Furtive Visits, Pertinent Questions

rajinder puri, statesman: What is Sonia Gandhi hiding? - Rajeev's podcasts on posterous

By Rajinder Puri

On Monday, Tamil Nadu chief minister Miss Jayalalithaa visited Delhi. She met her Delhi counterpart Mrs Sheila Dikshit. India’s biggest TV channel blared: “Will Jaya also meet Sonia?” Was the channel unprofessionally ignorant or was it colluding with the exercise to hide the furtive movements of Mrs Sonia Gandhi?

Earlier on the same day, there was a statement issued by Mrs Gandhi deploring the murder of a prominent journalist in Mumbai. Was all this being done to create the illusion in the public mind that Mrs Gandhi was in India while she was not? This is not the first time that Mrs Gandhi has silently gone abroad in a manner best described as being furtive. Why the secrecy? What is the purpose of Mrs Gandhi’s undisclosed visits abroad?

An RTI applicant, Mr Ramesh Verma, had sought from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) details of the foreign visits of the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council (NAC) and Congress president Mrs Sonia Gandhi. The Central Information Commission (CIC) forwarded the application to the PMO. “It seems the Parliamentary Affairs Ministry had informed that the Central government had incurred no expenditure on the foreign visits Sonia Gandhi during the last 10 years,” CIC commissioner Mr Satyananda Mishra has stated.

The application to the PMO was received on 26 February, 2010, transferred to the external affairs ministry on 16 March, 2010 and then forwarded to the Parliamentary Affairs Ministry on 26 March, 2010. However, it was not known by the Cabinet secretariat whether the RTI applicant had been provided with the information that was sought. The CIC commissioner criticised the PMO for its casual approach. The PMO did not obtain the information from the appropriate ministry after the query was specifically directed to it.

Congress leaders are frothing at the mouth demanding total transparency from members of civil society. Probes have been launched against some of them. Should not the government display equal transparency pertaining to India’s most powerful politician who is the chairperson of the ruling UPA coalition as well as the chairperson of the government’s NAC? They need to answer the following questions:

Did Mrs Gandhi travel abroad on an airline or by a private jet? If the latter, whose jet was it?

What was the purpose of the foreign visit made by the Chairperson of the NAC and the UPA?

What is the itinerary of the NAC Chairperson? Which countries and cities did she, or will she, visit?

And while they are at it, our worthy Congress leaders may as well also address these ancient and perennial questions:

Why does not the government refute the allegation made by a former member of the Soviet government’s official KGB Commission, confirmed by the official spokesman of the Russian government addressing the media, that the KGB had been donating funds to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s family, including her mother, since 1971? Why does the government not demand an apology from the author of the allegation and failing its receipt launch a defamation case against the author and the Russian government?

Why do the government and the Congress party not explain the purpose of the meeting between accused money launderer Hasan Ali and the political secretary of the Congress president, Mr Ahmed Patel, that was investigated and confirmed by Maharashtra police?

The public awaits from Congress leaders Mr Pranab Mukherjee, Mr Digvijay Singh, Mr Kapil Sibal, Mr Chidambaram and the rest, answers to these questions. Transparency, like charity, should begin at home.

The writer Rajinder Puri, is a veteran journalist and cartoonist

http://thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=373111&catid=39&Itemid=53

17-06-2011

---

Annexation Through Technicalities

Annexation Through Technicalities by Arun Shourie
  

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!

India Connect

September 13, 1999

---

Second time as farce

Pratap Bhanu Mehta Posted online: Tue Jun 07 2011, 01:59 hrs
   

The UPA government continues to defy all norms of rationality, morality, commonsense and good judgement. These days it is difficult to make sense of what the government is thinking, if it is thinking at all. But on every measure, the midnight raid on Baba Ramdev and his supporters was an act of wilful perversity. The government may have thought its raid was a show of authority. Instead it made the state look like a set of thuggish weaklings: conducting raids on peaceful congregations in the middle of the night. A peaceful protest that had no indications of turning violent led to prohibitory orders for the whole of Delhi.
 

Rahul Gandhi had recently asked of Mayawati: why was Section 144 imposed in Bhatta-Parsaul if she had nothing to hide? He would do better to direct this question at his own government. Such a premature use of prohibitory orders only exposes the weakness of the Congress government; it does nothing to project its authority. The problem is not that the Congress has “encouraged” civil society by caving in. The problem is that the party itself tries to act as if it were some kind of NGO, distant from government. The Congress started with cravenness, then descended to impunity. Then it made the mistake of treating citizens like idiots. Instead of presenting a clear, firm authoritative explanation that was half plausible, it let loose on the airwaves Digvijaya Singh, who went on making one unbelievable claim after the other. One can dismiss his rantings. But they have become symptomatic of the way the Congress functions. They reveal how it continues to undermine the state.
  

First, no one claims responsibility for anything (“the party had nothing to do with it”).
  

Second, there is the consistent threat to use state power to intimidate opponents. Whatever may be the realities of Baba Ramdev’s organisation, threats of investigation at this point smack of nothing short of post-facto political arbitrariness. It undermines the credibility of the state even further.
  

Third, there is constant dissimulation. Ramdev is a legitimate interlocutor one minute, he is Satan the next. There is a refusal to make fine distinctions: a fast-unto-death can be a form of political blackmail in a democratic society; peaceful assembly and protest are not. There was something comically chilling about the technical argument used to justify externment. The claim is that the baba was given permission for a yoga camp, not political protest. Embedded in that is a truth. In India, protest, more than anything else, is subject to a licence permit raj, with the same arbitrariness and corruption involved.

Fourth, there is the old RSS canard. The Congress’s use of the RSS card reveals its own bankruptcy. For, in a way it is admitting that it now has nothing to offer by way of an agenda, programme, argument. All it can draw upon is the hope that residual fears of the RSS will somehow mobilise support. It is also dangerously misreading the national mood. Sure, the vacuum in politics has given room for all kinds of elements. But at this moment it is the Congress that seems to be itching to play the communal card: taint the anti-corruption movement with the politics of Hindutva. To its credit, much of civil society has seen through this patent nonsense. The Congress also seems to be forgetting that it has always been the RSS’s best friend. Like in the 1970s, the fatal combination of a moral vacuum, arbitrary use of state power and the free publicity that Congress leaders give to the RSS will do more to legitimise it than anything that Baba Ramdev does. Just as civil society was beginning to overreach, the Congress made them look so good again.
   

Fifth, the Congress simply does not get it. Its core problem is a crisis of credibility. Nothing it says sounds believable or credible. The more it speaks the more holes it digs for itself. The middle class, still clinging on to vestiges of hope in their man Manmohan Singh, needs to ask this question: At this point will anything that the Congress says be believable? It will take an act of great political imagination and daring to restore even minimal credibility. But there is no evidence that it is capable of taking any initiative. If the party had any imagination (or even sense of humour), it would have got its major leaders to do a counter-fast of introspection, instead of letting their words get ahead of their thinking. It would have tried to keep Parliament in session, use the JPC to project credibility instead of turning it into a slugfest on the CAG.
    

Where do we stand now? The crisis will only deepen. Let us not forget that there are still enough open trails in various scams that could further undermine the government. The government, and perhaps the larger political class, are also in a Catch-22 situation. Since they have no moral authority, they will not be able to resist demands for all kinds of bad legislation. If they resist, they will be accused of “going soft” on corruption; if they go along with it they will condemn the country to bad legislation. Either way, there are real dangers. Whether Baba Ramdev himself gains momentum is an open question. But he has, thanks to the government, manifestly created a mood in the country that the government needs to be taught a lesson. The BJP base has, with good reason, been energised. Unfortunately, its own crisis of credibility means that it cannot assume that the rage against the government will translate into support for it. But the Congress would be foolish to underestimate the negativism. It may win a short-term reprieve. But the undercurrents of rage will translate into more tumult. A government that is arbitrary in nature will produce a citizenry that is insolent.
   

Unfortunately, the crisis in the Congress is structural. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi seem to be wilfully oblivious to the responsibilities that come with power; the prime minister thinks silence is a substitute for duty. Some of its smart ministers are too arrogantly clever by half to project any credibility. A large section of the party is too submissive to ask the nasty questions that should be asked of the leadership. And those who take up the cudgels of public argument have no sense of proportion or judgement about what to say, when. What is it about the Congress party that repeatedly produces an intellectual culture that turns intelligent people into self-destructive political animals? It has performed the miracle of turning a moment of great hope for India into a moment of political despair.
   

The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi
express@expressindia.com

---