should be proud too. It shows an openness and maturity on the part of the Indian electorate that would be hard to find anywhere. I cannot, for instance see a woman of Indian origin becoming a head of government in Europe. But of course, she’s not really Italian any more. Quite understandably, she wants to cut ties with Italy, so as not to offer any ammunition that her enemies could exploit…”[7]


From the mouths of Italian horses you have it. They wanted “more secular policies” though neither the Vatican State nor the Italian State extend to Indians/Hindus the kind of civic and political rights the Indian State extends to Italians/Christians. They claimed “she’s not really Italian any more” and “wants to cut ties with Italy”, though the evidence is so convincingly to the contrary, and the Americans when she met Maria Shriver were certainly not fooled.


The evidence of the Indian contribution to the Italian economy through the Nehru-Gandhi connection, the evidence of the Italian contribution to Indian security strategy, the silence of Orbassano’s Cinderella over the Pope’s 1999 declaration in India to convert us to Catholicism, the evidence of Cinderella fleeing with her children – and the children are Italians under Italian law – to Italian hearths when India was under threat, and so on…


But the most telling comment came from Bruno Crimi of Panorama magazine, who covered the Indian elections for it. In the magazine “owned by Italy’s Prime Minister and media magnate, Silvio Berlusconi”, Crimi crowed: We both have Italian Prime Ministers now…

Only, of course, she still wasn’t the prime minister.


Sonia Gandhi, during her election campaign, had shrilled her pride at belonging to the family that had sacrificed so much, that had sacrificed its lives for the nation.


What sacrifice? An ordinary jawan and his family sacrifice more. Consider the facts.


If the Nehru-Gandhis died for the nation, then so does any public servant who dies while on duty. The nature or the emotion of the dying does not alter this principle. Sacrificing one’s life for the nation means going out to die for it – as a jawan does. Not one of the Nehru-Gandhis went out to die – on the contrary, they were heavily protected by jawans against such an eventuality. But a jawan off to war says his farewells first, because he knows – as does his family – that he may not come back. Whose, then, is the real sacrifice? Who, then, really dies for the nation?


Now consider what a “grateful” nation has given the Nehru-Gandhis for their so-called sacrifices for the nation…


Apart from Bharat Ratnas and numerous taxpayer-borne perquisites[8], there is the control over vast areas of prime Indian real estate. In Delhi alone, the family, protected at taxpayer’s cost, occupies, again at taxpayer’s cost, three centrally-located enormously valuable public properties. Through the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation it occupies and controls another enormously valuable piece of real estate; this Foundation has been the recipient of taxpayer largesse; the family’s private estate in Chattarpur has for years been secured at the taxpayer’s cost; and a sycophantic HRD minister changed the rules of the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts to make Sonia Gandhi its head-for-life, IGNCA’s land alone reportedly being worth Rs 5,000 crores.[9]

Now consider what the family of a jawan gets when he’s sacrificed his life for the nation. There is an old story – Defence Minister Jagjivan Ram visited a northern town to distribute sewing machines to war widows. One widow took off her chappal and thwacked the Minister with it, asking if a sewing machine was all her husband had been worth. Okay, they may get more than a sewing machine now, but you get the point.


If you don’t, consider finally how many acres of prime public land in the Capital are reserved for memorials of the Nehru-Gandhis. And compare to that the handkerchief-sized space under India Gate for jawans who’ve actually died for the country.


Note it was the Italians themselves who said India had an Italian prime minister. And she has never broken off her Italian connection – not even in matters of Indian national security. She trusts her Italians more than us Indians.[10]


Sonia Gandhi’s election affidavit noted she has a house in Italy – and Italian law will always provide her and her children with a home. And therefore her “native town” jubilated. Only, of course, she still wasn’t the prime minister.


The Nehruvian-seculariat swung into action. “In the unfolding burlesque on succession to the throne of Delhi, the most enduring and funniest image was that of octogenerian Jyoti Basu, former West Bengal chief minister and veteran communist, rushing forward to push Ms Sonia Gandhi’s candidature for prime ministership… he had voluntarily decided to function as the spokesman for the Gandhi family”.[11]  

Eminent lawyer Shanti Bhushan claimed the Indian Constitution does not distinguish between citizens ”on ground of place of birth”[12], no doubt inadvertently omitting to mention that Mrs. Gandhi did not acquire citizenship under the Constitution but under the Citizenship Act, and the Citizenship Act in its proviso to s.5(e) has “provided that in prescribing the conditions and restrictions subject to which persons of any such country may be registered as citizens of India under this clause, the Central Government shall have due regard to the conditions subject to which citizens of India may, by law or practice of that country, become citizens of that country by registration.”


In other words, under Indian citizenship law, there is a clear stipulation of reciprocity and, from all accounts till then, Italian law did not permit Indians marrying Italians to hold high public office.

There were, therefore, clearly in law what Sandhya Jain called “certain ambiguities” over Sonia Gandhi’s pretensions to prime ministership.[13]

There was also the incontrovertible fact that, during security threats to India, Sonia Gandhi had not chosen to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with other Indians in India, but ran away to Italian sanctuary. There was the incontrovertible fact that Sonia Gandhi, in India, as an Italian citizen married to an Indian, and from the Prime Minister’s House, broke this country’s electoral and foreign exchange laws.[14]

Recall that the President of India himself declared, in his April 18, 2004 address to the nation, that “in a democracy, an important principle is the equality of every citizen”.[15] If considerations of national security officially debar Indian citizens in certain official positions from marrying foreigners, surely such security considerations apply with the greatest possible force to Sonia Gandhi who by her acts had already shown her loyalty to our country was highly suspect.[16]

The Hindu reported the President of India had merely invited Sonia Gandhi “for discussions”[17] Nevertheless, NDTV announced Sonia Gandhi was to be sworn in on May 19, 2004 as prime minister of India.

Jubilation in India too. Vande Mata-Rome!


But we live, as the Chinese malediction goes, in exciting times! On May 18, 2004, the whole world saw why a handful of White foreigners could rule a subcontinent of Browns – and why a single White foreigner still can. It is not without reason she’s called the Empress of India. And, yes, she’s still very much a foreigner. More than 40 years in India, and recall the American confidential assessment of the Italian quite unchanged behind her Indian mukhota.


The Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP) met in the Central Hall of Parliament – with non-MPs Mr and Mrs Robert Vadra in the front row – and put on a spectacular display of obsequious servility and mawkish sycophancy. Congress Members of Parliament lined up to grovel and abase themselves before Sonia Gandhi as she sat in regal disdain, haughtily nodding at some especially expressive presentation of vassalage. Mani Shankar Aiyar and Renuka Choudhary led the maudlin tears, as they begged their mallika-e-jahan not to orphan them. Jairam Ramesh scaled the peak of unctuosity by clubbing Sonia Gandhi with the Buddha and with Mahatma Gandhi. Uriah Heep could’ve taken lessons from these MPs.[18]


The spirit of Mussolini hovered in the air as the Congress (Indira) exposed for all the world to see its fascisticization into the Congress (Italy). And aptly so, for nothing in Italian law prevented Sonia Gandhi as Indian prime minister also becoming the Italian prime minister. [19]

A hagiographical myth was in active creation, scripted by Sonia Gandhi and her children. As Prabhu Chawla wrote of that tamasha that was that CPP meeting, “On one side…were over 200 Congress leaders, a wailing legion of the suddenly orphaned pleading to the Leader… on the other side. All the while, she maintained eye contact only with the family – son Rahul, daughter Priyanka and son-in-law Robert Vadra – who sat in the first row. Never before had family members of a prospective prime minister attended such a meeting…the privileged three were the only ones she completely trusted”.[20]


It was disgusting and demeaning, this total abandoning of personal and national self-respect before a White European – and I say “White” advisedly for, “if Sonia Gandhi had been black, had been a person of African origin, this problem would never have arisen”.[21]


Consider how the English-language mainstream media tried to influence our perceptions, presenting assumption as fait accompli: Sonia Gandhi invited to be PM, Sonia Gandhi to be sworn in on May 19, Sonia Gandhi rejecting the prime ministership…


Yet none of this was true at all.


Sonia Gandhi had only been invited by the President “for discussions”; she had not been invited by him to form the new ministry. How then could she “humbly decline this post” when it had still not been offered to her? That she had been elected CPP leader may have entitled her to stake a claim, but that was a far cry from that claim having been accepted.  She and her party clearly assumed the President had no Constitutional discretion to exercise in this matter but should function as a Nehru-Gandhi flunkey, as KR Narayanan had[22], and as Zail Singh had too, swearing in Rajiv Gandhi even before the CPP elected Gandhi its leader.
Sonia Gandhi and her party and its fellow-travellers assumed that any Indian citizen who questioned her legal eligibility for the post was anti-national; that it was illegitimate, anti-secular, anti-Gandhian and anti-people to raise the issue of her foreign origin – all “a vicious campaign”, as The Hindu editorially pontificated, in a blanket bracketing of such citizens with “the sangh parivar”.[23]


Let us start from Sonia Gandhi’s own statement of her inner voice telling her (at least for the previous 6 years) never to aspire to prime ministerial office (highly suspect, as SUS instances more than once) and that she was only listening to this inner voice.[24] Let us try and believe her. Now, her flunkeys announced:


1. She was a renouncer in the true Indian tradition.

But how could she renounce what she never wanted and what, in any case, had not been offered to her. And if she truly was a renouncer, how about her renouncing the vast public property and purse she still controlled, and renouncing the 6 crores annually from the public exchequer “to provide her a home and security”.[25] That would be the real renunciation, because then she’d be giving up something she wanted and had.[26]


2. It was “the people’s verdict/mandate” that she be our prime minister.

This assumed that Indian laws did not apply to Sonia Gandhi as, indeed, she herself assumed.[27] Her own electioneering did not project her as a prime ministerial candidate and, in any case, the Congress did not win a majority on its own – it cobbled together one after the elections. But this “people’s verdict” or “people’s mandate” – and note, not for her party but for her and her children – is a fabrication of stunning mythicality.[28]


If Sonia Gandhi six years earlier had decided she never wanted to be prime minister, why didn’t she announce so clearly and unambiguously before the electioneering had begun? Then both her party and the Indian electorate would’ve known what’s what. Instead, as Barkha Dutt noted on NDTV, to a question to Sonia Gandhi on her election as CPP leader meaning she became the prime ministerial candidate, she said “aisa hi hota hai”.
If it was the people’s verdict that she be prime minister, why was she running away from the maidan-e-jang(the imagery of the battle was her own)? Was this her contempt for the vox populi expressed so weepily by her Party’s MPs?[29]


3. She was hounded by the BJP’s “vicious attacks” (this from NDTV’s Mumbai anchor) on her foreign origin.

Sitaram Yechury “said the main reason why Sonia opted out was the issue of her foreign origin” – and not any inner voice – and she apparently flip-flopped over her decision, with her children helping the allies make her relent, and then she changed her mind again.[30]  But why did asking legitimate questions about her legal eligibility – as The Pioneer, May 19, 2004 speculated the President did – become “vicious attacks”?


4. Finally, Sonia Gandhi’s innocent children told Jyoti Basu that “they have lost their father, and now they do not want to lose their mother as well”.[31]


Yet it was their mother herself who had initiated the possibility of such a second loss with her “coup de toilette” against Sitaram Kesri[32], it was still the case when in 1999 she met President KR Narayanan to stake her claim to prime ministership with her mythical claim of  “we have 272 and more are coming”[33], it was still the case when she began her electioneering in 2004, it was still the case when she and the Congress won in the elections, it was still the case when the CPP on May 15 with her present elected her its leader and prime ministerial nominee, it was still the case when the Congress began patching together a majority with letters of support from the Nehruvian-secular parties to her as prime ministerial candidate of the United Progressive Alliance, it was still the case when the Congress and these Nehruvian-secular parties were on May 16 hosted by her at her residence and unanimously decided she was their prime ministerial nominee, it was still the case when the media broadcast for May 19 her swearing-in as prime minister, it was still the case when she first went to meet the President.
It was only after she met the President that the media began to report the Congress contacting the supporting parties for Manmohan Singh as leader. For what happened at Rashtrapati Bhawan we may have to wait for the presidential memoirs, but The Pioneer, May 19, 2004, usefully speculated on a Presidential appreciation of the implications of Article 102 of the Constitution and s.5 of the Citizenship Act on the eligibility of Sonia Gandhi for prime ministership.


What is clear is that “the President applied different standards to Sonia Gandhi and Dr Manmohan Singh. The evidence of it is the appointment of Dr Manmohan Singh. On Wednesday evening at 6 o’clock Dr Manmohan Singh was elected as the leader and at 8.15 p.m. he was given the letter of appointment. The President neither asked him the evidence of majority nor did he ask him about the support…”[34] The CPP had now elected Sonia Gandhi’s nominee as its leader, and he promptly collected the President’s invitation that had been kept ready for him. No discussion, nothing. There had been no such invitation awaiting the previous CPP-elected leader Sonia Gandhi herself when she trotted with her confident claim to the President. He sent her back empty-handed.


It was after this that Sonia Gandhi’s children came out with their fears of being orphaned as the factor influencing their mother to change her mind about being prime minister. “Jyoti Basu said…that…Sonia Gandhi had been dissuaded from becoming Prime Minister by her children, who fear that she might be killed”.[35] Priyanka Gandhi later clarified that “her mother’s decision was the response to her inner voice” and “said she might think about it after seeing the reaction of the party. This further fuelled speculation that the plot may change again”.[36] “Security threat was not the reason for…Sonia Gandhi not taking up prime ministership, according to her son, Rahul”.[37] Rahul Gandhi said that she “did what an ideal Indian woman should have done”.[38]


The English-speaking media projected the innocence of Sonia Gandhi’s children. But “the Marxists do not believe that Sonia Gandhi was solely guided by her ‘inner voice’ in declining to accept the post… [Jyoti] Basu has described her stand as ‘funny’… ‘We have also seen how her son and newly elected MP Rahul Gandhi offered her flowers in the Parliament to congratulate her after being elected leader of the Congress Parliamentary party. Had Rahul and his sister Priyanka any objection to their mother becoming the prime minister, why did not they say so in the beginning? Why did they raise objections at the eleventh hour?’ the CPM leaders ask”.[39] Why indeed?

So perhaps the children were not so innocent after all but, as the haazri of the Vadras at the CPP meeting showed, they were very much part of the plot. Remember that Pinocchio belongs to their natal tradition.


This whole business of Sonia Gandhi and her “inner voice” and her “humbly declining” the prime ministership is pure unadulterated naatak-baazi. If Sonia Gandhi is arrogant[40], she has every reason to be – a “cinderella” from a village in Italy with the elected representatives of the world’s largest democracy fawning at her feet, personifying her as our country, deifying her a mother-goddess, all in the best traditions of a Bollywood tear-jerking mythological.
It was we natives ourselves begging a White European to remember it is her mission to civilize us. Thus, senior politician and MP Ram Vilas Paswan was “ready to sacrifice even [his] life, pledging his life to work under her leadership”. Not surprisingly, her fellow-Italian, journalist Paolo Pontoniere, could write proudly that “Europeans revel in the pleasure of having one of their daughters bringing new hope to another continent”.[41]


Sonia Gandhi says, “Mujhe lagata hai ki aaj ki rajniti mein sant bane rahana hi sabse mushkil kaam hai (It appears to me that remaining a saint in politics is the most difficult thing)”.[42]


Jairam Ramesh ‘umbled himself all over again: “A long line of renunciates have dotted India right from the days of Gautama Buddha to Mahatma Gandhi; and, Sonia Gandhi has now joined this pantheon.”[43]


Alas, but Sonia Gandhi is no renouncing saint. She hasn’t renounced anything at all, neither pelf nor power, both appropriated through the backdoor while her “inner voice” answers the front door. Such is the Myth of the Renunciation.

Rahul Gandhi said the value that he’d uphold in politics is “Truth. I have seen that in politics, especially in our country, truth has been the first casualty”.[44]


Truth as a first casualty?


As in the Myth of the Renunciation – a lie so `colossal’ that no one would believe that someone `could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously’.


As in the Myth of the Renunciation – “don’t be fooled,” says Rahul Gandhi, “once a Gandhi, always a politician.”[45]


The Renunciation. Fellow Indians, don’t be fooled. It’s a Big Lie.



1. Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad in Parliament (“The super boss”, Grapevine, The Pioneer, May 10, 2010). Some four years earlier, the Whites had already understood this – “The Economist had famously described Mr Singh as a Prime Minister in office but not in power.” (“In office, not in power”, edit, The Pioneer, May 25, 2010). “Dr Singh declared: `The government will be run under her guidance’“ (Harish Khare, `We will focus on the poor’, The Hindu, May 21, 2004) just ”as…Jawaharlal Nehru had needed the Mahatma’s benign hand on his shoulder” (Inder Malhotra, “Congress culture too needs reform”, The Hindu, May 23, 2004).


2. This had received prompt recognition, both nationally and internationally. “The Congress President’s Office (CPO), for all practical purposes, will be the headquarters of the new Government” (Shankkar Aiyar, “What Can He Do?”, India Today, June 7, 2004).  “Already, there is a sense of disquiet that career-minded officers and agency chiefs are calling on her and briefing her on matters of national security” (“Official fealty to Sonia must stop”, The Pioneer, May 31, 2004). Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf spoke to Sonia Gandhi and invited her to visit Pakistan. The Pioneer editorialized that “the Musharraf-Sonia interaction seems even more of a breach of protocol on considering that Ms Gandhi was invited to visit Pakistan before the Indian Prime Minister was extended the `honour’…..Ms Gandhi’s present status is equivalent to any other party president’s, be it of the BJP or Kashmir’s Panther’s Party. She is not deputy prime minister. She is no longer even opposition leader. More, the Prime Minister belongs to her party. Questions will, therefore, be raised about why she did not politely remind General Musharraf that Mr Singh is the sole overseer of neighbourly ties, and it is he who should be Islamabad’s guest before she could. Neither did she do this nor has the Government expressed displeasure. Rather, the General’s call has been greeted with unseemly enthusiasm and an apparent sense of misplaced gratitude. By soliciting Ms Gandhi’s backing for peace talks, President Musharraf has only broadcast his belief that a divide exists between de jure and de facto authority in India. By not disabusing him, Ms Gandhi and the Government will be perceived as endorsing his assumption” (May 27, 2004).




4. Tavleen Singh, “The de facto Mr Prime Minister”,,~No~Madam,~All~right~Madam:~PM



Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi’s defiantly clandestine attempt to plant a Catholic Christian officer P.J Thomas with questionable integrity as the Central Vigilance Commissioner failed miserably when a Three Member Bench of the Supreme Court of India presided over by the Honourable Chief Justice S. H. Kapadia declared the appointment of P.J Thomas as illegal and void in law in their Order passed on 3rd March 2011.
I am quoting below the last paragraph of the above mentioned Order issued by the Three Member Bench consisting of Hon’ble Chief Justice S. H. Kapadia, Hon’ble Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Hon’ble Justice Swatanter Kumar. (For details see the copy of the Order attached)
56. For the above reasons, it is declared that the recommendation dated 3rd September, 2010 of the High Powered Committee recommending the name of Shri P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2003 Act is non-est in law and, consequently, the impugned appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner is quashed.
57. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
CJI (S. H. Kapadia)
J (K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan)
J (Swatanter Kumar)
New Delhi;
March 3, 2011
The common people of India offer their fervent and reverential salutations to the the Supreme Court of India in general and the Chief Justice S.H Kapadia in particular for having taken deterrent action to restore the dignity and decorum to the Constitutional Post of the Central Vigilance Commissioner.
Even after the Supreme Court had issued an Order declaring the appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner P.J Thomas as illegal, he did not send his letter of resignation to the President of India. If I have to believe newspaper reports, only after the Government of India had Officially Notified the vacancy in the post of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, did P.J Thomas feel obliged to send his Letter of Resignation and that too to the Prime Minister!
A Selection Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Smt Sushma Swaraj) in the Lok Sabha considered the following three names put up by the Department of Personnel for appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner at a meeting held on 3rd September 2010 at 7:30 PM at the Prime Minister’s Residence.
1.  Shri Bijoy Chatterjee, lAS (73 Batch West Bengal Cadre)
2.  Shri PJ Thomas lAS (73 Batch Kerala Cadre)
3.  Shri Subbaroyan Krishnan, lAS (retd 75 Batch Uttaranchal Cadre)
It is clear from the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3rd September 2010 that a decision to appoint Sri P.J Thomas was jointly taken by the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and the Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram unlawfully overruling the objection raised by the Leader of the Opposition Smt Sushma Swaraj. She had opposed the appointment of P.J Thomas on grounds of lack of integrity. (Please see all the backup papers including the Minutes of this Meeting and the dissenting file noting by Smt Sushma Swaraj.)
What is very shocking to note is that the Department of Personnel had deliberately avoided making any reference to the intimate connection of P.J Thomas to the Pamoline corruption case of the Civil Supplies Department of Kerala dating back to 1991. The fact that he was facing a criminal charge along with K. Karunakaran, the then Chief Minister of Kerala was also suppressed in the Note that was put up to the Selection Committee which considered and finalized the appointment of P.J Thomas as the Central Vigilance Commissioner.
As of date, Shri P.J. Thomas is Accused No. 8 in criminal case CC 6 of 2003 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram with respect to the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) [hereinafter referred to as the “Palmolein case”].
Finally the High Powered Committee (referred to as the HPC by the Supreme Court in their Final Order on P.J Thomas) (referred to as the Selection Committee in my note above) has lost sight of another very vital factor. This can best be explained in the words of the Supreme Court in their Final Order of 3rd March 2011.
“The HPC must also take into consideration the question of INSTITUTIONAL COMPETENCY into account. If the selection adversely affects institutional competency and functioning then it shall be the duty of the HPC not to recommend such a candidate. Thus, the institutional integrity is the primary consideration which the HPC is required to consider while making recommendation under Section 4 for appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner. In the present case, this vital aspect has not been taken into account by the HPC while recommending the name of Shri P.J. Thomas for appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner. We do not wish to discount personal integrity of the candidate. What we are emphasizing is that institutional integrity of an institution like CVC has got to be kept in mind while recommending the name of the candidate. Whether the incumbent would or would not be able to function? Whether the working of the Institution would suffer? If so, would it not be the duty of the HPC not to recommend the person.”
Dr Manmohan Singh and Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram are only slavish tenants-at-will in the International Zamindari of the Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi. These two men in bonded labour had no other option than to just put their seal of official approval on the specially chosen nominee of this fascist dictator from Italy. It is clear that both of them were unwilling to even look at the larger moral and Constitutional issue of institutional integrity of an institution like CVC” legitimately raised by the Hon’ble Chief Justice S. H. Kapadia, Hon’ble Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Hon’ble Justice Swatanter Kumar of the Supreme Court of India in their Final Order dated 3rd March 2011.
The UPA Government under the stranglehold of the MOST CORRUPT AND MOST VENAL Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi has clearly demonstrated that it has contempt for the Constitutional instruments of the Indian State. We have a President with dubious antecedents. We had a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India Chief Injustice Balakrishnan with even more dubious antecedents. During his tenure of office, judicial corruption at all levels of the judiciary in India reached its peak. For all the services rendered by him to the Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi, he has been decorated with the totally undeserved post of the Chairman, National Human Rights Commission. Earlier the special nominee of the Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi was Navin Chavla who was indicted by the Shah Commission in 1977.
The Italian colonial Government of the Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi admitted defeat in the Lok Sabha in the P.J Thomas case. Faced by an unrelenting opposition in the Parliament, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Monday accepted ‘full responsibility’ and admitted ‘an error of judgment’ in choosing scam-tainted P.J. Thomas as the head of India’s anti-corruption watchdog.

South Block,
New Delhi- 11010 I
Subject:       Appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner
Reference is invited to DOPT’s File No. 399/427/2010 – AVD-III regarding appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner.
2. The contents of the file have been taken note of. The note soliciting the approval of the President to the above recommendation has since been signed by the Prime Minister.
(V. Vidyavathi)
Director Tel. No. 23018485
Secretary, Department of Pesonnel & Training PMO
ID No. 600/31/C/8/1-ES.2
dated 9.9.10


The Committee under Section 4(1) of the CVC Act 2003, comprising wi Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister, Shri P Chidambaram, Minister of Home Affairs, and Smt Sushma Swaraj, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, met at 7 Race Course Road at 7.30 pm on September 3, 2010 to make recommendations for the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner in the Central Vigilance Commission.
2. After due consideration, the majority of the Committee recommended the name of Shri P J Thomas lAS (KL/73) for appointment as the Central Vigilance Commissioner in the Central Vigilance Commission, with Smt. Sushma Swaraj recording her disagreement.


(Smt. Sushma Swaraj)        (P. Chidambaram)             (Dr. Manmohan)
Leader of the Opposition    Minister of Home Affairs    Prime Minister
in the Lok Sabha


Link to the Supreme Court Order in the P.J Thomas Case.