Hackings, Lies & Shaving Foam

By Manuwant Choudhary

As a News of the World editor would say the story doesn't have enough sex, I would say the the questioning of Media Moghul Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch were drab and contrived at best.

The only statement of Mr. Murdoch senior worth it was when he said he had been betrayed by those whom he trusted and they in turn had been betrayed by those whom they trusted.

It runs deeper.

But he also said categorically that it is wrong to hack phones of ordinary people who are victims and also that it is wrong to pay money to the police for a story.

It is understandable that a founder of an empire cannot keep track of 55,000 employees but it is still his job to take action against those found guilty.

Instead, Mr. James Murdoch went to lengths to explain why they paid compensation and legal aid money to someone guilty and convicted of hackings. He said it was as per `outside legal advice' and huge sums were paid because the corporation would lose the legthy case for illegal dismissal of the employee.

The Murdochs it seemed knew about their employees only when outside agencies like the police and courts found some evidence. They never found anything themselves.

When it came to giving names of people who let them down they again said nothing and took the alibi that they would not like to prejudice an ongoing police investigations into the charges.

The rot runs deeper.

In fact Rebecca Brooks openly admits having hired private investigators and said it was a common `practice' at Fleet Street,but again she feigned ignorance about those private investigators already convicted.

The impression she gave was that at the News Of The World no one was really in-charge.

In all this, I watched a lady sitting behind Mr. Rupert Murdoch. A mauve sweater, silky hair and a black skirt , Wendi Deng is Mr. Murdoch's wife.

And she sat gracefully and intelligently listening in without distracting. Sometimes she played with her fingers until there were shouts and we saw her leap and hit the man who attacked Mr. Murdoch with shaving foam. It was British commedian Jonnie Marbles.

Wish the Murdoch's employed only people as beautiful and trusted as Wendi Deng.

And its a shame on the British parliament that anyone could enter a highly secure zone...when you question someone for propriety you must first have your own house in order.

Rupert Murdoch's Crumbling Empire

By Manuwant Choudhary

I would have perhaps never got a job in any of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers not because I am not qualified but because I simply do not know how to hack.

Techinically incompetent.

The Rupert Murdoch story seems to be getting worse by the day ..now that we hear the whistleblowing journalist Sean Hoare dies in his home at Hertfordshire under mysterious circumstances.

Hoare had been a celebrity correspondent with the now shut News of the World tabloid and it was he who first told the world that it was routine for News of the World to hack phones.

Earlier he had been dismissed by News of the World on drink and drug charges.

Whats most damaging about his revelations in that the editor Andy Caulson was not only aware of the hacking by his staff but that he actively encouraged it.

The details get murkier with allegations that you simply had to ask the news desk about the location of a person and they would use police technology to detect a person's location and come back with the information. They called this `pinging'.

Isn't this the scary world George Orwell imagined in his book `1984', a book he wrote in 1948.

But the line between a journalist and his police sources would blur so quick is hard to understand.

Even as the senior Murdoch faces the MPs panel today, I wonder how the veteran lost control of his empire?

Or is he simply being hounded for being a rich successful media baron?

How much did Murdoch know about all this?

And the tragedy is that not just Murdoch..even Britains Prime Minister David Cameron hired the services of Andy Coulson.

Its interesting reading the sequence of events into all this available at CNN and one does sees a pattern emerge...it looks like News International had kind of gotten into a habit of paying compensations periodically.

Whatever happened to the good old ethics about journalism?

Do you pay a policeman money to get information?

The senior Murdoch has been apologising frequently now but the real question is how involved is he personally in the news gathering mechanism or is he just involved in the business of news, where his company is a huge success.

It would also be relevant to fix responsibilities. When did Mr. Murdoch come to know about the hackings and what action did he take against those involved?

I think this could clear the air.

News is simply not just another business.

News is news.

In India too if you see unedited tapes of news being gathered by the zillions of stringers some of them could horrify you, just as it horrifies the British audience today.

But yes I would anyday prefer the noise over `a silent airwave'. We owe it to Rupert Murdoch for having invaded India through his sattelites. Recen'tly the Indian government made this huge announcement that they would now allow All India Radio news (owned by the government) to be re-broadcast on private FM stations. But AIR is all gas.

I still think governments and the police are worse than Murdoch but when they all become one I do feel insecure.

Its not really Murdoch's empire that I am worried about - it is journalism itself.

Bombay Bombers Roam Free

By Manuwant Choudhary

Bombay bombers roam free and the Congress Circus continues day after day....

First the union home minister P.Chidambaram arrives in the city only to say that there is no intelligence failure as there was no intelligence input.

Mr. C...may I ask you if there was no intelligence input then isn't that an intelligence failure?

Surely, the intelligence's job is to know.

Or simply you have no intelligence or you think the people in India have no intelligence?

Then you have the routine visit by our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress President Sonia Gandhi, only to be overshadowed by scion Rahul Gandhi's remark that the government can only prevent 99 per cent attacks but that one per cent will get through.

Surely, we don't elect you to allow us to be attacked...even once.

Can you at least foil the bigger attacks if not all?

To set records straight India has always been attacked right through her history. Mongols on horseback would raid our temples and return with the booty.

Now they just carry the bombs in tiffins and walk into our crowded bazars and leave them there.

But are we really prepared to foil such terror? Especially, since the police are themselves corrupt busy finding out ways and means to earn money underhand.

We have one former chief minister Vilas Rao Deshmukh taking over a cricket board defeating a veteran cricketer Dilip Vengsarkar.

While we have the Maharashtra chief minister passing the buck and saying that the Home department is with the NCP - their ally, so the delay in taking action against terror.

Then they say they still not have CCTVs because of the slow government procedures in procurement.

And in all this we don't see or hear the junior Milind Deora (MP) although we see Meera Sanyal, the defeated candidate, still talk for Bombay's security concerns.

Why do we elect such fools?

And in Pakistan a banned terror group chief Mallik Ishaq of the Lashkare-Janghvi gets a government stipend while in jail and now he even gets a bail.

And a few days later we are going to be talking to the same Pakistan government.

Sharad Joshi's Freedom Bill Negated

India is not a democracy as only socialists and communists and those who are willing to swear false allegiance and compromise their conscience are allowed to contest elections so a very brave attempt was made by a lone liberal MP in India's parliament Shri Sharad Joshi who moved a private members bill to remove this discrepancy and the word `socialist' from India's preamble but his bill was negated.

This shows that there is no justice in the Indian parliament.

A case by the Swatantra Party is still pending in the Bombay High Court for nearly 17 years challenging the Peoples Representative Act which forces political parties to swear allegiance to a socialist constitution. Another PIL by an NGO failed in the Supreme Court.

Excerts of the Parliament Debate

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: By 15th August, 1947, socialism was not even a significant thought in the Indian polity. In 1977 an amendment was made to the Preamble. By the Forty-Second (Amendment) Act, 1976, three words, ‘Socialist’, Secular’, ‘Integrity’ were introduced in the Preamble to the Constitution.

There are some problems, which are because of addition of the word ‘Socialist’ and therefore, my Bill demands that the word ‘socialist’ be deleted from the Act.

While socialism may be perfectly good, may be perfectly ideal thing to have but I must have the right to dissent. I am not taking any anti-socialist position. I am not taking a position that the preamble is wrong but I should have the right to change the preamble, if necessary. We decided to form a political party. We got a reply from the Election Commission saying that you will have to sign a register, or, have a clause in your memorandum of Association that you subscribe to the tenet of ‘socialism.’

Now, this is something which is alright for those with a pliable conscience. The problem is for the honest people who do not want to make a false statement. There is no provision for any verification of the truth of the memoranda or regulations. It is only used according to the convenience and both the parties play the game. It compels an association to swear allegiance to the principle of socialism without any attempt to define or even indicate the meaning of the term ‘socialism‘. The sub-section is, therefore, illegal, unconstitutional and being arbitrary violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The term ‘socialism’ has not been defined in the Constitution of India or in the Representation of the People Act. This term has been applied to a large spectrum of theories over the last two centuries. Now, which particular meaning you have, is not clarified either in the Constitution or in the People’s Representation Act.

…To bear allegiance to the principles of socialism as a precondition, goes against the freedom of expression and thought..

The historic fall of the Soviet Union has put a question mark on all nations practicing socialism. Socialistic economics have been found to be not good not only in theory but also in practice. In most of the countries of the world, the socialist systems are collapsing under the weight of their own non-viability. Even the Government of India admitted in 1991, the errors of its socialist past and professed to be pursuing the path of market-oriented economies. I am not trying to override socialism.

…That socialists have the possibility of organising themselves as political parties while those having problems of conscience in declaring adherence to socialism should be stopped from organising themselves in to a political party is wholly discriminatory, and hence, clearly in breach of the fundamental right of association.

…without going into the question of the precise definition of the term “socialism” the right of a non-socialist citizen to hold his personal views and be entitled to all the privileges enjoyed by the socialist fellow-citizens cannot be denied.

Firstly, the dispensation of section 29(A) does not serve any particular purpose. Secondly, you are asking the people to swear by a word “socialism” which has not been defined…I am only demanding that the legislation should be modified to remove this kind of a contradictory position.

SHRI MOOL CHAND MEENA: “Socialism” is one of our basic concept which had been incorporated in our Constitution after independence but Shri Joshi ji has not understood the basic concept in its true spirit and, therefore, purposes an amendment to it. I do not support the amendment moved by Shri Joshi but I will rather request him to understand the basic concept of ‘Socialism’ and not temper such basic concept.

…Today, we are talking of socialism but the poor is getting poorer and the rich is becoming more rich. This needs to be stopped because it is a great threat to the democracy. If this is not stopped, the people would capture Assemblies and Parliament on the basis of money power. Not only our Constitution, but our Independence and our Democracy has been attacked and are being attacked. Strict Action must be taken against those political parties which do not respect the basic spirit of the Constitution. Therefore, I request Shri Joshi not to stress upon removing the word socialism, rather, he should emphasize for its implementation.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: To oppose socialism is a very unpopular thing. The strongest point that Mr. Joshi, has made is that socialism is one of the many economic doctrines that have arisen in this world throughout the core world’s economic history. To say that you are bound down to a particular economic doctrine, is to curtail the liberty of a speech, and which is inconsistent with democracy. Therefore, Mr. Sharad Joshi is absolutely right that democracy and socialism cannot be equated, because democracy itself means you are right to say things which others do not accept. In spite of all things, he has no chance of getting this Bill passed through this Parliament. But, certainly, in the Supreme Court of India, he is bound to succeed on the constitutionality of the provision. As regards his current speech here,with a little expansion and with a little deletion here and there, it should be published in the form of a book which must be made available to every student and every teacher of political science throughout the country. Today, socialism and supporters of socialism are becoming unpopular. There are some political parties which bravely say that they do not believe in socialism. It is their right to say it and they should be allowed to exist. It is not a practical wisdom to pursue this Bill here.

SHRI RAASHID ALVI: Thebiggest evidence of this country’s democracy is that despite this preamble of the Constitution, Mr. Joshi is a Member of this House and with all his vigour , he has every right to oppose the word socialism. India is country having population of 100 crore people. Who follow different religions, languages and ideologies etc. But, this is not possible that the Constitution should have 100 crore ideologies. When we attained Independence, our country chose to be a democratice country inspite of the fact that Pakistan declared itself to be a Muslim country and that 90 per cent of the Members of Constituent Assembly were Hindu.

I do not say that everyone in the country is working for secularism. There are political parties, the leaders of which claim to be the followers of great socialist leaders like Dr. Lohia and others, but they are in politics having connection with the richest persons in India. Mr. Joshi said that taking oath in the name of constitution is wrong, because, we do not follow the basic spirit enshrined is its pre-amble. It is provided in the Constitution that you can bring amendment in it and even you can amend the whole of the Constitution. Therefore, it is not proper to state that the word socialism should be removed from the preamble. I strongly oppose this amendment Bill.

SHRI E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: ShriJoshiji is proposing this Bill despite the fact that the evolution of Indian democracy and Independence is over-based on socialism. In almost every proposal adopted by the general conferences of Congress before India got independence, a stress was laid that India would follow the path of socialistic pattern of democracy. Therefore, we cannot say that the socialist word is borrowed from some other literature and, therefore, it may be a thing we need to hate.

…Socialism is for the distribution of economic produce which is meant for the society. We have the Panchayati System in which any person who has crossed the age of 18 can become a person to decide about the property of the community. This right has been given by Panchayati Raj system. It is the unity of the people at the grass-root level and they decide their own economic welfare. We cannot depend on the FDI alone; we cannot depend on the WTO alone; We cannot depend on the system where we pray that foreigners come here. No doubt, we need better infrastructure, better roads, lot of trains, and more agricultural produce. We need employment for our unemployed people. One day, India will be a Super Power.

Supreme Court says that the word ‘socialist’ should not be removed. That is the judgement of the Supreme Court. The same Supreme Court says that the word ‘secular’ should not be removed. India is a secular country, it is a socialist country. That is the verdict of the Supreme Court. The ‘Socialist, Democratic Republic’, these words will give spirit to the future of India.

SHRI JAIRAM RAMESH : I think the most important charge that has been levelled was that before 1991 the Indian Economic Policy was based on socialism which was an imported ideology. It is a gross misreading of the economic policy that this country adopted after 1947 on which there was a consensus. I would like to request Mr. Joshi to be sensitive.

Our basic political commitment was to parliamentary form of democracy. We did not adopt the Soviet model lock, stock and barrel. India remained a country in which farms were owned by individuals but we did not introduce collectivisation of agriculture, of the type that was introduced in the Soviet Union and China with disastrous consequences. Socialism in the India context meant equality of opportunity. Today, we are still fighting the battle of extending the benefits of education and health to a large sections of our people. After all, even the Avadi Resolution of 1955 commits the Government to a socialistic pattern of society. And a socialistic pattern of society means equality of opportunity, brotherhood, and education, etc. The Green Revolution was possible because of investments in irrigation and investment in Agricultural Universities.

You might argue that today that system requires reform. But to say that the entire Green Revolution in India was ‘market force’ is, a totally wrong view. If there was no Government, there would have been no Green Revolution. I would request Mr.Sharad Joshi to withdraw the Bill.

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (SHRI K. VENKATAPATHY) intervening in the debate, said: I am extremely happy that the attention of this august House has been drawn to one of the cardinal principles embodied in our Constitution by Shri Sharad Anantrao Joshi by way of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, 2004. The hon. Member has sought omission on the word’ socialism’ from sub-section (5) of Section 29A of the Representation of the People’s Act,1951.

The hon. Member has singled out the word ‘socialism’ possibly in the background of globalisation of the national economy. It may be stated that in view of the widespread poverty and economic disparity, socialism will always remain relevant to the Indian social condition. Any Government or political party cannot administer this country remaining oblivious to the plight of the general public. In the Indian context, there is no role or scope for a political party, which does not have faith in socialism as reflected in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The fact that you could make a speech against socialism is itself evidence that this right has been conferred by the Constitution.

Our Directive Principles of State Policy also insist that socialistic pattern should be adopted. Therefore, in adherence to that Policy, we have to follow the principle of socialism. Hence, it may be very difficult to subscribe to the view of the hon. Member that the word ‘socialism’ should be removed from sub-section (5) of Section 29A of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951. Hence, it is not possible to accept the Bill in its present form or with any modifications. In the circumstance, I appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw the Bill.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI replying to the debate, said: I thank all the Members who have participated in the debate. Shri Meenaji said that at the time of Independence the general sentiment and the consensus of the people in India, was in favour of socialism that is something which was partly repeated by Mr. Natchiappan and Mr. Jairam Ramesh also. I stoutly deny that. Pt. Nehru himself had admitted that this was not the majority view in the Congress. That was only his personal view. So, to say that in 1947 the general sentiment in India was for having a socialist country is incorrect.

At that time, the entire freedom movement was fought under Gandhian ideals. Pt. Nehru is on record, as saying that he does not subscribe to the economic policies of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhiji necessarily stood for predominance of the primordial importance of villages, agriculture, farmer and the individual. After Independence and after Gandhiji was gone, Pt. Nehru tried to turn to a socialistic pattern in which not the villages but the cities became important, not the agriculture but the heavy industries became important, and not the individual and the freedom but the public sector became paramount. This was change the which happened without debate. I never said that Pt. Nehru’s taking the country to socialism was wrong. At a given point of time, there were decisions that had to be taken, and that were taken. But, to say that the socialism was the general consensus and sentiment at the time of Independence, is wrong.

I have never objected to the concept of a democratic and secular India. As a liberal, I stand for democracy and secularism. All that I am saying is that as you are being pluralistic in the matter of secularism, religion and faith, why are you not becoming pluralistic even about the economic doctrine? Socialism may be right, and probably, what you are doing is right. But, do I have not the right to say that I do not believe in socialism? Therefore, what I am saying is, consistent with the glorious history of the Congress Party, which is essentially pluralistic, you may believe in socialism, you carry out your socialist programme, but, permit me the right to not to be socialist. That is all that my Bill was about. Who would have believed that by 1980 we would have come to a time where socialism would be considered a ridiculous doctrine world over. The important thing is my time is still to come. I said that the word ‘socialism’ does not have any meaning and if that is so, then, asking anybody to swear by it is wrong. If you are socialist remain socialist. But please give me my right not to be a socialist.

The Motion moved by Shri Sharad Anantrao Joshi was negatived.

Why Is India's Supreme Court Angry?

By Manuwant Choudhary

India's Supreme Court is very angry ...at least thats what the Times of India would like us to believe and over what..over land acquistitions in Uttar Pradesh where Rahul baba sits in the sweltering sun hearing out farmer woes on live TV.

But while our judges say how can the government extend `public purpose' to malls and hotels and how can they acquire land from the poor and give it to the rich they forget that it is they too who are party to this peculiar situation in India.

When fundamental rights were disregarded by our parliament and politicians and not considered sacrosanct like the US Bill of Rights, the courts remained silent.

When property rights were removed from our fundamental rights our courts kept silent.

When land belonging to the landlords were taken and given to the poor the same courts said that this is socialism and must be done to bring about equality.

But what they forgot is when you write a constitution its not for the rich or for the poor - it is for all its people - rich or poor and from whatever caste of creed you belong to - for all Indians.

A constitution is supposed to unite all its people not divide.

Robbing Paul to pay Peter is no constitution.

Unfortunately, India's constitution is not what we the people gave to ourselves on November 26 1949.

Either, we go back to the old constitution or we write a new one.

I fear India has already become like Nepal..where they are struggling to even write a constitution...they even have a constitution God.

The situation in India is......

Charlize Theron On Gays & Marriages

India's Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad says homosexuality is a disease that came in from the west..I wonder if he saw this interview.

Black Money

By Manuwant Choudhary

Switzerland: Even as the Indian Supreme Court order came in to bring back all the `Black Money' stashed away in foreign banks I was sitting at the Gujarati pure vegetarian restaurant just opposite the Swiss Bank and I met thousands of businessmen all eager to withdraw their black money. And they all had their faces veiled with a black `burqa'.

A Swiss banker was offering them the most expensive vegetarian pakodas pleading with them not to withdraw their money.

Swiss Banker: "See if you all withdraw your money then our bank will shut down."

Client 1: "We don't care. Please return our money. The Swiss can keep their money here."

Swiss Banker: "No, no, you don't understand. We only keep black money, not white. The Swiss have only white money."

Client 2: "The Swiss are very rich. You can't be rich without having black money. Aaah I love spending my holidays here..what beautiful cottages and view of the snow."

Swiss Banker: "You can stay here as long as you want but please don't withdraw your money."

Client 3: "But why not? Do you want the Indian government to withdraw our money?"

Swiss banker: "No, no, we will definitely not allow that. We have thousands of treaties on secrecy."

Client 4: "Forget treaties man, first you tell us why are you being racist. You call Swiss money white and our money black?"

Swiss banker: "Okay, okay, I promise you we will not discriminate agaisnt black money. In fact, we give more protection to black money?"

Client 5: "Is money from China called yellow money?"

Swiss banker: "Money has nothing to do with colour of your skin."

Client 6: "Very angry. Please call our money Brown Money...we are not from Africa."

Swiss banker: "Anyway what will you do by withdrawing your money?"

Client 7: "I will make the tallest building in India, taller than Mukesh bhai's ..and have the slimmest TV to watch while I relax in my roof top pool, with my helicopter watching over me."

Client 8: "Aaah I will give it to a good cause..to built the Ram mandir at Ayodhya."

Client 9: "No, no the BJP is against black money. "

Client 10" "The BJP believes black money given to a good cause becomes white money."

Client 11: "You saw how their party president accepts black dollars but only for the `parrrrty."

Client 12: "I will invest in vibrant Gujrata...Narendrabhai is a good man...see how he burns all records related to black money. He has built an incenarator that burns all records..so if you invest with him..your money will become white."

Client 13: "I think Kerala is better....all white money has become black. Keralites eran salaries abroad and invest in land in Kerala...so they convert it into black..its Gods Own Country after all."

Client 14: "I think we all made a mistake - a bluder really."

Client 15: What?

Client 14: "We should have hired Ram Jethmalani..paid him first to argue for Black Money...and not for White Money."

Client 16: "yes, yes, I also wonder how this criminal lawyer has turned a saint. He argues for India's top murderers and gets theim freed and then sits in parliament as a Rajya Sabha MP."

Client 17: But thats his job as a lawyer He is a good friend.

Client 18. I just wonder why the Congress Party argued so weakly for Black Money. That Solicitor General did not even whimper.

Client 19: I suspect they have a deal.

Client 20: yes, yes, they agreed to agree that Italian businessman Octavio Quattorocchiii's money is white money (from Bofors!. See how beautifully the gun performed at Kargill !

`Kudasana'

By Manuwant Choudhary

Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav says in The Week that Baba Ramdev was only teaching a new asana at Ram Lila Grounds - Kudasana (the asana to jump).

He also mentions his similarities with the Baba - both are Yadav's, both come from poor families and both are Gurus.

Laloo says that Baba Ramdev should come to him if wants lessons in politics !

Both are also socialists.

The similarities end there.

Baba Ramdev is a new-age crusader against corruption while Laloo supports corruption.

And while Baba Ramdev knows `Kudasana' a very senior journalist once told us how Laloo knows `bhagasan' (asana on how to run).

Once when his procession was lathicharged Laloo ran and hid in the old Telegraph newspaper office in Patna and he had his slippers neatly tucked under his armpits!

Wonder whether a rich Laloo Prasad would still not forget his slippers when he runs.

Socialists have been very corrupt in India yet they can be colourful and go on a dharna or fast for anything and everything...like I would say more President George Bush effigies have been burnt at Patna than anywhere else in the world.

And about fasts...the Swatantra Party's founder C Rajagopalachari (a Gandhian himself) when asked by journalists why he did not undertake fasts against Indira Gandhi's misrule he replied, "I am not a fool. When Gandhiji fasted he fasted against the British who were democratic. Indira Gandhi and the Congress Party are not democratic. They would let me die."

`Just Techicalities' About Sonia Gandhi

By Arun Shourie

The day I entered Indiraji's household I became an Indian, the rest is just technical -- that is Sonia Gandhi's latest explanation for not having acquired Indian citizenship till fourteen years after her marriage to Rajiv Gandhi.

First the facts. Surya Prakash, the Consulting Editor of The Pioneer, has documented these in detail. Sonia married Rajiv on 25 February, 1968. Under section 5(c) of the Indian Citizenship Act she became eligible to register herself as a citizen of India on 25 February, 1973. She chose to continue as a citizen of Italy. She applied for Indian citizenship only ten years later, on 7 April, 1983.

A foreigner seeking Indian citizenship has to state on oath that he or she has relinquished his or her citizenship of the original country. This requirement was all the more necessary in the case of an Italian citizen: under Italian law, an Italian taking citizenship of another country continues to retain his or her Italian citizenship. Sonia Gandhi's application did not have the requisite statement, nor did it have any official document from the appropriate authorities in Italy. The omission was made up in a curious way: the Ambassador of Italy stepped in, and wrote to the Government saying that Sonia Gandhi had indeed given up her citizenship of Italy. He did so on 27 April, 1983. Sonia got her citizenship forthwith -- on 30 April, 1983.

Another nugget Surya Prakash has unearthed is that while Sonia became a citizen on 30 April, 1983, her name made its way to the electoral rolls as of 1 January, 1980! In response to an objection, it had to be deleted in late 1982. But sure enough, it was put back on the electoral roll as of 1 January, 1983. She hadn't even applied for citizenship till then.

All technicalities! If any ordinary person were to proceed in the same way, he would be up for stern prosecution.

Maruti was one of the most odious scandals connected with Mrs Indira Gandhi and her family. The Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice A C Gupta recorded that, though she was at the time a foreigner, Sonia Gandhi secured shares in two of their family concerns: Maruti Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. (in 1970 and again in 1974), and Maruti Heavy Vehicles (in 1974). The acquisition of these shares was in contravention of the very Act that Mrs Gandhi used to such diabolic effect in persecuting her political opponents, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Just another technicality!

But the Mother of Technicalities, so to say, is to be found in the way Sonia Gandhi, without having any known sources of income, has become the controller of one of the largest empires of property and patronage in Delhi. The Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Library and Museum is one of the principal institutions for research on contemporary Indian history. It is situated in and controls real estate which, because of its historical importance, cannot even be valued. The institution runs entirely on grants from the Government of India. Sonia Gandhi has absolutely no qualification that could by any stretch of imagination entitle her to head the institution: has she secured even an elementary university degree, to say nothing of having done anything that would even suggest some specialization in subjects which the institution has been set up to study. But by mysterious technicalities she is today the head of this institution. So much so that she even decides which scholar may have access to papers -- even official papers -- of Pandit Nehru and others of that family, including, if I may stretch the term, Lady Mountbatten.

Real estate, only slightly less valuable, has been acquired on Raisina Road. The land was meant to house offices of the Congress. A large, ultra-modern building was built -- the finance being provided by another bunch of technical devices which remain a mystery. The building had but to get completed, and Sonia appropriated it for the other Foundation she completely controls -- the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. The Congress(I) did not just oblige by keeping silent about the takeover of its building, in the very first budget its Government presented upon returning to power, it provided Rs 100 crores to this Foundation. The furore that give-away caused was so great that the largesse had to be canceled. No problem. Business house after business house, even public sector enterprises incurring huge losses, coughed up crores.

The Foundation has performed two principal functions. The projection of Sonia Gandhi. And enticing an array of leaders, intellectuals, journalists etc. into nets of patronage and pelf.

But the audacity with which the land and building were usurped and funds raised for this Foundation falls into the second order of smalls when they are set alongside what has been done in regard to the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts.

This Centre was set up as a trust in 1987 by a resolution of the Cabinet. The Government of India gave Rs. 50 crores out of the Consolidated Fund of India as a corpus fund to this Centre. It transferred 23 acres of land along what is surely one of the costliest sites in the world -- Central Vista, the stretch that runs between Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate -- to this Trust. Furthermore, it granted another Rs. 84 crores for the Trust to construct its building.

The land was government land. The funds were government funds. Accordingly, care was taken to ensure that the Trust would remain under the overall control of the Government of India. Therefore, the Deed of the Trust provided, inter alia,

Every ten years two-thirds of the trustees would retire. One half of the vacancies caused would be filled by the Government. One half would be filled by nominations made by the retiring trustees.
The Member Secretary of the Trust would be nominated by the Government on such terms and conditions as the Government may decide.
The President of India would appoint a committee from time to time to review the working of the Trust, and the recommendations of the committee would be binding on the Trust.
No changes would be made in the deed of the Trust except by prior written sanction of the Government, and even then the changes may be adopted only by three-quarters of the Trustees agreeing to them at a meeting specially convened for the purpose.
Now, just see what technical wonders were performed one fine afternoon.

A meeting like any other meeting of the trustees was convened on 18 May, 1995. The minutes of this meeting which I have before me list all the subjects which were discussed -- the minutes were circulated officially by Dr Kapila Vatsyayan in her capacity as the Director of the Centre with the observation, "The Minutes of this meeting have been approved by Smt Sonia Gandhi, President of the IGNCA Trust."

What did the assembled personages discuss and approve? Even if the topics seem mundane, do read them carefully -- for they contain a vital clue, the Sherlock Holmes clue so to say, about what did not happen.

The minutes report that the following subjects were discussed:

1: Indira Gandhi Memorial Fellowship Scheme and the Research Grant Scheme.
2: Commemoration volume in the memory of Stella Kramrisch.
3: Sale of publications of the IGNCA.
4: Manuscripts on music and dance belonging to the former ruling house of Raigarh in M P
5: Report on the 10th and 11th meetings of the Executive Committee.
6: Approval and adoption of the Annual Report and Annual Accounts, 1993-94.
7: Bilateral and multilateral programmes of IGNCA, and aid from U N agencies, Ford Foundation, Japan Foundation, etc.
8: Brief report on implementation of programmes from April 1994 to March 1995.
9: Brief of initiatives taken by IGNCA to strengthen dialogue between Indian and Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, China.
10: Documentation of cultural heritage of Indo-Christian, Indo-Islamic and Indo-Zoroastrian communities.
11: Gita Govinda project.
12: IGNCA newsletter.
13: Annual Action Plan, 1995-96.
14: Calendar of events. 15: Publications of IGNCA.
15: Matters relating to building project.
16: Allocations/release of funds for the IGNCA building project.

There is not one word in the minutes that the deed of the Trust was even mentioned.

This meeting took place on 18 May, 1995. On 30 May, 1995 Sonia Gandhi performed one of technical miracles. She wrote a letter to the Minister of Human Resources informing him of what she said were alterations in the Trust Deed which the trustees had unanimously approved. Pronto, the Minister wrote back, on 2 June, 1995: "I have great pleasure in communicating to you the Government of India's approval to the alterations."

The Minister? The ever-helpful, Madhav Rao Scindia. And wonder of wonders, in his other capacity he had attended the meeting on 18 May as a trustee of the IGNCA, the meeting which had not, according to the minutes approved by Sonia Gandhi, even discussed, far less "unanimously approved" changes in the Trust Deed.

And what were the changes that Sonia Gandhi managed to get through by this collusive exchange of two letters?

She became President for life.
The other trustees -- two-thirds of whom were to retire every ten years -- became trustees for life. The power of the Government to fill half the vacancies was snuffed out.
The power of the Government to appoint the Member Secretary of the Trust was snuffed out; henceforth the Trust would appoint its own Member Secretary.
The power of the President of India to appoint a committee to periodically review the functioning of the Trust was snuffed out; neither he nor Government would have any power to inquire into the working of the Trust.
A Government Trust, a Trust which had received over Rs. 134 crores of the tax-payers' money, a Trust which had received twenty three acres of invaluable land was, by a simple collusive exchange of a letter each between Sonia Gandhi and one of her gilded attendants became property within her total control.

The usurpation was an absolute fraud. The Trust Deed itself provided that no amendment to it could come into force -- on any reasonable reading could not even be initiated and adopted -- without prior written permission of the Government. Far from any permission being taken, even information to the effect that changes were being contemplated was not sent to Government. An ex post "approval" was obtained from an obliging trustee.

That "approval" was in itself wholly without warrant. Such sanctions are governed by Rule 4 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. This Rule prescribes that when a subject concerns more than one department, "no order be issued until all such departments have concurred, or failing such concurrence, a decision thereon has been taken by or under the authority of the Cabinet." Other departments were manifestly concerned, concurrence from them was not even sought. The Cabinet was never apprised.

The rule proceeds to provide, "Unless the case is fully covered by powers to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds, conferred by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance, no department shall, without the previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, issue any orders which may... (b) involve any grant of land or assignment of revenue or concession, grant... (d) otherwise have a financial bearing whether involving expenditure or not..."

And yet, just as concurrence of other departments had been dispensed with, no approval was taken from the Finance Ministry.

The Indian Express and other papers published details about the fraud by which what was a Government Trust had been converted into a private fief. Two members of Parliament -- Justice Ghuman Mal Lodha and Mr. E. Balanandan -- began seeking details, and raising objections.

For a full two and a half years, governments -- of the Congress(I), and the two that were kept alive by the Congress(I), those of Mr. Deve Gowda and of Mr. I. K. Gujral -- made sure that full facts would not be disclosed to the MPs, and that the concerned file would keep shuttling between the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Ministry of Law.

As a result, Sonia Gandhi continues to have complete control over governmental assets of incalculable value -- through technicalities collusively arranged.

A latter-day Dalhousie -- annexation of Indian principalities through technicalities!

Arun Shourie is a former journalist, now a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party...this article was published at voiceofdharma.com