Home Blog Page 5841

Lies, deceit and threat: Read how Indira and Sanjay Gandhi pulled off the Maruti scam

pranavjain
-
0
Lies, deceit and threat: Read how Indira and Sanjay Gandhi pulled off the Maruti scam

Sanjay Gandhi, the reckless, vainglorious, and utterly reprehensible in his conceited actions, had wrecked India’s democracy from within when in 1975 he, in large part, influenced his mother Mrs Indira Gandhi to impose the emergency and supplant the rule of law with that of corrupt and lying men. The commentariat is, from time to time, abuzz with sordid sagas of his draconian forced nasbandi (sterilization) programme or his authoritarian ways of mindlessly demolishing Jhuggi-Jhopris in Delhi or how he controlled censorship of the fourth estate through VC Shukla.

An oft-overlooked piece of Sanjay’s public life is the Maruti scandal in which he and his mother, then PM of India, were the main perpetrators in hoodwinking an unsuspecting and innocent nation.

Sanjay Gandhi, Mrs Gandhi’s younger son, was of the rather boisterous sort, who, foregoing a university education decided to do a student apprenticeship with Rolls Royce and a course on vocational mechanical engineering, both of which he failed to complete. The late Vinod Mehta, the former editor of the Outlook, noted in his autobiography: “Back in India, Sanjay deftly manipulated his mother, sowing in her a guilt complex about him coping alone with the after-effects of a broken home.”

Eventually, and ultimately tragically, under the munificence of Mrs Gandhi, Sanjay set out to ostensibly make a low cost ‘people’s car’, the Maruti, and with many a government favours filling his sails, he had progressed to putting together his prototype in a huge facility in Gurugram, which is presently occupied by Maruti-Suzuki.

Read: The making of Maruti: A sordid history of Congress scams

Mrs Gandhi, in a calculated show of approval, publicly stated that she commended the enterprising spirit of her son in putting forward a proposal for a small car that is completely Indian, and that her son was a ‘delicate young man’ and with whatever money and energy he had, he had modelled a car, not a posh one, but fairly comfortable, and suited to Indian conditions and the middle class.
The Maruti scandal was just beginning to unfold and the full extent of the chicaneryand underhand pressures officially exercised, and the cravenness of the officials and policy-makers in high places were subsequently revealed in the 141-page report of the Commission of Inquiry on Maruti Affairs, 1979 sanctioned by the Janta Party government in 1977.

The commission’s report makes sad reading and exposes not only Sanjay but also Mrs Gandhi’s complicity in this fraud. Below are the salient points of the report.

  1. At every stage, issues were fudged, rules bent, rivals frustrated, records fabricated, officials subjected to pressure or victimised if they refused to comply.
  2. The PMO was used to orchestrate efforts to secure an industrial license for Sanjay’s Maruti with an approved capacity of 50,000 units per annum.
  3. The issues of land acquisition, facilities, and clearances in Gurugram were taken care of by the then Chief Minister of Haryana, Bansi Lal, who was a Sanjay loyalist.
  4. The car was to be built completely indigenously, without any utilization of foreign exchange or foreign technical assistance. Sanjay violated both stipulations by engaging a German designer Willy Muller, who brought with him two NSU German engines as ‘personal baggage’, one of which was fitted into the ‘indigenous’ prototype.
  5. In the course of reliability tests at the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (VRDE) of the defence ministry at Ahmednagar, Sanjay’s prototype suffered a failure in its steering rod and fell into a ditch. At that time, it had covered 19,376 km as against the stipulated test run of 30,000 km. Yet, officially it was said that the prototype was all right, and it was, in fact, the VRDE’s test driver’s carelessness and inexperience that had caused the car to fall in the ditch.
  6. The then minister for heavy industry, TA Pai, complained to Mrs Gandhi about Sanjay’s failure to comply with the requisite test stipulations, but to no avail as he did not receive any response, not even from Mrs Gandhi.
  7. The government was unconcerned about the production facility of Sanjay’s Maruti coming up in a prohibited zone next to an Air Force facility. Some ‘remedialmeasures’ were proposed and the file sent to Mrs Gandhi who first kept the file forfour months and gave a noting that the matter is kept pending for six months or so.
  8. The company’s minutes books were cooked up and action sought on the basis of bogus resolutions and alleged bank clearances that were never obtained.
  9. Automobile dealers were coerced into buying shares to raise capital for Sanjay’s Maruti venture, and were threatened with demolition of their shops on non-compliance.
  10. Maruti Technical Services and Maruti Heavy Vehicles were floated as private enterprises in which Sonia Gandhi, then still a foreign national, was made a director.
  11. Banks were coerced to bend regulations and the then chairman of Central Bank was hounded and his term not renewed because he did not find it possible to approve Sanjay’s proposal for a loan of Rs 1.5 crores to help his Maruti Limited.
  12. Quite a few of the applications that Sanjay Gandhi made and the letters he wrote to the authorities asking for something for Maruti, were undated or did not contain proper signatures. In some of them, a scratch of the pen or a tick mark was his signature.
  13. Sanjay did this because he was convinced that making these applications was a mere formality and it was pre-determined that all he wanted would be granted to him.In its damning conclusion, the report states: “The affairs described have brought about a decline in the integrity of public life and sullied the purity of administration.

Legal and other requirements were brushed aside and accepted norms of behaviour were forgotten…..There was an atmosphere of fear… the threat of detention under MISA or a CBI inquiry or other forms of harassment made it hazardous for officers to insist on rules. Shri Sanjay Gandhi exercised only a derivative power, the source of authority was the Prime Minister herself”.

This incident shows that when Congress speaks on Rafale or makes unsubstantiated allegations of corruption (or otherwise) on PM Narendra Modi or HM Amit Shah, it indulges in doublespeak and a Janus faced behaviour that can only be described as Machiavellian skulduggery of the worst sort.

From ridiculous conspiracy theories to incredulous lies: 12 lies spread by The New Yorker in its anti-Modi propaganda piece

Editorial Desk
-
0
From ridiculous conspiracy theories to incredulous lies: 12 lies spread by The New Yorker in its anti-Modi propaganda piece

Dexter Filkins’ anti-Modi report for The New Yorker requires the reader to engage in a suspension of disbelief. Unless the reader is willing to enthusiastically endorse the ridiculous proposition that every single institution in India has been compromised, from the Police to the bureaucracy, from the smallest of courts to the highest court of the country, the report would be perceived as a monumental exercise in peddling rabid conspiracy theories akin to the Russian Collusion Delusion, which is exactly what it is.

It is a testament to the report’s lack of journalistic rigour that throughout its gigantic length of nearly ten thousand words, possibly more, it is nearly impossible to read through a couple of sentences without stumbling across a factual inaccuracy. Dexter Filkins in The New Yorker regurgitates crazy conspiracy theories, that have been spoonfed to him by Rana Ayyub, with an air of authority that only a toxic combination of arrogance, ignorance could and unbridled anti-Modi hate ever hope to provide.

In this report, we shall take a look at the major canards he has spread in The New Yorker. However, we have to say from the very outset that we might have missed a few because there’s simply too many of them in one place.

1. Pakistan was created because ‘Muslims were scared’

Dexter displayed obnoxious levels of insensitivity when he writes, “As the British Empire prepared to withdraw, in 1947, Muslims were so fearful of Hindu domination that they clamoured for a separate state, which became Pakistan.” It is not merely a spark of insanity, it is a deliberate attempt at genocide denial.

Was the call for Direct Action Day by Muslims of the time an indication of fear? Was the genocide they perpetrated against Hindus during partition an indication of fear? What does Pakistan represent now? Does it demonstrate any fear? Is the organized persecution and rapes of Hindus that occur to this day in Pakistan indication of the same fear that gripped their ancestors in 1947? Only a fool or a sociopath would say such a thing, it’s obvious to everyone with a two-digit IQ that it’s motivated by xenophobia and religious hatred. Pakistan is a terror state founded by genocidal maniacs in 1947 but here we have Filkins engaging in a blatant distortion of history. That sentence alone should serve to explain the kind of biases that are embedded in the report which sinks further downhill from there.

2. ‘RSS believes many Muslims were descended from Hindus’

Insinuations and loony lies abound in the report. At one point, he says, “Members of the R.S.S. believed that many Muslims were descended from Hindus who had been converted by force, and so their faith was of questionable authenticity.” These are facts, Mr Filkins, not mere beliefs harboured by the RSS. These are not even debatable.

3. ‘Legend of Ram Janmabhoomi began after independence’

Dexter Filkins says, “After independence, locals placed Hindu idols inside the mosque and became convinced that it had been built on the former site of a Hindu temple. A legend grew that the god Ram—an avatar of Vishnu, often depicted with blue skin—had been born there.”

The ‘legend’ did not grow after independence. If Filkins had only bothered to read the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict delivered by the Supreme Court, he would have known that Ram Janmabhoomi has always been held sacred by the Hindus and Rama has been cherished by Hindus since eternity. But Filkins does not trust the highest court of India, he only trusts Rana Ayyub for reasons known best to himself.

4. ‘Psychology says Modi is a fascist’ ft. Ashish Nandy

Another individual who Filkins appears to trust greatly is Ashish Nandy, another discredited partisan hack. Describing Nandy as a ‘trained psychologist’ who wanted to study the psychology of Hindu Nationalists, he wrote, “Nandy interviewed Modi for several hours, and came away shaken. His subject, Nandy told me, exhibited all the traits of an authoritarian personality: puritanical rigidity, a constricted emotional life, fear of his own passions, and an enormous ego that protected a gnawing insecurity.”

“Modi was a fascist in every sense,” Nandy is quoted as saying in The New Yorker article, “I don’t mean this as a term of abuse. It’s a diagnostic category.” This is precisely why nobody should trust psychologists, and I say this as a person who holds a Masters Degree in the subject. Psychologists, too often, cloak their political agendas under the garb of ‘science’ and use their positions to achieve political objectives.

People would remember that psychologists in the United States have also issued public sermons against Donald Trump, clearly motivated by their personal political biases. If professionals in the subject had an ounce of integrity, they would have come out and slammed the psychologists for using the subject to peddle their political agendas. Donald Trump was mentally unfit for the presidency, ’eminent psychologists’ said, without ever having the opportunity to examine him.

5. The Godhra Carnage lies

Dexter Filkins in his The New Yorker article fails to inform his readers about what really happened in Godhra when the CM of the state was Narendra Modi. He says that the coach of the Sabarmati Express was ‘possibly’ set on fire by a Muslim when there’s incontrovertible evidence on record that it was definitely, not possible, set on fire by a Muslim mob. The guilty have even been convicted by the Judiciary of this country and yet, The New Yorker journalist does not believe this is a relevant piece of information his readers should know.

Dexter Filkins wrote, “While the train sat at the station, Hindu travellers and Muslims on the platform began to heckle one another. As the train pulled away, it stalled, and the taunting escalated. At some point, someone—possibly a Muslim vender with a stove—threw something on fire into one of the cars. The flame spread, and the passengers were trapped inside; when the door was finally pushed open, the rush of oxygen sparked a fireball. Some fifty-eight people suffocated or burned to death.”

6. The Gujarat Riots lies

Writing on the Gujarat riots, Filkins says, “According to eyewitnesses, rioters cut open the bellies of pregnant women and killed their babies”. While violence was committed during the riots which were indeed unfortunate, this particular bit is sheer fantasy. None of this happened.

He writes further down the line, “The Chief Minister of the Gujarati government was Narendra Modi, who had been appointed to the position five months before. As the riots accelerated, Modi became invisible; he summoned the Indian Army but held the soldiers in their barracks as the violence spun out of control.” Filkins, presumably, borrowed this from the series of allegations levelled by Naseeruddin Shah’s brother, Zameer Uddin Shah, which does not hold any water and has been debunked on several occasions previously.

Noted political hack Harsh Mander, who is a prominent member of a foreign-funded NGO and was part of Sonia Gandhi’s National Advisory Council on the Communal Violence Bill, also found mention in the anti-Modi New Yorker report. “No sectarian riot ever happens in India unless the government wants it to,” Mander is quoted as saying. “This was a state-sponsored massacre.” Harsh Mander is the kind of person who will never blame the Congress party for the hundreds and thousands of riots that have occurred under its watch or ‘secular parties’ such as Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party for the numerous riots that have occurred in Uttar Pradesh under their watch.

7. Persecution of Political Opponents Conspiracy Theory ft. Sanjiv Bhatt, Haren Pandya

Perennial hatemonger Sanjiv Bhatt, who is contemptible on his best days, was also used by Filkins to peddle his agenda. He wrote, “After Bhatt made his accusation, he was charged in the death of a suspect in police custody—a case that had sat dormant for more than two decades—and sentenced to life in prison.” What is this if not a conspiracy theory? Filkins wants his readers to believe that every institution in India is corrupt, including the Judiciary. He will clearly not trust anyone or any institution apart from Rana Ayyub, an utterly discredited ‘journalist’ who sympathizes with terrorists. Filkins appears to be the kind of person who genuinely believes Jeffery Epstein killed himself and at the same, dismisses the credibility of institutions when it suits himself.

During the course of the report, Filkins used every conspiracy theory that has been used to target Narendra Modi over the years. The death of Haren Pandya, the Sohrabuddin encounter, both of which have been utterly discredited by the highest court of the county feature prominently in the report. Again, he does not trust the institutions of the country but he does trust Rana Ayyub.

8. Great Reliance on Rana Ayyub’s fiction novel The Gujarat Files

Filkins in his The New Yorker article also places great trust in Rana Ayyub’s book ‘The Gujarat Files’ which was trashed by the Supreme Court itself and was a lie-laden attempt to tarnish the then CM of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. The Court observed while dismissing a review petition filed in the Haren Pandya murder case, “The Book by Rana Ayyub is of no utility. It is based upon surmises, conjectures, and suppositions and has no evidentiary value”. It added, “The opinion of a person is not in the realm of the evidence.”

The Court also observed while hearing the petitioners, “The way in which the things have moved in Gujarat post-Godhra incident, such allegations and counter-allegations are not uncommon and had been raised a number of times and have been found to be untenable and afterthought.”

Filkins quotes Tarun Tejpal, the editor of Tehelka at the time, who also believes that Rana Ayyub’s ‘stings’ did not pass the necessary journalistic standards despite being a rabid political hack himself. However, The New Yorker journalist continues to place immense trust in one single person. “The fundamental ethics of the sting is that a sting is no good if a person doesn’t indict oneself,” Tejpal told Filkins. “If you come to me and say, ‘I had a conversation with someone, and he told me that Tom, Dick, and Harry are fuckers, and he knows that Tom is taking money from So-and-So, and Harry really fucked So-and-So,’ it means nothing. That’s just cheap gossip.” So, according to Tarun Tejpal of all people, Rana Ayyub’s book amounted to cheap gossip. And yet, it does not cause Filkins to reevaluate his assumptions about Ayyub.

9. The Judge Loya Conspiracy Theory ft. The Caravan

When all crazy conspiracy theories gathered under one umbrella, how could Judge Loya’s death be far behind? He wrote about the deceased judge, “He told his family and friends that he was under “great pressure” to dismiss the case, and that the chief justice of the Bombay High Court had offered him sixteen million dollars to scuttle it. (The chief justice could not be reached for comment.) Loya died not long after, in mysterious circumstances. The coroner’s report said that he had suffered a heart attack, but, according to The Caravan, a leading Indian news magazine, details in the report appeared to have been falsified.”

Filkins conveniently forgot to mention that Judge Loya’s own family members came out at the peak of the controversy to state firmly that they do not believe that his death was a consequence of foul play and appealed to NGOs and politicians to not harass them. The journalist also did not mention that Loya’s sister whose statement formed the basis of the current spate of allegations accused the Caravan Magazine of misquoting her and claimed that she was deceived into doubting the circumstances of her brother’s death. These are important facts that Filkins conveniently ignored.

10. ‘Media Under Attack’ Trope ft. NDTV

The familiar trope of the ‘media under attack’ was also used abundantly in the report. Filkins relied greatly on the plight of NDTV to further the narrative that every institution in India has been compromised. He says, “In 2016, his administration began moving to crush the television news network NDTV.” He continued, “According to two people familiar with the situation, Modi’s administration has pulled nearly all government advertising from the network—one of its primary sources of revenue—and members of his Cabinet have pressured private companies to stop buying ads. NDTV recently laid off some four hundred employees, a quarter of its staff. The journalists who remain say that they don’t know how long they can persist. “These are dark times,” one told me.”

The ’eminent’ The New Yorker journalist again, very conveniently, fails to inform his readers in his anti-Modi propaganda article that NDTV and its founders are accused of corruption. Not too long ago, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) had upheld two orders of SEBI imposing a penalty of ₹2 crores on NDTV and ₹20 lakh on the company and its directors Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy and Vikramaditya Chandra. It has become extremely commonplace for journalists to hide behind the cloak of ‘freedom of the press’ every time they are accused of corruption or some crime. Journalists want everyone to believe that they are somehow morally superior to every one of us and they are incapable of committing any crime. In case they are accused of misconduct, we should never fall prey to the assumption that they might have committed some wrongdoing because of their moral fibre, obviously, is made of pristine material.

Propaganda websites such as The Caravan and The Wire and characters of questionable repute such as Pratik Sinha received thumping endorsements from The New Yorker. It is not unexpected since Filkins’ journalistic aptitude greatly resembles that of the two propaganda websites mentioned. In the report, he also claims that Republic T.V. was founded with support from the BJP, another piece of fiction in the report.

11. Lies on The Balakot Airstrikes ft. Pratik Sinha

As is to be expected, the Balakot Strikes conducted by the Indian Army was questioned as well. Filkins wrote, “On February 26th, Modi ordered airstrikes against what he claimed was a training camp for militants in the town of Balakot. Sympathetic outlets described a momentous victory: they pumped out images of a devastated landscape, and, citing official sources, claimed that three hundred militants had been killed. But Western reporters visiting the site found no evidence of any deaths; there were only a handful of craters, a slightly damaged house, and some fallen trees.”

Conveniently enough, Filkins in The New Yorker propaganda article ignored the plethora of evidence that confirmed the success of the attack which was authorised by Prime Minister Modi. He also ignores the reports of various observers that the airstrikes were a success. Even the residents of the area confirmed it. Moreover, the conduct of Pakistan was a sufficient indication of the consequences of the strikes. Over time, the Indian government has released numerous evidence that confirmed it. However, as he demonstrates throughout the course of the report, Filkins ignores facts that do not suit his narrative.

Again, Dexter Filkins places a great deal of trust on another individual of questionable repute, Pratik Sinha of AltNews. Given the manner in which Dexter Filkins has lied throughout the article, it’s no surprise that Pratik Sinha is the kind of person he finds trustworthy. He received generous assistance from the AltNews founder in his initiative. We have published a detailed report on the matter that can be read here.

12. The Kashmir and the NRC lies

The New Yorker report began with the abrogation of Article 370 and naturally, it also included the NRC, the two agendas of the PM Modi led Indian government. The author, quite clearly, does not understand the difference between citizens and illegal immigrants. It is not surprising considering the fact that in the USA, Democrats can’t distinguish between the two either. If one reads the report, one would assume that Kashmir was paradise until the Indian government decided to abrogate Article 370. However, as every ordinary Indian knows, Jammu & Kashmir was basically an Islamic state within the Secular State of India. Any country should naturally obliterate such an anomaly. However, the Indian government tolerated it for years.

Kashmir was no paradise before the abrogation of Article 370. Terrorism was rampant, numerous Jihadist organizations were operating in the valley, even ISIS had begun baring its fangs, child marriage was legal, homosexuality was still criminal and an Islamic constitution operated in the state. India is under no obligation whatsoever to tolerate such a monstrosity within its territory. Surely, Filkins will not demand that White Supremacist states be allowed to exist within the United States, why does he then expect India to tolerate an Islamic State within its own territory?

Conclusion

The report by Dexter Filkins for The New Yorker is an exquisite work of propaganda against India and Prime Minister Modi. The sole purposive of it appears to be the documentation of all the myriad of conspiracy theories and ridiculous lies under one umbrella. The New Yorker article is a disingenuous attempt at undermining the current Indian government led by PM Modi. This is clearly an organized effort that was assisted by all the usual suspects. The great length of the report, which is nearly 10,000 words long, possibly more, only confirms the number of lies that have been spread against Narendra Modi and the Indian government since the NDA alliance came to power in 2014.

The New Yorker lies about 2002 Gujarat riots and former Gujarat minister Haren Pandya to defame PM Modi

OpIndia Staff
-
0
The New Yorker lies about 2002 Gujarat riots and former Gujarat minister Haren Pandya to defame PM Modi

Repeat a lie often and it becomes the truth. That is how the illusion of truth works. One of the favourite such lies is often peddled as the ‘truth of Gujarat’ (pun intended) is about the 2002 Godhra carnage, the riots that followed and the politics around it.

It is often repeated that former Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya was a ‘witness’ in a meeting where Narendra Modi, who was the chief minister of Gujarat in 2002, asked police to ‘let people vent their frustration’. The New Yorker, in its article titled “Blood and soil in Narendra Modi’s India” which portrays ‘journalist’ Rana Ayyub as some sort of superhero taking on the ‘big bad guys’, repeats the same lie, amongst many, many other such lies.

The New Yorker on Haren Pandya nad 2002 riots.

The New Yorker names Pandya and disgraced ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt being part of one meeting on the night of 27th February, 2002, the day the Godhra carnage happened, where Modi allegedly let the rioters have a free hand to ‘vent their frustration’. Bhatt even claimed to have attended a meeting where Modi had said he hoped ‘Muslims are taught a lesson’ so that such incidents (Godhra carnage where almost 60 karsevaks returning from Ayodhya were burnt alive in a train compartment by a mob) do not recur.

Read: The real whitewashing – how the crime of burning 59 Hindus alive was covered up

The New Yorker refers to Haren Pandya’s interview to Outlook which was published in the magazine in its 3rd June, 2002 issue which the publication had published without naming Pandya. The Outlook reported in this article that,

The minister told Outlook that in his deposition [to the CCT], he revealed that on the night of 27th  February, Modi summoned DGP (i.e. Director General of Police) K. Chakravarthy,  Commissioner  of Police, Ahmedabad, P.C. Pandey, Chief Secretary, G. Subarao, Home Secretary, Ashok  Narayan, Secretary to the Home Department, K. Nityanand  (a serving police officer of IG rank on deputation) and DGP (IB) G.S. Raigar. Also present were officers from the CM’s office: P.K. Mishra, Anil Mukhim and A.K. Sharma. The minister also told Outlook that the meeting was held at the CM’s bungalow.

The minister told the tribunal (CCT) that in the two-hour meeting, Modi made it clear there would be justice for Godhra the next day, during the VHP-called bandh. He ordered that the police should not come in the way of “the Hindu backlash”. At one point in this briefing, according to the minister’s statement to the tribunal, DGP Chakravarthy vehemently protested. But he was harshly told by Modi to shut up and obey. Commissioner Pandey, says the minister, would later show remorse in private but, at that meeting, didn’t have the guts to object…”

In this report, disgraced ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt (also mentioned in New Yorker in above screenshot) is nowhere in the picture.

Now, there are a few factual errors in this Outlook report. The Outlook report names Chief Secretary, G. Subba Rao and an officer in the CM’s office, A.K. Sharma, as among those at the meeting. Neither were present in that meeting. That day, Subarao was on leave abroad [the SIT too mentioned this on page 312 of its report]  and instead it was acting Chief Secretary S.K. Varma who participated in that meeting.

SIT Report excerpt

One may argue you cannot dismiss the claims just based on one factual error (d-uh). Since Pandya is no more to give further clarifications on the 2002 Outlook reports which are passed around as gospel truth, one must rely on Outlook itself which has acknowledged the error in its subsequent report. In a report published on 19th August 2002, Outlook has named Haren Pandya as the mystery minister it had interviewed in previous edition where Pandya (now named) acknowledges he had got the names wrong, but the place and meeting right.

Read: Supreme Court trashes Rana Ayyub’s Gujarat book, says it is based upon surmises, conjectures, and suppositions

Now, Pandya has said that the meeting lasted for two hours. However, the SIT has acknowledged the meeting lasted 30-45 minutes. Now in this report, too, where Pandya says he got the name of Chief Secretary wrong ‘but everything else is correct’, is factually incorrect.

Not only was the chief secretary not there (he was on leave abroad), another officer, A.K. Sharma was also not present. This was admitted by Outlook, not by the Minister. And sadly for Outlook, there was a third blunder in this allegation even in the 19th August issue, which is that DGP (IB) G.C. Raigar (correct name G. S. Raigar) was also not present in this meeting. Turns out neither Outlook nor Pandya knew this. So even in the 19th August issue, when they admitted mistakes in the 3rd June 2002 issue, they stuck to their story saying ‘rest all information is correct’, but the information in the 19th August 2002 was also wrong since G.C. Raigar was also wrongly named as being present in the meeting.

Now, as we can see there are multiple factual errors in the Outlook report. Another name mentioned in the New Yorker article is that of Sanjiv Bhatt. Sanjiv Bhatt has claimed that he attended a meeting with the then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi where Modi said Muslims must be taught a lesson. Surprise, surprise, Sanjiv Bhatt was not part of any meeting held on 27th February. Even Haren Pandya in his interview with Outlook, which we have now settled has way too many factual errors to be believable, does not mention Bhatt.

Read: Anti-Modi cop Sanjiv Bhatt spreads muck about other Modi haters on social media

In another part of New Yorker, it mentions that the state government allowed the VHP to ‘parade the burned corpses’ through Ahmedabad, thereby flaring the communal tension. Most of the victims of the carnage were residents of Ahmedabad and Vadodara. The bodies were transported via matador along with police escort and were brought to civil hospital on the outskirts of Ahmedabad.

In fact, quite contrary to being ‘paraded’ the bodies were brought between 11:30 PM to 3:30 AM. The places where riots took place, like Naroda Patiya and Chamanpura are too far from Sola, where the bodies were kept. Moreover, the Supreme Court appointed SIT in 2013, before Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister, had claimed that there was no conspiracy in bringing the charred bodies of the Godhra victims.

The New Yorker further mentions that while the then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi had called the Army, the soldiers were not allowed to take over. “As the riots accelerated, Modi became invisible; he summoned the Indian Army but held the soldiers in their barracks as the violence spun out of control,” the New Yorker reports.

The facts about army deployment following the Godhra carnage:

Following the Sabarmati Express carnage on 27th February 2002, where 59 pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were burnt alive, widespread riots broke out and escalated on 28th February. As reported by India Today in 18th March 2002 issue, Modi had called officially called for the Army by 4 pm on 28th February and by 6:30 pm a formal request for the Army landed in Delhi. On 1st March at 1 am, the then defence minister George Fernandes reached Ahmedabad and at 11:30 the Army was staging a flag march.

The Hindu reported on 1 March 2002 (Friday) that “The Army units, frantically called by the Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, as the situation seemed to slip out of hand, started arriving in Ahmedabad and are likely to be deployed in the city on Friday (1 March).”

Another 1st March The Hindu report from the front page says,

The Army began flag marches in the worst-affected areas of Ahmedabad, Baroda, Rajkot and Godhra cities and the ‘shoot at sight’ order was extended to all 34 curfew-bound cities and towns in Gujarat as the orgy of violence in the aftermath of the Godhra train carnage continued unabated for the second day today.

The report further stated,

He (then Gujarat CM Modi) claimed that despite the prevailing tension in the walled city and labour-dominated areas of Ahmedabad, the flag march had a “salutary effect”. He said one Army brigade, airlifted from the border areas and which arrived early this morning, began flag march later in the day while another brigade was expected to arrive in the night.

Rediff report from 1st March corroborated above claims of deployment of Army as well as shoot at sight orders on 1st March itself.

Modi has issued directives to the police to deal ‘strictly with arsonists and if need be shoot-at-sight any person indulging in rioting’, they added.

Meanwhile, the army staged flag marches in the violence-hit areas of Ahmedabad – Daraipur, Shahpur, Shahibaug and Naroda – to instill confidence among the people as unabated violence has claimed 111 lives in the city alone so far.

The army personnel were out in different areas like Daraipur, Shahpur, Shahibaug and Naroda, police said.

The same fact is also reflected in the note submitted by ACS (Home), Ashok Narayan as part of the investigation.

Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi requesting for Army on 28th February 2002

The note further states that in wake of the terrorist attack on the Parliament in December 2001, there was a war-like situation on the border. Hence, the whole force was deployed in the forward/border areas of the country. The state government then requested for Army personnel in the cantonment of Ahmedabad, but no force was available there either. Despite the fact that in such a scenario, withdrawing the Army from the border would require a high-level decision at the Centre, the decision to withdraw the same and deploy to Gujarat was taken without delay.

Note giving details of deployment of Army in Feb-March 2002 in Gujarat

The note says Army personnel were airlifted by using about 40 aircrafts from the border and landed in Ahmedabad by 28th February midnight. 6 buses, 9 trucks and 15 jeeps were sent for use by the Army by 2:30 am on 1st March 2002. During the day 39 additional vehicles were provided. A total of 131 vehicles were provided to the Army. Additional executive magistrates were provided to the Army. Escort officers from the police force were provided to the Army.

Personnel were airlifted to be deployed to Vadodara and Rajkot as well.

Details of Army deployment in Ahmedabad, Godhra and other parts of Gujarat

Within 16 hours of official communication, the Army was brought from forward/border areas and deployed in Gujarat.

Now if only the ‘investigative journalists’ had bothered to carry out an actual investigation instead of relying on clowns masquerading as journalists, things would have been so much better for humanity.

Note: Some parts of this report is based on extensive investigation by gujaratriots.com.

Food subsidy in Parliament canteen ends, MPs to now pay full price for food

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Food subsidy in Parliament canteen ends, MPs to now pay full price for food

In a significant decision, the Members of Parliament have unanimously decided to forgo the food subsidy that was made available to them in the Parliament canteen.

According to the reports, the Members of Parliament, by a consensus, decided to do away with food subsidy at Parliament canteen. The decision was taken after a suggestion from Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla.

Reportedly, members of all parties have agreed to do away with the food subsidy in the canteen. The discussion was held during a meeting of the Lok Sabha’s Business Advisory Committee.

With the decision, the Parliament secretariat will save Rs 17 crores annually, reports have said, as the food in Parliament canteen will now be sold at the actual cost. The Parliament canteen was subsidised to the extent of 80 per cent of its cost in 2015.

The Northen Railway runs canteens at Parliament House, Parliament House Annexe, Parliament House Reception and Parliament House Library Building. The food at canteens inside Parliament premises is provided at lower rates to MPs, officials and visitors.

Earlier this year, the Northern Railway had demanded Rs 16.43 crores from the Lok Sabha Secretariat as the cost for running four canteens in Parliament. The amount which Northern Railway claimed was towards subsidy and establishment cost.

The food prices in the parliament canteen were increased during the last Lok Sabha and subsequently, the government had also reduced the subsidy bill. However, this time, the government has decided to eliminate subsidy completely and all MPs have agreed.

AltNews’ Pratik Sinha helps New Yorker water down Pulwama attack, cast aspersions that Balakot airstrike was fabricated

OpIndia Staff
-
0
AltNews’ Pratik Sinha helps New Yorker water down Pulwama attack, cast aspersions that Balakot airstrike was fabricated

The New Yorker magazine, in its article titled “Blood and soil in Narendra Modi’s India”, which is a ludicrous concoction of lies of fantastical proportions, downplayed the Pulwama Terror Attack and cast aspersions on the Balakot Airstrikes that followed. In its efforts, Dexter Filkins was assisted by none other than the founder of fake news portal AltNews, Pratik Sinha.

The journalist wrote, “On February 14th, a suicide bomber crashed a car laden with explosives into an Indian military convoy in Kashmir, killing forty soldiers. The attack energized Modi: he gave a series of bellicose speeches, insisting, “The blood of the people is boiling!” He blamed the attack on Pakistan, India’s archrival, and sent thousands of troops into Kashmir.”

Filkins thinly veils his insinuation that Pakistan-backed terrorism was not responsible for the Pulwama Terror Attack and it is only Narendra Modi who is blaming the terror state for garnering political mileage through the martyrdom of our soldiers. Furthermore, he insinuates that it’s Modi who insisted “The blood of the people is boiling!” It appears that the American journalist is living under the delusion that the people of India were not actually demanding revenge against Pakistan.

Extract from the New Yorker article

Dexter Filkins then proceeded to question the success of the Balakot Airstrikes itself. Of course, in his endeavour, he received generous help from rabid Modi-hater and propagandist Pratik Sinha. The New Yorker journalist wrote:

“On February 26th, Modi ordered airstrikes against what he claimed was a training camp for militants in the town of Balakot. Sympathetic outlets described a momentous victory: they pumped out images of a devastated landscape, and, citing official sources, claimed that three hundred militants had been killed. But Western reporters visiting the site found no evidence of any deaths; there were only a handful of craters, a slightly damaged house, and some fallen trees.”

Read: AltNews founder Pratik Sinha reached out to OpIndia CEO Rahul Roushan for ‘comments’. Here is what he said

Again, extremely conveniently, Filkins ignores the fact that the Pakistani government denied international media access to the sites of the Balakot airstrikes for days after the attack. The day of the Indian offensive itself, the Pakistan Army cordoned off the 60-acre compound, that is close to an area of 32-34 kilometre radius. No entry or exit of private vehicles was permitted. Even as late as the 8th of March, ten days after the event, Pakistan denied access to Reuters journalists.

Even a US-based activist from Gilgit, Senge Hasnan Shering, confirmed that Pakistan was definitely involved in a cover-up. He had said back then, “Pakistan continues to claim that the strike happened and it damaged the forest area and some farmland. But then there’s no reason for Pakistan to cordon off the area for such a long time and not allow the international media to have an independent opinion on the situation there.” But to Dexter Filkins, all of this is not enough evidence of a cover-up by the Pakistanis. It’s only Pratik Sinha and Rana Ayyub he trusts completely and unequivocally.

Read: AltNews lies in its response but IFCN declares political activists ‘neutral’: Here is how IFCN is a threat to Indian sovereignty

With Pratik Sinha in tow, Filkins engages in a remarkable sleight of hand. The New Yorker Report does not provide any good reason to doubt the assertions made by the Indian government. Consistent with the tone of the rest of the article, Filkins only furthers a preordained narrative through misrepresentation of facts, thinly-veiled insinuations and distortion of events.

Filkins wrote:

“Many of the pro-Modi posts turned out to be crude fabrications. Pratik Sinha, of Alt News, pointed out that photos claiming to depict dead Pakistani militants actually showed victims of a heatwave; other images, ostensibly of the strikes, were cribbed from a video game called Arma 2.” What The New Yorker journalist essentially says is that people posted fabricated videos of the airstrikes on social media. Pratik Sinha, too, says the same thing.

Therefore, the argument appears to be that since people, who are in no way associated with the Indian government in any manner, posted videos that were not authentic, the Indian government must have lied about the success of the Balakot airstrikes. This is a shameless claim of the highest order. It’s akin to claiming that Osama bin-Laden was not neutralized by American forces because some people on social media might have posted fabricated videos or photographs related to the military operation.

Read: No AltNews, Zakir Musa was not a ‘separatist’, he was a terrorist who wanted to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Kashmir

This is the most blatant evidence of a distortion of facts to suit a preordained narrative. It is even shameful that the American journalist was supported in his endeavour by an Indian citizen, Pratik Sinha of AltNews, who has been consumed by his morbid hatred towards Narendra Modi. The hateful nature of Pratik Sinha, the founder of AltNews is well known. Apart from his proclivity towards doxxing, he is known to target the families of those he disagrees with politically. AltNews is known to peddle fake news and engage in the misrepresentation of facts when it suits their agenda.

The entire article is laden with fabrications, lies and ridiculous fantasies. But the real distressing aspect about it all is the fact that Filkins was helped in his project to malign India by a certain section of Indians who hate Narendra Modi intensely. Rana Ayyub even violated Indian laws to help The New Yorker reporter. She smuggled Filkins into Kashmir, violating Indian laws in the process and all manners of decency.

Chidambaram violated bail conditions by claiming clear record as a minister: Prakash Javadekar

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Chidambaram violated bail conditions by claiming clear record as a minister: Prakash Javadekar

On Thursday, Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar hit out at senior Congress leader P Chidambaram saying the former Union Minister violated bail conditions by claiming clear record during his tenure as a union minister.

Speaking to the media, Prakash Javadekar accused Chidambaram of violating the bail conditions by claiming to have a very clear record as a minister despite being accused of involving in multi-crore scams during his tenure as a minister.

Javadekar said that the claim of Chidambaram, who was released on bail on Wednesday after spending 106 days in jail, amounted to “self- certification”.


“The Supreme Court had asked the Congress leader not to speak about the case against him while ordering his release on bail. What he said is in violation of this condition,” Javadekar said.

Earlier in the day, former Finance Minister P Chidambaram, who is out on bail in connection with multi-crore INX Media scam case, had addressed a press conference at AICC headquarters despite apex court’s order not to give statements to the media over the cases against him.

Chidambaram said, ”I am glad to speak to you exactly 106 days after I last spoke to you.”

In the press conference, P Chidambaram claimed that the government was incapable of reversing slowdown. “My record as Minister and my conscience are absolutely clear. Officers who have worked with me, business persons who have interacted with me and journalists who have observed me know that very well,” said P Chidamabaram while giving a clean chit to himself.

On his release yesterday, the Supreme Court had put up conditions ordering him not to give any press interviews or make public statements on the INX Media case. He was also asked to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 2 lakh.

Read: Chidambaram gets bail, to walk out after 106 days but can not talk to media

Apart from these conditions, the passport of the accused would remain confiscated and he would not be able to leave the country without permission. He was also directed to make himself available for interrogation. The court had also ordered him to not try to influence any case witnesses.

The former Union minister was arrested by the CBI after a high-level drama where CBI officials had to scale the walls of his residence on August 21. Later, the ED had taken the custody of Chidambaram on October 17, before his bail order came for the CBI case.

P Chidambaram is accused in the INX Media scam which involves charges of bribery and lobbying in granting foreign investments worth over Rs 300 crores to INX Media. INX Media, later known as NewsX, was owned by Peter and Indrani Mukherjee of the sensational Sheena Bora murder case. Chidambaram is accused of misusing his power as the finance minister to grant INX Media an FIPB clearance.

Cropped video circulated out of context to mock FM Nirmala Sitharaman over onion prices: Here is the truth

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Cropped video circulated out of context to mock FM Nirmala Sitharaman over onion prices: Here is the truth

A cropped video of Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman saying that she does not eat much onion and garlic is being circulated across social media by supporters of opposition parties, to accuse the finance minister of being insensitive towards the issue of soaring onion prices.

In the Lok Sabha on Wednesday, NCP MP Supriya Sule had asked the FM about rising defaults in Mudra loans, about the soaring onion prices and the steps that are being taken by the government to tackle the shortage.

As the Finance Minister began to respond to Supriya Sule’s question, an MP intervened and asked her if she eats onions. To which, Nirmala Sitharaman replied, “I do not eat much garlic or onion, I come from a family where we do not bother much about onions.”

The cropped video of the same, without the questions and the context of the discussion, soon hit the social media platforms to mock her and convey to the public that the Finance Minister was being insensitive to them by stating that the price rise did not bother her as she does not consume onions or garlic.

However, the full unedited video of her address in the Lok Sabha on Thursday reveals that the minister was responding to a specific question asked by an MP, who had interrupted her as she stood up to answer Supriya Sule, asking if she ate onions.


Following the false allegations against her, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Thursday stated that her replies on the floor of the Lok Sabha are being quoted out of the context to mislead the public.

Minister Sitharaman also clarified regarding the controversy by stating that she was explaining to the house regarding the steps taken by the government to control onion prices and provide relief to the common man. “A part of this video clip is being quoted out of context and is misleading,” said the Finance Minister.


On Thursday, the Finance Minister has addressed the Lok Sabha on the issue of rising onion prices. She had said that the government has taken several steps to check rising prices of onion and has initiated steps to improve technology for better storage of the kitchen staple.

She added that the shortage of onions was due to low production and added that there were severe structural problems related to onions. She also said that the government has taken several steps to check rising prices of onion including a ban on exports, the imposition of stock limit, import and transfer of onion from surplus to deficit area.

Uttar Pradesh: Rape survivor set on fire by her out-on-bail rapists in Unnao, victim suffers 90% burn

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Uttar Pradesh: Rape survivor set on fire by her out-on-bail rapists in Unnao, victim suffers 90% burn

In a barbaric incident, a 20-year-old rape survivor was set on fire by pouring kerosene on her allegedly by five men, including the duo who are accused of raping her a year ago. The incident occurred at Sindupur village under the Bihar police station area on the wee hours of Thursday and has caused tension in the area.

According to the reports, the rape accused and his friends dragged the woman outside of her village, took her into the fields and doused her in petrol before setting her on fire. She was raped by the five men in March while police could manage to arrest only three of them and two others were still on the run.

Reportedly, the rape victim survivor was going to Raebareli with her parents to pursue the case at 4 am on Wednesday when she was attacked. The survivor was immediately rushed to the district hospital and then referred to Civil Hospital in Lucknow after her condition deteriorated.

“She has told investigators that she was set on fire by the two accused who had raped her a year ago and were presently on bail. They were accompanied by three of their associates,” said the police.

DS Negi, the chief medical officer of Civil Hospital in Lucknow, said that the survivor has sustained 90 per cent burns.

“The survivor is in a restless state due to pain. The next 48-72 hours are critical for her survival. She is in a state of shock as of now,” said plastic surgeon Dr Pradeep Tiwari who is treating her at the Civil Hospital.

DGP OP Singh said the incident is very unfortunate and all five accused, including Hari Shankar Trivedi, Shivam and Shubham Trivedi, have been arrested.

“The case was transferred to Raebareli following court orders a few months ago. We have recorded the statement of the survivor. Unnao DM and SP are supervising police action. Cops are scanning call details of all the accused,” Singh said adding that ADG (Lucknow zone) has rushed to the Trauma Centre to ensure proper treatment to the survivor.

Mumbai Metro: Stand-up comic Vir Das is upset people are making jokes on him while exposing his hypocrisy

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Mumbai Metro: Stand-up comic Vir Das is upset people are making jokes on him while exposing his hypocrisy

Standup comic Vir Das is upset. Because people are making jokes on him. And this is not a joke. On Wednesday, Das took a Eurostar, a high international train, from Brussels to London and shared an image on Twitter.


His tweet hailing public transport like high-speed international train generated curiosity. Twitterati dug out his old tweets where he had opposed felling of trees for the construction of metro car shed in Aarey in Mumbai.


Netizens called him a hypocrite for having different standards for infrastructure projects.


And as some netizens correctly predicted, he has blamed the omnipresent ‘IT cell’ for normal people pointing out his hypocrisy.


Leftist organisations, politicians and virtue signalling activists had gone berserk after the authorities cut trees at the proposed site of the Aarey Colony for the Mumbai Metro car shed project in October this year. The vain protests and virtue signalling by people who never pause to think about the environment before using gas-guzzling SUVs, air conditioning and other personal luxuries have been called out on Twitter.

Read: Maharashtra: Maha Vikas Aghadi’s unholy alliance continues its vendetta as it mulls scrapping Mumbai-Pune hyperloop project

The new Uddhav Thackeray led Shiv Sena-NCP and Congress alliance government which came to power in Maharashtra has halted the metro car shed project in Aarey.

Irony just protested against an infrastructure project, got it binned and laughed at its own joke.

Explained: How Citizenship Amendment Bill embraces the history of India

Abhishek Banerjee
-
0
Explained: How Citizenship Amendment Bill embraces the history of India

The Union Cabinet has now approved the Citizenship Amendment Bill. We can now expect the Bill to be placed before both houses of Parliament shortly.

As with most things about India, there has been a large constituency, both in India and abroad, that has been trying to spread misconceptions about the intent and content of the bill. We hear that the Bill is against “idea of India,” whatever that means. The global liberal audience, which sees a Hindu fundamentalist hand in everything from sarees to car stickers, is only too happy to cry foul.

Let me make here a humble effort to explain, in a simple Q & A format, the need for the Citizenship Amendment Bill and its justifications, both from a historical and contemporary perspective.

Q: Why does the Citizenship Amendment Bill exclude Muslims? Doesn’t it make the Bill anti-Muslim?

A: The Bill also excludes Jewish people. Does this also make the Bill anti-Semitic?

Q:  Why should a secular state have laws that are based on religious identity?

A:  India already has plenty of laws that are explicitly based on religious identity. The laws regarding control over educational institutions and places of worship depend almost entirely on the religious identity of who is running them. Laws regarding property, inheritance, marriage and divorce also depend explicitly on religion.

Our model of “secularism” has always been about special privileges for minorities.

Surely the same argument should then be extended to those who have entered the country from Pakistan or Bangladesh. Our model of secularism, when applied to Pakistan and Bangladesh, would mean that it is Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, etc who need special privileges and protections.

Q: Isn’t the Citizenship Amendment Bill against the idea of India?

A: No, the Citizenship Amendment Bill, in fact, embodies the idea of India. Our country was formed out of Partition, which was explicitly based on religion. This is established fact and cannot be denied. Therefore, a law that addresses the injustices of Partition must be based on religion.

Surely, the idea of India is not to deny the history of India.

Q: Isn’t it wrong to make citizenship dependent on religion?

A: The law does not say that the Citizenship of India is based on religion. It merely offers a targeted relief to Hindus, Sikhs, etc from Pakistan and Bangladesh who seek citizenship of India.

Targeted relief to vulnerable people is not discrimination. If there is a drought in Madhya Pradesh tomorrow, the Central Government will declare relief for farmers of Madhya Pradesh. This is not discrimination against the farmers of West Bengal.

There are still many other ways to become a citizen of India via birth, naturalization or registration and none of these laws has anything to do with religion.

Q: Why only Hindus then? There are marginalized communities such as Shias among Muslims as well? Why not include them too?

A: There will always be some subjectivity in defining which communities are marginalized and which ones are not. In fact, the National Commission for Minorities did not recognize Jains as a religious minority within India until the year 2014. The specific Bill in question provides relief to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Christians. There are any number of other religious groups in the world that can claim to be marginalized somewhere. There could be Jewish people, there could even be atheists.

Read: India: A land with Hindu consciousness, which will forever be a natural home for Hindus

So we can have debates about which communities should be included by name, but this debate will never end. So it cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the Citizenship Amendment Bill here and now.

Q: Isn’t it quite well established that Shias in Pakistan or Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar are vulnerable communities? Why doesn’t this bill include them?

A: As a practical matter, the government of India (or any other sovereign nation) is under no obligation to extend principles of “equal treatment” to foreign citizens.

If there is an earthquake in Bangladesh tomorrow, sure it would be nice of India to send some relief material over there. But whether this aid is given and how much aid is given, will depend on security, trade and diplomatic relations between our two countries at that specific point of time.

The whole world operates on that principle. Not just in humanitarian issues, but even in routine everyday matters such as issuing visas. US Visa seekers from India generally report a very different experience from US visa seekers who are citizens of Germany, for example. Similarly, India offers visa on arrival to certain citizens but not to others.

Q: Won’t this Bill affect India’s moral standing in the world?

A: Only if we are not able to explain our position properly. Every democratic country in the world distinguishes between “asylum seekers” and “economic migrants.”

The CAB merely protects vulnerable religious minorities from being deported to Pakistan or Bangladesh. Most countries allow religious persecution as a basis for asylum claims. Would you have a gay person deported to Iran where homosexuality is punishable by death? Would you say that a policy of not deporting gay people to Iran is discrimination against straight people?

In a nation as ancient as India, history plays a significant role. The Constitution of India opens with “India, that is Bharat…,” thus claiming for itself the whole and the entire legacy of the subcontinent spanning thousands of years.

Read: India has a civilisational responsibility to provide citizenship only to persecuted followers of Indic religions: Here is why

For example, we see the Indus Valley Civilization as part of our history, even though both Mohenjodaro and Harappa are situated in present-day Pakistan. So is Taxila, where a great Indian university once stood. The Emperor Kanishka, who ruled over a region that is mostly in Pakistan today, is still venerated as a great ruler of India.

Is there such a thing as “Pakistani history”? We have no idea. Two countries were born in August 1947. But only one of them has a history.

Read: As Congress opposes CAB, here is what Manmohan Singh had said in support of the bill in 2003

This history leaves us with responsibilities that the modern Indian nation simply cannot overlook. And one of these responsibilities is to be a primary protector for those who follow the ancient religions that were born in India. All nations with a history, such as India or China, must carry out these obligations.

India is not just a country, it is a nation with a history. Any other way of looking at India is facetious, misguided and just plain wrong.

1...5,8405,8415,842...7,604Page 5,841 of 7,604