DOWN WITH SONIA’S NATIONAL ASPHIXIATION COUNCIL(NAC)! HAIL DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY!!!
V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.
ALL INDIA GENERAL SECRETARY (IDEOLOGY) JANATA PARTY
DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY HAS HERALDED THE ADVENT OF A NEW AND BUOYANT HEROIC AGE FOR THE CRUSHED HINDUS OF INDIA BY FILING AN FIR WITH THE CRIME BRANCH OF THE DELHI POLICE FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION AGAINST SONIA GANDHI WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHER MEMBERS (SONIA’S MINIONS!) OF THE DEFINITE NATIONAL ASPHIXIATION COUNCIL (NAC) AND DEFINITELY NOT AND POSITIVELY NEVER NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL(NAC) FOR COMMITTING OFFENCES U/S 153A & B, 295A AND 505(2) OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.
The Firangi memsahib Sonia Gandhi has underground nefarious links with the Pope in Rome and Islamic Terrorists operating from Pakistan and Dubai. Ever since her Party came to power in 2004, she has been systematically introducing Policies and Programmes for the promotion of Terrorist Christianity and Terrorist Islam in India. Her congenital hatred and contempt for Hindu Religion in general and Hindus in particular is too well known. In order to please her and just in order to gain some political or official benefits from her, many Sonia Congressmen have converted to Christianity. She has filled the National Advisory Council (of which she is the self-appointed Chairman to boot!!) with her arrogant anti-Hindu lackeys and shameless pseudo-secular chamchas with a known track record of nefarious, shady, shameful, honourless and some with even criminal backgrounds. This private fiefdom of the anti-Hindu Terrorist from Fascist Mussolini Italy called the National Advisory Council, after having a series of underground confabulations with many virulently anti-Hindu Terrorist Christian Padres and Terrorist Muslim Mullahs has prepared and proposed a BILL called Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011 with the sole aim of completely crushing the voice, soul and spirit of the MAJORITY HINDUS OF INDIA.
Dr.Subramanian Swamy, President of the Janata Party and Former Union Law and Commerce Minister has exposed the gigantic and venomous anti-Hindu mischief fraud underlying and animating Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011 in a historic Press Release today (25-10-2011). I VIEW THIS AS A DRESS REHEARSAL OF HISTORY FOR RESHAPING AND REDEFINING THE HISTORY OF OUR GREAT NATION FOR THE NEXT MILLENNIUM.
PRESS RELEASE OF DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY ISSUED ON 25-10-2011
Yesterday I posted to the SHO of the Crime Branch of Delhi Police, located in Rohini, Delhi a written complaint for registering a FIR against Ms.Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of the National Advisory Commission (NAC) and 14 other unnamed persons who are members of the NAC.
The offences alleged to have been committed arises from a draft Bill prepared by the NAC and known as Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill of 2011. This was widely circulated as also posted on the NAV website.
The charge is that Ms.Sonia Gandhi and her NAC members have by writing and drafting such a Bill for adoption by Parliament have incited the Christians and Muslims to attack the Hindus by rioting and mayhem of rape promising legislative protection to them as a “group”, and giving immunity under the provisions of the Bill when enacted, from prosecution even if the said “group” attacks the “dominant” Hindu community.
Hence, Ms.Sonia Gandhi and the members of the NAC are culpable under Section 153A & B, 295A and 505 (2) of the IPC.
If the Delhi Police does not register this FIR by November 10th, I shall approach the court to seek directions to the Delhi Police to register the FIR.
I am giving below THE FULL TEXT of the FIR sent by Dr.Subramanian Swamy yesterday (24-10-2011) to SHO/Insp: D.P.Singh, Crime Branch, Sector 18, Rohini, New Delhi.
FULL TEXT OF FIR FILED BY DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY AGAINST SONIA GANDHI AND THE MEMBERS OF THE NAC
From: Dr. Subramanian Swamy, To: SHO/Insp: D.P. Singh
President of Janata Party Crime Branch,
A-77, Nizamuddin East Sector 18, Rohini,
New Delhi-110013: Tel: 9810194279 New Delhi.
Re: Registering of FIR u/s 153A & B, 295A & 505(2) of
Indian Penal Code.
Dated: October 24, 2011.
1. In public interest I am sending by Courier service a complaint in my name against Chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi of National Advisory Council, which has its office at 2 Motilal Place, New Delhi-110011, Tel: 23062582, and also against unnamed other members of the said NAC for committing offences of propagating hate against the Hindu community of India by circulating for enacting as law a Draft Bill described as PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE BILL OF 2011. This Draft Bill has been posted on the NAC official website, is dated July 21, 2011 and sent for adoption by Parliament. That this 2011 Draft Bill is mischievous in content of targeting the Hindu community, malafide, unreasonable and prejudicial to public order, is apparent from the second section of Explanatory Note [Annexed herein] to the Draft Bill titled “Key Provisions of the Bill”, thereby inciting crimes against the Hindu community with impunity, and thus committing offences u/s 153A & B, 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The UPA Government in December, 2005 had introduced earlier a Draft Bill [2005] in the Parliament described as THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE (PREVENTION, CONTROL AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS) BILL (2005).
3. The Draft Bill however did not find favour with any Party. Leaders of several political parties felt that the Draft Bill provided sweeping powers to the Central Government thus undermining the authority of the State Governments. But the most vocal opposition to this draft Bill came from the Muslim, Christian and so called secular quarters. Their contention was just the opposite of what the political leaders were saying. The view of Muslim and Christian groups was that the 2005 Draft Bill was “completely toothless”. They demanded that the powers of managing communal violence be vested in non-government actors and make governments and administration at all levels accountable them for communal violence.
4. The All India Christian Council was in the forefront of this campaign against the 2005 Draft Bill as being “too weak”. In a letter written to the Prime Minister, Ms Sonia Gandhi, herself a Christian, through the AICC had conveyed to the PM the Christian Council concerns about the 2005 Draft Bill, and then revised the same as the 2009 Draft Bill.
5. The Muslim bodies too joined in the protest campaign against the draft as being too weak. They wanted provisions to make police and civil administration and state authorities “accountable” to public bodies. The Joint Committee of Muslim Organizations for Empowerment (JCMOE) made the demand on behalf of these organizations. JCMOE also urged the government to convene a meeting of leaders of “targeted communities” to note their views on the Bill as follows:
“The Bill does not make police or administration or state authorities accountable and provide for timely and effective intervention by the National Human Rights Commission, if the communal violence spreads or continues for weeks, or by the Central Government under Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, duly modified. On the other hand, ironically, the Bill grants more power to the local police and administration, which, more often than not acts in league with the rioters by declaring the area as ‘communally disturbed area’ JCMOE statement said.
6. It is interesting to note that these two statements, the Muslim and the Christian, come at around the same time as though they were premeditated. They probably were.
7. From their arguments in opposition to the Draft Bill, it is clear that they wanted a Bill that would consider only the Christians and Muslims as the “generally targeted” victims of communal violence; and that the word ‘communal violence’ be re-defined in such a way that only the Muslims and Christians are treated as victims and Hindus as predators, and that the local police and administration, including the State administration, considered hand-in-glove with the perpetrators of violence. Hence the Bill should empower the Central Government to invoke Art. 355 and 356 of the Constitution against any state in the event of such communal violence.
8. Since the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill (2005) does not discriminate between the perpetrators and victims of communal violence on religious grounds and also it does not envisage the State administration as committed in preventing such violence, these groups wanted the Bill to be withdrawn.
9. The National Advisory Council (NAC) was re-constituted in 2009 by the UPA Government again under the chairmanship of Ms. Sonia Gandhi. The UPA Government promptly handed over the re-drafting of the Bill to the newly constituted NAC and asked it to come up with a fresh draft.
10. The basic communally provocative premise of the re-drafted Bill is that: a) there is a non-dominant group in every State in the form of religious and linguistic minority which is always a victim of violence; b) the dominant majority (usually Hindus) in the State is always the perpetrator of violence; and c) the State administration is, as a rule, biased against the non-dominant group.
11. The object of the re-drafted Bill thus was the basic premise of the NAC that the majority community – read Hindus – are the perpetrators of communal violence in India and the minority – read Muslims and Christians – are the victims, clearly is incitement of religious strife.
12. What is more important is to conclude is that in all cases of communal and targeted violence, dominant religious and linguistic group at the State level is always the perpetrator and the other the victims. Similarly the conclusion that the State machinery is invariably and always biased against the non-dominant group is a gross misstatement of the sincerity and commitment of millions of people who form State administration in the country.
13. This dangerous premise is the incitement of communal strife in this Bill.
14. One can safely conclude that the script writers of this Bill are themselves blinded with religious biases. In India communal violence happens mostly because of politico-communal reasons. In many instances, as documented by several Commissions of Inquiry, it is the so-called minority group that triggers the trouble. We hence need laws that can prevent such violence irrespective of whoever perpetrates it. To argue that since the administration is always biased in favour of the dominant group we need acts that are biased in favour of the non-dominant group is imprudent and puerile.
15. The final Draft is available on the NAC website now. One is not sure when the same will be placed before the Parliament. However, a close scrutiny of the Draft is essential to understand the serious implications of and threats from it to our national integration, social harmony and Constitutional Federalism.
16. This Bill when it becomes an Act will apply to whole country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Note that J&K is one of the two States in India (excluding the North East and other tiny UTs) that has Hindus as minority – the ‘non-dominant group’ according to this Bill. Punjab is the other State where the Sikhs constitute the majority, while in the rest of the entire country it is the Hindus who constitute ‘dominant group’ and by implication the perpetrators of communal violence, according to this Draft Bill.
17. The mischief in the drafting primarily lies in the ‘Definitions’ part contained in Art.3 of the first chapter. Art. 3 (c ) defines Communal and Targeted Violence as under:-
“Communal and targeted violence” means and includes any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group”.
18. The mischief is centered round the word ‘Group’. Art 3(e) defines what constitutes a ‘Group’.
“Group” means a religious or linguistic minority, in any State in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clauses of the Constitution of India;
19. Having thus established that the individual member of the Minority community is always considered a part of the Minority group the Draft Bill goes on to add several detrimental clauses subsequently. Art.3 (f) defines ‘Hostile environment against a group’ thus:
“Hostile environment against a group” means an intimidating or coercive environment that is created when a person belonging to any group as defined under this Act, by virtue of his or her membership of that group, is subjected to any of the following acts:
boycott of the trade or business of such person or making it otherwise difficult for him or her to earn a living; or
publicly humilitate such person through exclusion from public services, including education, health and transportation of any act of indignity; or
deprive or threaten to deprive such person of his or her fundamental rights;
or,
force such person to leave his or her home or place of ordinary residence or livlihood without his or her express consent; or
any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act, that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.”
Note the Clause (v) – ‘Any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act’. The intention here seems to be to make anything and everything an offence, even if it doesn’t come under any definition of an offence. It is clear that the entire definition of ‘hostile environment’ is malafide.
Clause (k) defines who is a ‘victim’. Here the draft makers are very explicit:
“victim” means any person belonging to a group as defined under this Act, who has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or hr property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate;
“Victim” can only be belonging to a ‘group’ as defined under this Act. And the group as defined under this Act is the Minority – the ‘non-dominant group’. That means this act will consider only the Minority as the victims. And he or she will become a ‘victim if he or she has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm….’ Now, physical harm is measurable, mental harm is difficult to gauge, but how on earth can anyone define ‘psychological harm’? The Bill does not define it. Then how can be so-called ‘psychological harm’ be one of the reasons for victimhood?
Similarly, Art. 4 (a) states as follows:
4. Knowledge. – A person is said to knowingly direct any act against a person belonging to a group by virtue of such person’s membership of that group where;
he or she means to engage in the conduct against a person he or she knows belongs to that group;
20. Art 7 of the draft Bill defines ‘sexual assault’. It is by far the most widely covered definition that is very much needed to protect women from becoming targets of sexual violence as part of communal violence. But against the problem is that this definition is applicable to the women belonging to Minority group and women of the Majority community cannot benefit from it. Secondly, it also states that in a case of communal violence sex by consent also can be construed as a crime.
21. PATRIOTIC INDIANS NOW REALIZE THAT THE PRESENT DRAFT BILL IS A STANDING PROOF THAT NEO JINNAH-ISM – THE BELIEF THAT THE MINORITY IS PERPETUALLY OPPRESSED IN INDIA BY THE HINDU MAJORITY – IS STILL POISONING OUR MINDS EVEN TODAY BY MISCHIEVOUS MINDS..
22. THE PRESENT DRAFT BILL WILL ONLY PROMOTE DISHARMONY. WITH THESE KIND OF LAWS THE LETS AND HUJLS ACROSS THE BORDER NEED NOT HAVE TO PROMOTE TERRORISM IN OUR TERRITORY ANYMORE. ALL THAT THEY NEED TO DO IS TO ENCOURAGE A MINOR COMMUNAL RIOT AND THEY CAN ACHIEVE WHAT THEY WANT – HUGE RIFT BETWEEN THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY COMMUNITIES.
23. HENCE, THE NAC, WITH MS SONIA GANDHI AS CHAIRPERSON, AND OTHER MEMBERS HAVE JOINTLY COMMITTED OFFENCES UNDER IPC SECTIONS 153A & B, 295A, AND 505(2).
24. IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT EVEN WELL KNOWN PERSONS OF SECULAR CREDENTIALS HAVE CONDEMNED THIS BILL AS DIVISIVE. THE TAMIL NADU CHIEF MINISTER MS. J. JAYALALITHA HAS IN A PRESS RELEASE DATED JULY 29, 2011 [ANNEXED] HAS CONCLUDED THAT “THE REMEDY SOUGHT [IN THE DRAFT BILL] TO BE PROVIDED AGAINST COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE IS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE ITSELF”.
25. THEREFORE, THIS COMPLAINT BE TAKEN AS A BASIS TO REGISTER AN FIR AND CONDUCT INVESTIGATION INTO THE COMMUNAL MENTALITY OF THE NAC CHAIRPERSON MS. SONIA GANDHI AND OTHER MEMBERS AND TAKE NECESSARY ACTION UNDER THE LAW TO PROSECUTE THE OFFENDERS UNDER THE CITED SECTIONS OF THE IPC.
( SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY )
Dr.Subramanian Swamy has also sent a letter to the Prime Minister on October 20th 2011 requesting him to drop the proposed Communal and Targeted Violence (Prevention) Bill. He has also marked a Copy of this letter to Smt. Pratibha Patil, Hon’ble President of India, Mohammad Hamid Ansari,Hon’ble Vice-President of India and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
Smt. Meira Kumar, Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
Shri Kariya Munda, Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
Smt. Meira Kumar, Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
Shri Kariya Munda, Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
I am presenting below the full text of this letter.
Dr. Swamy’s Letter to PM on communal violence bill
October 20, 2011
Drop the proposed communal and targeted violence (prevention) bill
Dr. Manmohan Singh,
Prime Minister of India,
South Block,
New Delhi.
Prime Minister of India,
South Block,
New Delhi.
Dear Prime Minister,
Patriotic Hindus who constitute the overwhelming majority of Indian population, feel that the draft of the Communal and Targeted Violence (Prevention) Bill as unconstitutional. I am writing therefore to you to drop from further consideration, the draft Bill of 2011 authored by Ms. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of the National Advisory Council. This Bill violates individual and State rights as well as the principles of equality under the law, separation of powers, innocent- until- proven- guilty principles underlying due process, and democracy.
Communal violence is a tragedy that must indeed be prevented. It mars India’s long history of religious pluralism and respect. No doubt India’s brand of pluralism is a direct extension of the inter-religious respect promoted by its indigenous and majority Hindu traditions and related faiths.
The Bill, while arguably intended to protect against and prevent such violence, unfortunately ignores obvious historical and contemporary realities, and will consequently only serve to further instigate inter-religious and communal tensions as it wrongly singles out a particular community – the Hindu majority for blame.
It is impossible to read the Bill without seeing the blatant politicization of the issue of protecting victims, with a “special focus on disadvantaged groups”:
This Bill even on a quick reading exhibits the following flaws:
The Bill creates two “groups” of citizens. The language used in defining “group” is mischievously, vague. It is unclear as to whether a ‘group’ is a religious minority as determined by national demography or by state demographics –
(a) If the Bill intends to determine groups as religious minorities based on national demographics as seems to be the intention, it leaves unprotected large groups of religious and linguistic minorities, namely, the Hindu minority in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya -
Example : A dozen Hindu women in a small village are mass gang raped by a mob of Muslim men because of the women’s religious identity or ‘membership’ in the Hindu community, the Bill will fail to protect these victims.
(b): If however the Bill intends to determine groups as religious minorities based on State demographics (i.e. non-Sikhs in Punjab), it leaves unprotected religious and linguistic minorities that may constitute a minority in the context of smaller geographically definable regions such as a district, village, section of a city, despite being members of the majority according to State demographics -
Example: Two of the only Christian businesses in a predominantly Hindu village in Mizoram are boycotted by the Hindu villagers. Under the Bill, boycotts on the basis of group membership is a chargeable offence. Christians constitute a majority in Mizoram. If minority status is determined by the State demographics, the Bill fails to protect these victims.
© While linguistic minorities are presumably based on State demographics, the Bill’s language is unclear because it conjoins “religious” and “linguistic” without a logical qualifier.
(d) The way in which the Bill has defined “group” and afforded special protection on the basis fails to address and acknowledge the historical reality of communal and targeted violence perpetrated by minority groups against the majority and minority against another minority.
Example: In 2007, inter-communal violence erupted between Sikhs and followers of Dera Sacha Sauda, a distinct religious institution and followers from Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam. The Akal Takht, “the highest temporal seat of the Sikhs,” called for a “social boycott” of Dera Sacha Sauda members and of their leader, and called for a “closure of all deras” of the Sacha Sauda in the Punjab. The religious majority of Punjab is Sikh. The Bill does not deal effectively with such complex scenarios, especially where both groups can be considered minorities by national demographics or one group has members belonging to the majority, and both engage in offenses under the Bill. This Bill fails to address the complexities of communal relations.
The Bill will lead to uneven application across Indian States and fail to protect minority Buddhist, Sikh and SC/ST populations from communal and targeted violence in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should the State not consent. Minority Hindus in Kashmir, who have been on the receiving end of communal and targeted violence for several decades and have been ethno-religiously cleansed from the Valley, according to this Bill would not be afforded protection as a member of the National majority, regardless of whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir consents to the Bill.
The Bill, in establishing a National Authority and various State Authorities, grants bodies of unelected citizens the power to interfere, obstruct, and override some of the essential functions of both National and State governments, namely law enforcement and adjudication of the law. The powers of these bodies violate basic principles of separation of powers and rights of States.
The Bill violates the basic common law principle of the right of the accused to confront one’s accuser by empowering the National Authority with duty to protect the identity of informants.
The Bill provides blanket immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who provides a statement before the National Authority, regardless of his/her role in engaging in or orchestrating violence related to the matter under investigation.
The Bill establishes parallel National and State Authorities creating unnecessary bureaucracy, conflicts of interest, as well as confusion, let alone violating basic principles of State autonomy and separation of powers and the rights of States.
The Bill usurps State police powers through broad and sweeping language, such as “through any means in whatsoever manner,” providing unchecked police and/or investigative powers to State Authorities under the Bill.
The Bill violates the basic common law principle of “innocent until proven guilty” by failing to provide an equivalent right for an accused to file a complaint of bias, lack of impartiality, or unfairness with the National or State Authority in general. This chapter does not lay out any procedures to protect the due process rights of the accused, including rights to a fair trial and legal representation, and ensuring investigations are conducted in a fair manner.
The Bill presumes that an offence is communal rather than a purely criminal act, based solely on the fact that the victim was a member of a particular community as defined under this Bill. It allows inferences to be made without imposing any burden of proof or requiring the prosecution to actually prove that the offence is a communal act.
The Bill removes the prosecutional burden to prove that the accused knowingly and intentionally committed an act of communal and targeted violence, and assumes, it was communal based simply on the victim’s membership in a protected group.
The Bill again violates the common law principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” by failing to provide any remedy to an accused in the event the Public Prosecutor shows bias against the interest of the accused.
The Bill provides relief and reparation to victims, whether or not they are minorities, and therefore contradicts other provisions of the Bill if the Bill provides relief to victims of the majority community, it should also provide for prosecution of minorities involved in communal and targeted violence.
The Bill denies legal remedies to any person (s) wrongfully accused prosecuted or convicted under this Bill. The Bill once again implements unnecessarily and sufficiently vague language such as “protection of action taken in good faith” by government, thus providing protection to government officials who may have acted negligently or improperly in accusing prosecuting or convicting a person (s) under the Bill.
I therefore urge the Government to reject this Bill.
The Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill as it is drafted is to target the Hindu community, and hence a blow to India’s democracy, which is secular because the Hindus of the country want it so. This Bill therefore might ignite a mass upheaval amongst Hindus that would jeopardize secularism and usher in a theocratic Hindu state. The Bill thus is a cure worse than the disease it claims to cure.
Yours sincerely,
( SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY )
( SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY )
PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE (ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND REPARATIONS) BILL, 2011 HAS BEEN OPPOSED BY ALL THE STATES RULED BY THE BJP AND ALLIES— GUJARAT, MADHYA PRADESH, CHHATTISGARH, HIMACHAL PRADESH, KARNATAKA, UTTARAKHAND, MAYAWATI-LED UTTAR PRADESH AND WEST BENGAL. BIHAR AND PUNJAB—AS ALSO BY THE BJD-LED ORISSA, AND AIADMK'S JAYALALITHAA'S TAMIL NADU.
This most corrupt, petty, vicious, anti-social, anti-national and anti-Hindu Nazi Dictator from Italy, in close league with an Islamic sniper and terrorist wheeler-dealer called Ahmed Patel wants to throttle the throats of the innocent and peace-loving Hindus of India through her criminal initiative called Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011. The immortal words of Sir.Winston Churchill who mobilised the English language against Hitler and his Nazi tyranny during the dark days and darker nights of II Wold War from 1935 to 1945, are equally applicable to the cruel, wicked and criminal ways of Sonia Gandhi and her politically no less criminal venomous vermin in the National Advisory Council (NAC), nay in my opinion, more truly the NATIONAL ASPHYXIATION COUNCIL. Let us hear the words of Sir.Winston Churchill which was spoken in the British House of Commons: “This gutter-snipe, this vicious monster of all past wrongs and shames, this repository of some of the most virulent hatreds (in this context of Sonia and her grisly gang of chosen and favourite thugs, anti-Hindu hatreds!) that have ever corroded the human breast…..We have to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime”.
Dr.Subramanian Swamy’s FIR with the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police clearly brings out the only cultural, religious and political objective underlying the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011 is the savage enslavement of more than 900 million Hindus of India in perpetuity. In order to achieve this criminal objective, this Italian Impostor through her hired lackeys who think that it is an honour and matter of grace to be ever and ever in her bonded labour, have come out with this obnoxious, stinking and Hindu soul-destroying proposed Legislation.
Who are the lackeys of Sonia Gandhi in the National Asphixiation Council (NAC) ? They are
Aruna Roy
Jean Dreze
NC Saxena
A K Shiva Kumar
M S Swaminathan
V Krishnamurthy
Narendra Jadhav
Mirai Chatterjee
Farah Naqvi
Pramod Tandon
Harsh Mander
Ram Dayal Munda
Madhav Gadgil
Jean Dreze is to the Government of Sonia Gandhi what GRIGORI YEFIMOVICH RASPUTIN (1869-1916) was to Czarina Alexandra of Russia in the last days of the Czar Nicholas II of Russia (1868-1918) before the Great Russian Revolution in October 1917. It is not for nothing that Karl Marx said that History repeats itself and historians repeat each other. The crimes folluies and tragedies of Czar Nicholas II are being re-enacted by CZARINA SONIA GANDHI with greater gusto with the help of the purse-strings of the Sonia Congress Party, a strictly private estate owned by her and her family. Madame Destiny threw up a Lenin in October 1817 to liberate Russia. Madame destiny has thrown up a hero like Dr.Subramanian Swamy to liberate India from the tyrannical yoke of Czarina Sonia Gandhi today!
I am at a loss of words to adequately describe the base, sordid, mean, petty, squalid and criminal intentions of Sonia Gandhi and her chosen members in the NAC (NATIONAL ASPHYXIATION COUNCIL). Fortunately the biting words of the great American Poet Walt Whitman (1819-1892) are stored up in my private armoury for sudden use and burst fire against this grisly gang of anti-Hindu gangsters taking their hourly instructions from SONIA GANDHI. Let us hear the words of Walt Whitman:
“While the members who composed it [any Democratic Party National Convention prior to the Civil War in 1861] were, seven-eighths of them, the meanest kind of bawling and blowing officeholders, office-seekers, pimps, malignants, conspirators, murderers, fancy-men', custom-house clerks, contractors, kept-editors, spaniels well-trained to carry and fetch, jobbers, infidels, disunionists, terrorists, mail catchers, pushers of slavery, creatures of the President , creatures of would-be Presidents, spies, bribers, compromisers, lobbyers, sponges, ruined sports, expelled gamblers, policy-backers, monte-dealers, duellists, carriers of concealed weapons, deaf men, pimpled men, scarred with vile disease, gaudy outside with gold chains made from the people's money and harlots' money twisted together; crawling, serpentine men, the lousy combinings and born freedom-sellers of the earth.”
Let me conclude this story with a Prayer to be offered by the Hindus of India.
Prayer at Night Everyday
Model within us
or of us
in which we still find some meaning
help us
so that we neither intone nor echo
the false doctrines
of the electronic brains
and their masters and servants in the National Asphyxiation Council (NAC)
Where Sonia injustice becomes greater than we are
where Sonia injustice becomes swifter than we are
where NAC injustice becomes stronger than we are
help us not to tire
Where NAC injustice excels us
in knowledge and resources
where Sonia injustice excels us
in endurance and success
where Sonia injustice becomes so great
that we shrink
at its glance
help us not to despair
When NAC injustice invades us
in our days and nights
in our startled waking and in our dreams
in our hopes and in our curses
help us
not to forget ourselves
Where NAC injustice speaks with the voices
of justice and of power
where NAC injustice speaks with thevoices
of benevolence and of reason
where Sonia injustice speaks with the voices
of moderation and of experience
help us not to become bitter
And if we do despair
help us to see that we are desperate
and if we do become bitter
help us to see that we are becoming bitter
and if we shrink with fear
help us to know that it is fear
despair and bitterness and fear
So that we do not fall
into the error
of thinking
we have had a new Sonia revelation
and found the great way out
or the way in
and that NAC alone has changed us
or NAC alone can change us!
