|Posted by Victory Means Guruprasath on January 17, 2016 at 7:20 AM||comments (1)|
The 4th chapter of Patanjali's Yoga Shastra is called: KAIVALYA PAADHA. - the 20th sloka states:
"eka-samaye cha ubhaye anavadharanam"
Meaning, At the same time it is impossible to perceive 2 parameters.
So who discovered Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
Both Heisenberg and Schrodinger have read our Upanishads and credited them for their discovery
Heisenberg has read Bhagawat Gita well!
|Posted by Victory Means Guruprasath on January 17, 2016 at 7:10 AM||comments (0)|
Other than the DNA proofs and the origin of Tamil grammar 'Agasthiyam', 'Tholkapiyum' composed by Brahmins that shows Brahmins have been part of the Tamil culture from the time of Tamil language here are few additional points for the benefit of everyone:
1. As per the theory Aryans were shepherds rearing Goat, horse, camel, etc., from Kabul/Tashkent/Arctic region/Switzerland who invaded India and drove the native Dravidians
2. They were shepherds and had no knowledge and they started to develop Vedas which contain 1,93,516 words of perfect and refined Sanskrit with no grammatical errors to the extent that it was used to refine German language by Germans. Contradicting .. Right?
3. The artifacts excavated from more than 1,000 locations in India doesn't show any aggression by foreigners. The art of metallurgy and artifacts collected across India from Kodumanal in Tamil Nadu to Dariba mines of Rajasthan show similarity and high quality.
4. Arya means noble. Sita used to call Lord Ram as Arya Putra and similarly Mandothari used to call Ravanan as Arya Putra.
4. The Britishers wanted to create an inferior impression among Indians that they were ruled by foreigners earlier so that they can loot India.
5. This message was spread through Western Historians and with the help of Max Muller. Later continued with Nehruvian schools.
6. At Cambridge University when Max Muller proposed this theory everyone there clapped. And when same Max Muller after some time said Aryan Invasion theory was false no one wanted to applaud!
7. Max Muller was paid £ 5 for every Page of Veda he translated. The highest at that time. Max Muller in his letters to his wife said that he was deliberately adding mis-interpretations of Vedas to appear as just hymns so that somewhere down the lane when people start reading his version of Veda people may denounce Vedas. This will create a vacuum and Biblical messages will be used to fill the vacuum and convert people.
8. As per Biblical records Jesus Christ was 46/72/120 generation from Adam and Eve (Different version say different data) let us take the highest 120 nd generation. 1 generation is approximately 30 years. Therefore 120*30 = 3,600 years. So approx. 3,600 yrs ago first humans were formed. We have archeological evidence in India that dates back to 8,250 BC. Near Ural Mountains, Italy human body that is 69,000 yrs old have been excavated.
9. Why am I saying this now? Because the western historians modified our Indian history to be not more than 1500 BC. That is after Adam and Eve's birth. This is because if history existed before Adam and Eve, their Genesis will go wrong, then no sin and if no sin no need for Jesus Christ to be crucified. Then Christianity will become bogus. That is why they have carefully planted stories.
10. Don't worry Karma is always there. During the WWII, Hitler motivated Germans stating they were Aryans and the biggest causality was for the British side in the war. Their own lie boomeranged on them.
Hence always do good. You will get good. If you do bad you will get bad. 'As you sow, so you reap'
Courtesy: Dr. N. Gopalakrishnan
|Posted by Victory Means Guruprasath on January 17, 2016 at 6:50 AM||comments (0)|
Few insides into Islamic banking and why it is a myth:
1. Before we explain why Islamic banking is a myth, let’s understand something basic about money and investment. There are only two basic forms of saving or investing – equity and debt. If you give somebody money and the borrower is not expected to pay interest, but only share profits, you are investing in equity. If the borrower is expected to pay interest, it is debt.
2. Let’s understand, equity is risk. The returns are priced based on the risk undertaken. Debt is meant to avoid risk, and is the price payable for the time value of money.
3. Now consider what an Islamic bank would have to do if it were to take Koranic ideas to their logical end: since a bank’s primary purpose is to bring savers and investors to a common platform, an Islamic bank would have to invite depositors to take up equity. An Islamic bank would thus have an ever-expanding equity base, reduced occasionally whenever it has to write down equity to write off losses. Depositors should thus get dividends, whenever the business makes a profit.
4. On the borrowing side, since the funds do not carry interest, the borrower would have to declare his profits and share it with the bank in some predetermined manner.
5. In theory, this is fine. But in practice, this is simply not viable when both depositors and borrowers have alternatives.
6. If I am a depositor, and the bank tells me it may or may not give me a return, I have a choice: if I don’t want to take a risk, I would opt for a traditional bank which promises me a clear return at no risk. Very few people, even Muslims, may want to take this risk, unless theologians frighten them enough with hell and damnation.
7. If I am a borrower, why would I agree to share a proportion of my profits unless they are so low that borrowing from a normal bank would be costlier? In fact, only projects that are inherently losers would want to take money from an Islamic bank.
8. In the real world, Islamic banks have to compete with normal banks. They thus create instruments which mirror the returns that are close to current market interest rates in order to retain business. They are thus pulling wool over the eyes of true believers where interest will be disguised as dividend, and borrowing as purchase of assets by the bank. A loan returned would be classified as the repurchase of the same asset by the same person or company.
9. The Kuwaiti banker, Ahmad Al-Sarraf, quotes a cleric, Prof Hamid Al-’Ali, as saying that “Islamic banks disguise usury by inventing documents that appear on the surface as sales documents, but that are actually interest-bearing loans. Therefore, anyone who distinguishes between traditional and Islamic banks is ignorant.”
10. Clearly, Islamic investment and banking are little more than fig-leaves to give Muslims an excuse to adopt relabelled normal banking.
11. Islamic banking is a bad idea intended to fool Muslims. Only a government trying to woo a sectarian vote would even think of legislating such a law.
|Posted by Victory Means Guruprasath on December 26, 2015 at 2:00 PM||comments (0)|
How do the foreign Intelligence agencies brain wash a nation (including India - India is currently a brain washed nation. How? is what you gonna tell me).
They generally do it to change the perception of reality to such an extent that despite having lots of information no one is able to arrive at a sensible conclusion in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, their culture and country. It is a great brain washing process that takes place slowly
It is done in a 4 stage process:
1. Demoralizing a society: It takes 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why so many years? Because it is a minimum number of years required to brain wash one generation of students in the enemies country (target country) exposed to the ideas of the demoralizing country. The information would be pumped into the soft heads of students without being challenged counter balanced by the patriotism. Mostly it will be done through Indians to Indians. Thanks to lack of moral standards eg: alcoholism, and other de-moralizing elements. This is the place where it will start. Once brain washed, exposure to true information does not matter any more. A de-moralized person will be unable to asses facts. Facts mean nothing to him/her. Even if you shower him/ her with information with authentic proof, documents, he/ she will refuse to believe it.
2. De-stabilization: It takes only 2-5 years. What matters is 3 - Economy, foreign relations and defense.
3. Crisis: It would only take 6 weeks to bring a country into verge of crisis.
4. Normalization- After bringing a crisis make a violent change in power, structure and economy. This period might go indefinitely. They promise people all goodies and paradise on earth to de-stabilize the economy, to eliminate free market competition, freedom of speech depreciated and bring in a 'big boss' type of government. They will promise lots of things whether it can be fulfilled or not.
Some of the prominent people who will be involved in this brain washing include (but not limited to) Professors, civil right activists, journalists, media etc.,
|Posted by Victory Means Guruprasath on December 26, 2015 at 1:55 PM||comments (0)|
1. Seeds of Wahhabism founded in the 18th C were sown in 14th C by Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah re-invented and re-weaponised Jihad
2. Their Prophet said the Lesser Jihad (Jihad Kabeer) was over; the Greater Jihad (Jihad Akbar) had started.
3. Pragmatists cited their Prophet's famous declaration in Hadith on his return from battle of Bard.
4. After Mongols devastated the Islamic heartland, Ibn Taymiyyah found that the Greater Jihad idea had weakened Islam.
5. Taymiyyah stood for a literal, and against a liberal, idea of Jihad. He defied the Prophet Himself on the pragmatic Greater Jihad.
6. Citing two verses in the Quran (Ch 2:193; Ch 8:39) Taymiyyah argued Prophet’s division of Jihad in Hadith overriding Koran was not authentic
7. Taymiyyah declared that the (indivisible) Jihad against Islam’s adversaries was the finest act a Muslim could perform.
8. Taymiyyah also classified the infidels of Islam in four categories: Christian; Muslims with infidel habits unless brought back to Islam, the Muslims not carrying out Islam’s rituals; and those who rejected Islam while still claiming to be Muslims.
9. Taymiyyah declared that no peace was possible with the first two category of Infidels and the next two must be mercilessly killed
10. Taymiyya’s theology was rejected in his times. Branded as a heretic, he was imprisoned. But his theology continued to attract adherents.
11. A most famous adherent of Taymiyyah was Muhammed Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, who founded, in 18th C, what is now known as Wahhabi strand of Islam
12. Taymyyah rejected first reincarnated. Al-Wahhab was schooled in Medina under Taymiyyah's disciples Muhammed Hayat & his father from Sind.
13. Mohammed Hyat and his dad encouraged their students to “view the militant jihad as a religious duty”.
14. When Al-Wahhab was in Medina, Shah Waliullah from Delhi too was in Medina studying Hadith under master of Al-Wahhab’s teacher [Taymyyan]
15. Al-Wahhab and Shah Waliullah, both young, went back to their respective countries to implement the radical teachings.
16. In Delhi, Waliullah called for “a return to the first principles of Islam”. He attempted to restore ‘Muslim rule in Hindustan’
17. Waliullah invited Afghan ruler Ahmed Shah Abdalli to invade India and destroy the Hindu Marathas to bring back golden days of Aurangazeb.
18. But Ahmed Shah was defeated and the Maratha gained dominance in northern India.
19. But Waliullah’s Medina-mate Al-Wahhab “was able to construct and apply almost unchallenged a brand of confrontational and heartless Islam
20. Al-Wahhab's Islam, Allen says, was like Mahmud Ghazni's, the butcher, who looted-destroyed India 12 times in the name of Islam.”
21. Al-Wahhab’s book Call to Unity, which later became a four-volume affair, expounded the Wahhabi theology.
22. Al-Wahhab declared that there should be but one interpretation of the Quran and Hadith — Al-Wahhab’s — and none else.
23. Pointing out Islam rose only by Jihad against idolaters & polytheists, Al-Wahhab said loving true Muslims & hating infidels was Wahhabi way
24. A historic turn came in Islamic history in 1744 when Al-Wahhab allied with Muhammed Ibn Saud, warrior/leaderof the powerful Aneiza tribe.
25. They mutually recognized each other — Saud as the secular leader (Emir) and Al-Wahhab as the religious head (Imam).
26. The rulers of Saudi Arabia are the descendants of Muhammed Ibn Saud. Thanks to Saudi Arabia owning up Al-Wahhab’s theology, Ibn Taymiyya, outlawed long ago, occupies place of honour next only to Al-Wahhab’s
27. ISIS is the latest manifestation of Wahhabi Islam. It attracts Jihadists from all over the world on theology of Al-Wahhab — read Taymiyyah.
28. IS gets funded and supported. Putin has shared with G20 leaders names of individuals from 40 nations, incl some G20 constituents, fund IS.
29. Many liberals think terrorists are just a handful of misguided persons. Thousands are not a few. A mobile army conscripted by Wahhabi Islam
30. The Taymiyyah-Wabhabi theology guides millions and millions of Muslims from which thousands of Jihadists emerge on the tap.
31. The other strands of Islam, moderate or immoderate, are struggling — in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan and elsewhere — for survival
32. Ibn Taymiyyah’s theology is at the root of the problem of Islamist terror. Is Abu Oud then the mastermind of Paris Jihad? Not at all. Abu Oud is at best the master hand. The mastermind is Ibn Taymiyyah who re-weaponised the Jihad and that impelled Abu Oud.
33. Taymiyyah’s Jihadi exposition blew up Paris. Last several decades, Taymyyah concept of Jihad has snuffed out lacs of innocent lives.
34. Any battle to save moderate Islam should start with disowning Ibn Taymiyyah and Al-Wahhab — the very definitions of today’s hate and terror.
35. If the root cause remains unaddressed, even if one outfit is destroyed another will promptly emerge — like the IS after the Al Qaeda
In his book God’s Terrorists Charles Allen traces the history of Wahhabism, the guiding ideology of Islamist modern terrorism.
Courtesy: S Gurumurthy
|Posted by Victory Means Guruprasath on February 6, 2013 at 4:25 AM||comments (0)|
In its November 30, 2012 issue, Urdu daily Rojnama Rashtriya Samachar reported that Poland has banner the killing of animals the Islamic way.
The report said that a Polish court had ruled that bleeding animals while they are still conscious with the intention to kill them is against Polish laws. Poland is the second country to ban Halal meat. Previously, Sweden had done so.
In Poland, before slaughtering, animals are made unconscious with electric shocks. Islamic tradition however, does not allow animals to be made unconscious before killing them.
(Source: India Policy Foundation)
|Posted by Victory Means Guruprasath on December 4, 2012 at 4:40 AM||comments (2)|
Sarasvati is ground-truth. So is Mahabharata an account of the ancient history of Bharat. The dating of this epic is fundamental in establishing the historical chronology of ancient Bharatiya Itihaas. Veda Vyasa who wrote the Mahabharata observed the sky inscriptions from the banks of River Sarasvati. The epic describes a pilgrimage of Balarama (elder brother of Krishna) from Dwaraka-Somnath(Prabhas Patan) to Mathura along the banks of River Sarasvati in 200 shlokas in the S'alya Parvan.
This date of Mahabharata War is crucial in determing the chronologies in the ancient history of Bharat since many epigraphs and inscriptions with a historical import, refer to time-reckoning based on the starting date of Kaliyuga which is close to the date of the Mahabharata War.
Dating Mahabharata events using astronomical references
Using a set of modern technology tools such as Planetarium Software (Sky Map Pro 5, Red Shift), Panchanga Software compiled by a Japanese professor to produce the equivalence between Kaliyuga dates and dates of the Christian era, Dr. Narahari Achar has tried to authenticate the accuracy of observations made by Veda Vyasa in the Mahabharata.
In the epic, Veda Vyasa himself says that day in and day out he is watching the planetary positions on the skies. His recording of over 70 such planetary events are almost like a record of celestial inscriptions within the text. These celestial events are used to date the events which occurred on the banks of River Sarasvati -- events which are described in the epic poem. Since the planets on the sky and the celestial events are remarkably accurate and follow a precise pattern of cyclical movements, to a rhythm of time, the determination of planetary positions as observed by Veda Vyasa will help determine the date of events described in detail in the shlokas of Mahabharata.
In the past, many scholars have attempted to arrive at the date of the war based on one or two celestial events mentioned in the text. But, the contribution made by Dr. Narahari Achar is unique in that he tries to find a series of dates which is consistent with almost ALL the 150 plus astronomical references contained in the text.
Akhila Bharateeya Itihaasa Sankalana Yojana has published a reference work by Shriram Sathe as a compendium of astronomical references in the Mahabharata. This work has provided the basis for this International Colloquium.
In a paper presented at the international colloquium held in Bangalore on Jan. 5 and 6, 2003 and organized by Akhila Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Yojana, Mythic Society and Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts Southern Chapter, Dr. Achar conclusively proves that the observed celestial events on the sky, observed by Veda Vyasa were based on a variety of observations:
1. Lunar-solar-lunar eclipse sequence occurring within a period of one month and one lunar-solar eclipse sequence occurring within just 13 tithi-s;
2. A comet (Haley's comet) is observed on the sky;
3. Bhishma waits for the uttarayana punya kaala (winter solstice) and ashtami tithi to arrive before his soul departs from the mortal body;
4. Karna describes to Krishna the observation of unusual planetary conjunctions -- almost all the seven planets coming together;
5. Balarama's pilgrimage starts on a particular tithi and nakshatra and ends after 42 days on a particular tithi and nakshatra. All such observations are found by Dr. Narahari Achar to be consistent with only one date: about 3000 BCE, i.e. about 5000 years ago. No other date matches so consistenly with all the astronomical observations or, what may be called, celestial inscriptions.
This finding is historic and constitutes a watershed in our understanding of chronology in ancient itihasa of Bharat.
Firstly, it establishes the historic authenticity of Mahabharata as a sheet anchor of Bharatiya Itihas.
Secondly, Veda Vyasa should have recorded only observed celestial events when he provides precise astronomical details in the text. The observations should have been made from the banks of River Sarasvati close to Kurukshetra. Dr. Narahari Achar reconstructs the skies as seen by Veda Vyasa from this location close to Kurukshetra.
Thirdly, together with the scientific discovery of the River Sarasvati in north-west Bharat as ground-truth and not a myth, it is possible to state with authenticity that the modern history of Bharat begins with the historic document, the Mahabharata and the War which occurred on the banks of River Sarasvati.
Fourthly, Balarama's pilgrimage along the banks of River Sarasvati as described in 200 shlokas of Salya Parva of the Mahabharata was a historic event and provides a geographical account of northern Bharat.
Fifthly, the history of modern Bharat begins from about 3000 BCE, that is, from the Kaliyuga which is reckoned from this date, according to Bharatiya Kala Ganana.
Sixthly, there is no historic document in human history which records historical events with such astonishing accuracy, to the last tithi and nakshatra.
Seventhly, this demonstrates the remarkable astronomical knowledge possessed by the rishis of Bharata, exemplified by Veda Vyasa as early as 5000 years ago and establishes Jyotisha which was evolved in Bharata, as an early astronomical scientific discipline.
Thus, using modern astronomy computer-based software tools, it is now possible to state that Mahabharata of Veda Vyasa is the earliest recorded history of Bharat and the modern history spans from over 5000 years of continuous, indigenous civilization. The chronology of Bharatiya Itihas should be reconstructed from this date and based on this historical document, and need not be based on foreign travellers' accounts or theories propounded by western indologists.
The following key dates are found to be consistent with the sky inscriptions observed by Veda Vyasa:
Krishna's departure on Revati Sept. 26, 3067 BCE
Krishna's arrival in Hastinapura on Bharani Sept. 28, 3067 BCE
Solar eclipse on Jyeshtha amavasya Oct. 14, 3067 BCE
Krittika full moon (lunar eclipse) September 29, 3067 BCE
War starts on November 22, 3067 BCE (Saturn in Rohini, Jupiter in Revati)
Winter solstice, January 13, 3066 BCE
Bhishma's expiry, January 17, 3066 BCE Magha shukla ashtami
A fierce comet at Pushya October 3067 BCE
Balarama sets off on pilgrimage on Sarasvati on Pushya day Nov. 1, 3067 BCE
Balarama returns from pilgrimage on Sravana day Dec. 12, 3067 BCE
On the day Ghatotkaca was killed moon rose at 2 a.m., Dec. 8, 3067 BCE
These dates, in particular the occurrence of Winter solstice which is a critical celestial event, gets corroborated by the chronology of Kaus'i_taki Brahmana which should not be far-removed from the date of S'atapatha Brahman.a which has been established by Dr. BN Narahari Achar based on the Brahmana observations that the Kritthika (Pleiades group) rose exactly at the east point (eta_ ha vai pra_cyai dis'e na cyavante: S'Br. II Kanda, Ch. 1, Br. 2,3).
In Kaus'i_taki Brahmana there are two statements: sa vai ma_ghasya_ma_vasya_ya_mupas'asatyadangabha_vai sannupeme (KBr. XIX,3)
mukham va_ etat samvatr.sarasva yatr. pha_lguni_ paurn.ama_si_ mukhamuttare puccham pu_rve (KBr., V,1))
[cf. S'Br. VI.2.2.18; Taittiriya Br. 220.127.116.11].
These observations indicate that
the sun reached the winter solstice at the full moon Ma_gha
the year was considered to be at its end at the full-moon at the star group Purva Phalguni_.
|Posted by Victory Means Guruprasath on August 11, 2012 at 9:50 AM||comments (53)|
On 3 September 2004 a man called Sankararaman was murdered in the city of Kanchipuram (also called Kanchi) in Tamil Nadu, South India. He was an employee at a local temple.
On 11 November 2004 Sri Jayendra Saraswati was arrested in Andhra Pradesh and accused of having conspired to have Sankararaman murdered.
Sri Jayendra Saraswati – “Sri” is a term of respect used for everyone, “Jayendra” is his monk name, and “Saraswati” designates the order to which he belongs – is the senior Pontiff of Shankara Matham, a millennia-old monastic order. Today the Institution is also one of India’s largest and most prestigious charity organizations. Soon after the Pontiff’s arrest, all of Shankara Matham’s bank accounts were frozen and the charity works came to a halt.
The Institution, variously called Kanchi Shankara Matham, Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, and Kanchi Mutt, was founded many centuries ago by Adi Shankara. Also known as Shankaracharya (“acharya” means teacher, hence Shankara the Teacher), Adi Shankara is widely recognized as the profoundest philosopher and spiritual teacher of the Indian tradition. He established several monastic orders, one of them in Kanchipuram. The 70 Shankaracharyas who have followed the founder in unbroken succession in Kanchipuram have striven to uphold the ancient teachings of Advaita Vedanta. If viewed as a religion in the Western sense of the word, Advaita can be said to be radically more monotheistic than any other tradition or doctrine. It upholds that there is nothing but Brahman (the Absolute) and all beings are one with Brahman. Therefore, to those who have not attained this ultimate truth, Advaita Vedanta enjoins love and reverence for all living beings and the entire universe.
Besides the perpetuation of Adi Shankara’s philosophical and spiritual teachings, Shankara Matham has always been engaged in welfare. Now under the present senior Shankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswati, its social activities have vastly increased. He has opened over 50 schools and a large number of hospitals, child-care centers, charitable trusts for aiding poor families, old-age homes, food donation projects, rural development trusts, research projects, professional colleges and universities throughout India. The services in these institutions are free of charge or provided at nominal fees. Everything is subsidized by donations from devotees of the Shankara Matham in India and throughout the world. (See the enclosed list of these services.)
Sri Jayendra Saraswati is also singularly known for three other initiatives: 1) He has combated untouchability and endeavored to integrate the Dalits (“untouchables”) religiously, socially and professionally; 2) He has opposed wholesale conversion of poor Dalits, agreed to by a handful of their leaders at the instigation of Western and Arab proselytizers. The Hindu faith, it must be said, has always been averse to conversion. Hindus believe that God in his infinite wisdom has given different religions to different peoples according to their needs. And so they feel that to take a person away from his/her religion by persuasion or by force is a sin against God. In India it is invariably the poor who are targeted by proselytizers. Mahatma Gandhi used to call such destitute converts “rice Christians.”); 3) In the explosive Ayodhya dispute between Hindus and Muslims over a temple/mosque site, Sri Jayendra Saraswati has tried to keep vote-greedy politicians out of the picture and find a solution acceptable to both parties. Though the issue remains unsettled, and the Shankaracharya naturally champions the Hindu cause, his efforts have earned him the respect of many Muslims, among them the distinguished columnist Saeed Naqvi. Sri Jayendra Saraswati has also expressed concern for the environment, taking a clear ecological stand in issues such as the devastation of sandalwood forests.
However, his social and political initiatives created enemies as well as friends. As he and the Matham grew in national stature, they became the targets of political, financial and sometimes even religious jealousies. Nevertheless, Sri Jayendra Saraswati remained a highly respected and revered national figure until last November 11th. On that day, which happened to be Deepavali, the most sacred day of the Hindu calendar, he was performing puja (religious rites) in the neighboring State of Andhra Pradesh. Suddenly air-borne armed commandos sent by the government of Tamil Nadu scooped down and arrested him. The shocking manner of the arrest of one of the most sacred icons of the Hindus was justified on the grounds that he was going to abscond to Nepal, over a thousand miles away, in a helicopter! The 71-year-old diabetic was directly thrown into prison on charges of murder and subsequently refused bail by the courts in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The initial presumptions of guilt were based partly on letters written by the murdered Sankararaman. Off and on for some years, he had sent threatening letters to Shankara Matham, accusing Sri Jayendra Saraswati of mismanagement of funds and other alleged misdeeds. In one letter he threatened to take Sri Jayendra Saraswati to court because the Pontiff, who had been invited to China, planned to fly there. Sankararaman said the Pontiff could walk to China if he wanted to but not fly there; he argued that Sri Jayendra Saraswati was a sannyasin and, as such, was forbidden by ancient tradition to travel by plane. In one of the last letters attributed to him by the police, besides financial malfeasance, he accused the Shankaracharya of having the evil eye: after his visit to Nepal the entire royal family was wiped out, Shankararaman said; after his pilgrimage to Kumbakonam, there was a huge fire and many lives were lost; his visit to a third locality caused the Kaveri river to dry up. Had the unfortunate
Sankararaman been alive today, he would no doubt have added the tsunami to the list.
In other letters written to prominent people and political parties, he had warned that if he were killed, the Shankaracharya would be behind the crime. Given the advance notice, any reasonable person would make two fairly reasonable assumptions. First, that it was all the less likely that the Shankaracharya would take any such risk, knowing that he had been publicly designated as number one suspect by the victim himself before the crime; second, that Sankararaman’s declaration was a great opportunity for whoever wanted to frame the Shankaracharya and get away with it. But that is not the way the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Ms. Jayalalitha, and the Police Superintendent, Mr. Premkumar, have viewed the matter.
As soon as Sri Jayendra Saraswati was declared to be behind the crime, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister granted, out of public funds, a solatium of 500,000 rupees to Sankararaman’s family – a curiously unprecedented gesture anywhere in India. Perhaps it was a propitiation of the Gods: the very next day his widow identified the assailants during a parade organized by the Police. Concurrently the mainstream media began projecting a very favorable image of Sankararaman: upright, hard-working, stalwart defender of tradition. Since then, however, several journalists have described the man as a notorious blackmailer. Mr. Cho Ramaswamy, the south Indian political analyst and Member of Parliament, has said that Sankararaman’s threats against the Shankaracharya could have earned him a two-year imprisonment, had the Pontiff deigned to take him to court.
The revered Shankaracharya did not fare as well as his critic with the media. Immediately upon his surprise arrest – even the judiciary had not been notified - there was launched a vast defamation campaign, orchestrated by the Tamil Nadu Police authorities investigating the affair. The campaign was so swift, systematic and overpowering that, with the benefit of hindsight, one wonders how it could have been carried out without elaborate preparation and cooperation from other quarters.
The character assassination campaign was widely and wildly relayed throughout India by the mainstream media, avid to cash in on the scandal and at the same time serve obvious as well as opaque political interests. There was such media-madness that all semblance of independent journalistic investigation was thrown overboard. No questions were asked when, right off the bat - before even presenting an iota of feasible evidence - the Prosecuting Attorney declared: “Jayandra Saraswati is the most undeserving criminal.” Nor did anyone raise an eyebrow when the Chief Minister herself informed the Legislative Assembly that there was “clinching evidence” designating the Shankaracharya as the chief conspirator behind the crime. Overnight the Pontiff’s profile was totally reversed: from a loving and lovable defender of the poor and downtrodden, he was now made out to be a thug-wielding, power-hungry tycoon. The shift was so sudden and swift that one wonders why the media were not taken to task. If the Shankaracharya had been such a blatantly evil man, why hadn’t they unmasked him sooner?
Besides the alleged hiring of killers to bump off Sankararaman, Sri Jayandra Saraswati was savagely defamed by publicized accusations of sexual misconduct and misappropriation of funds. In this derelict and depressing atmosphere, where all except his most ardent devotees distanced themselves from him, and the central government remained mute, the courts in Tamil Nadu could comfortably reject the Shankaracharya’s repeated bail applications without fearing a public outcry. The aging Pontiff was locked up for two months in a prison for ordinary criminals - something unheard of in a country where the powerful do their time not in prison but in comfortable hospitals or other posh accommodations.
Police Charges and Court Judgments:
To justify the arrest of the Shankaracharya, the Tamil Nadu police claimed to have the following evidence:
1) Sankararaman’s 39 letters and his “dying declaration,” which according to the Police established the motive behind the crime.
2) Money drawn from Shankara Matham’s ICICI Bank account and paid to the hired gang of assailants.
3) Records of cell phone conversations between the Shankaracharya and the assailants.
4) Confessional statements from several members of the gang.
On the basis of the above, the Magistrate’s Court and the High Court of Tamil Nadu rejected the Shankaracharya’s bail application, apparently without demanding any evidence from the Police. After two months of imprisonment the bail appeal was examined by the Supreme Court in Delhi on 6th January 2005 and the verdict was given on 10th January 2005.
Concerning the motive, the Supreme Court rejected both Sankararaman’s letters and his supposed “dying declaration” as proof. (Copies of the letters had been allegedly found in the victim’s home. The Court held that: 1) It was not certain that Sankararaman had posted all the letters; 2) Any letters which had reached the Matham may not have been brought to the attention of the Pontiff; 3) Prominent public figures frequently receive such letters, without resorting to murder. As to the “dying declaration,” it was allegedly made during a telephone conversation with a third party whose statement could not be taken as proof. ) The Court also stated that the Police had failed to produce evidence of telephone conversations between the Pontiff and the assailants.
Concerning payment for the crime, on 3 January 2005 the Supreme Court asked the Prosecution to produce evidence of withdrawls of money from the Matham’s ICICI bank account. (The lower courts had apparently satisfied themselves simply with the word of the Police about all money transactions.) It transpired that the Matham had no account at the ICICI bank at all! The prosecution then claimed that the money had come from the sale of a piece of land belonging to the Matham. The Police claimed that Sri Jayendra Saraswati had kept the money in his room and later given it to the assassins. Investigation showed that the Matham had indeed sold a piece of land but that the money had been placed in the Indian Bank account of the Matham and was still there in full. On January 10th the Supreme Court concluded that the Prosecution had failed to produce evidence of any financial transaction between the Shankaracharya and the alleged assailants.
Regarding confessions by the co-accused, two persons told the Court that their statements had been obtained under torture. One exhibited a broken arm and the other smashed teeth. They said the police had forced them to sign empty sheets of paper. There remained the confession of one Ravi Subramaniam who, before turning approver, had been designated by the Police as accused N° 2, i.e., second only to the senior Shankaracharya. But the Supreme Court held that the Prosecution had to first produce prima facie evidence that Mr. Ravi Subramaniam was a party to the conspiracy before his acts or statements could be used against his co-conspirators. As the Police failed to produce any such evidence, the Supreme Court would not take into account Mr. Subramaniam’s confession. (In all fairness to the latter, it should be stated that it is not clear whether he had been “turned” approver by the police or had made the decision himself. The fact is that after his arrest he abandoned, or was made to abandon, his initial lawyer and has been kept in solitary confinement ever since. On several occasions he has been rushed to hospital for various pains. Some who know him say that photographs taken on his court appearances show a ravaged Ravi Subramaniam.)
Thus, the highest court in India concluded that there is not the least prima facie evidence against Sri Jayendra Saraswati, no material proof, or any evidence of motive to commit murder. (The full Supreme Court ruling is available at: http://www.kanchi-sathya.org under Kanchi Digest 1.) In fact, from the Supreme Court’s observations it is clear that none of the evidence brought forth by the Police stands to scrutiny. In other words, unless the Police can produce entirely new and valid evidence, the conclusion would be that the Shankaracharya of Kanchi was accused, arrested and imprisoned under untenable charges. (For a detailed discussion of the charges submitted by the Tamil Nadu authorities to the Supreme Court, and the latter’s verdict, see enclosed “The Foremost Question and the irrefutable Answer” by Sri Anucha.)
Three hours after the Supreme Court ordered the release of Sri Jayendra Saraswati, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister flew to Kanchipuram. A few minutes later the junior Pontiff, Sri Vijayandra Saraswati, was arrested and thrust in prison. He was classified as second accused. Grotesquely enough, he was imprisoned under the very same charges as those which the Supreme Court had judged invalid for maintaining in prison the Senior Pontiff, the first accused. The Junior Shankaracharya’s bail application was rejected by the lower courts in Tamil Nadu. He appealed to the Madras High Court and after a month in prison, the Court judged that prima facie he could not be considered a conspirator, that there was no new evidence, and therefore ordered his release. (High Court Judgment of 10/02/05 available in Kanchi Digest 1 at http://www.kanchi-sathya.org.)
Determined to get the two Shankaracharyas out of the way and seize control of the Matham, the Tamil Nadu authorities tried a different strategy. Under the so-called Goondas Act, a person who has already been charged with three crimes can be detained for a year without eligibility for bail. Overstretching this law for their own purposes, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Police have dug up two older cases of assault and battery and are trying to foist them upon Sri Jayendra Saraswati. During the bail hearings the judge’s reaction was as follows:
In the first case (Radhakrishnan accuses Jayendra Saraswati and alleged co-assailants of assault with intention to kill two years ago), this is what Justice M. Thanikachalam of the High Court in Madras had to say to the Prosecuting Attorney: “Why wasn’t the investigation conducted for the past two years? What are the intentions of the Government?...What have you been doing the last two years?...Does your case diary show the investigation was not pursued because of want of materials?” The Prosecutor admitted “some slacking off” and said that thanks to the recent murder case (in which the Shankaracharyas are the accused!), the police had at last found the weapon (a knife) used against Mr. Radhakrishnan two years earlier. The judge snapped back: “You found the weapon after two years – the Court should believe this? Where is your forensic report?”
In the second case (complaint registered on 13th November 2004 by a certain Mr. Madhavan, accusing Sri Jayendra Saraswati and alleged co-assailants of having conspired the assault on his person which allegedly took place on 8th August 2004), the same judge wrote: “Considering the facts of the case, as well as the inordinate delay (of more than three months) in preferring the complaint, and considering the towering fact that at the earliest opportunity, the complainant reported that he sustained injuries only in a road accident, I am of the undoubted view that this case must be a foisted one.” (Madras High Court Judgment of 28/01/05 available in Kanchi Digest 1 at http://www.kanchi-sathya.org.)
When Sri Jayendra Saraswati was in prison and applied for bail before the Tamil Nadu courts, the police apparently knew they did not have any convincing evidence against him. In order to bolster the case for rejection of bail, they videotaped the Pontiff without his knowledge, “edited” the tape and announced that he had confessed to the crime. He immediately denied any such confession. Since the videotaping was illegal, when the case went up before the Supreme Court the prosecution made no mention of his alleged confession. The bail granted by the Supreme Court (openly dismissing the prosecution theory of motive, plan, conduct and conspiracy) proved to be a slap in the face of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Police. People began to express doubts regarding the whole affair. Panicked, the police gave - or sold - portions of the videotapes to T.V. channels to distract the public’s attention. Viewers could see a groggy-eyed Sri Jayendra stretched out on the floor as if he had been drugged. Oddly enough, instead of confessing Sri Jayandra Saraswati was heard claiming his total innocence. These leaks were once again an illegal act by the “guardians of the law” containing, moreover, doctored passages whose contents were promptly disavowed by the Shankaracharya.
The National Human Rights Commission of India, a governmental body, suo moto commenced an enquiry against the Police both for the videotaping of Sri Jayandra Saraswati and the manner of arrest of Sri Vijayandra Saraswati. To justify the police action, the Investigating Officer summed up the matter before the Court thus: “The investigation is an area where the Police has got unfettered powers without interference even from the Judiciary, leave alone an organization like the Human Rights Commission.” The enquiry by the National Human Rights Commission has been stayed by the High Court at the behest of the Police. (See Newsindpress.com, 13/01/05 and The Hindu, 27/01/05.)
Two women lawyers, connected with the Defense, were accused by the Police of not only attempting to bribe but also threatening to kill Ravi Subramaniam, accused allegedly turned approver, to get him to change his version. How they managed to have a tête-à-tête with him is a mystery, since he is in the hands of the police and under constant surveillance in solitary confinement. The scenario, spoon-fed by the Police to the media, is indeed convoluted: two women outsmart the guards within the prison and enter the cell where a man is held who, according to the Police, was the second mastermind behind this case of murder and later turned approver and the two women try to bribe him into changing his version again and he refuses and they threaten him with death! When the authorities registered FIRs against the two lawyers, the Kanchipuram Bar Association immediately denounced this machination and boycotted the courts for weeks. Finally the High Court declared that the charges against the two women lawyers were unfounded. (See ChennaiOnline.com, 21/02/05 and The Hindu, 04/03/05)
The Kanchipuram police filed a case against the nationally noted columnist, Mr. S. Gurumurthy, on charges of attempting “to deviate the investigation in the Sankararaman murder case, by giving wrong information” in his articles. Anyone arrested under this charge is susceptible to imprisonment up to seven years. (See The Hindu, 12/02/05 and Newsindpress.com, 22/02/05)
Such treatment of lawyers and journalists is an obvious attempt to intimidate both professions and deny freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
India is a secular state and her constitution forbids the government from meddling with religious affairs and institutions. Nevertheless, as soon as the Supreme Court granted bail to Sri Jayendra Saraswati, the Tamil Nadu authorities blocked Shankara Matham’s 183 bank accounts through which it conducts its social service activities. Once again the Matham had to appeal to the High Court, which declared the action of freezing the accounts “ultra vires, illegal and liable to be set aside.” (High Court Judgment of 01/02/05 available in Kanchi Digest 1 at kanchi-sathya.org)
Out of the 24 accused, nearly half have been refused bail under the Goondas Act, although many of them had never committed a single crime in the past. Among them there are Sri Sundaresa Iyer, the elderly Matham Manager and Sri Raghu, the younger brother of the Junior Shankaracharya. After months in jail, their appeal reached the Madras high Court, which declared their detention under the Goondas Act illegal. However, they have not yet been freed. (See Newsindpress.com, 05/05/05.)
The Tamil Nadu authorities are still determined to maintain in prison Sri Sundaresa Iyer, the Matham Manager and Sri Raghu, the Junior Shankaracharya’s younger brother. If they succeed they can extend the same charges against the Shankaracharyas and imprison them once again. So the Police have resorted to another stratagem. Narcotics crimes being non-bailable in the State, they are trying to slap narcotics-connected charges against Sri Sundaresa Iyer and Sri Raghu. The scenario is bizarre. The Police claim to have arrested a man in possession of narcotics at a bus stop after he had just finished a term in the same prison as Sri Sudaresa Iyer and Sri Raghu. These two had allegedly arranged to give the man 20,000 rupees to kill off Ravi Suramaniam, the accused-turned-approver. Once out of prison, the man had spent half of the money to purchase narcotics, according to the Police. So they have filed a FIR against Sri Sundaresa Iyer and Sri Raghu – not only for conspiring to commit murder but also for dealing in narcotics! Here is what Justice Thanikachalam of the Madras High Court had to say on examining the case: “Looking at the FIR, it appears to be a foisted case. It is not clear what prosecution is trying to convey in the FIR.” See http://www.dinakaran.com/daily/2005/Apr/30/others/topstory2.html and ChennaiOnline.com, 28/04/05)
Since the murder charges are without foundation, the Shankaracharyas and the Matham employees are being accused of other crimes. To help to meet the legal expenses for their defense, Dr. Bhaskaran, a prominent Madras cardiologist, launched a fund-raising campaign. He was summoned for interrogation by the Police. On hearing the petition that Dr. Bhaskaran had filed to quash the summons, Justice K.P. Sivasubramaniam of the Madras High Court reprimanded the Kanchipuram SIT (special investigating team in charge of the Sankararaman murder case) for “fishing expedition tactics.” The Judge threatened to recuse himself from all cases relating to the Shankara Matham. “All the cases relating to the Shankara Mutt are coming before me and I may be blamed later for not passing any orders in favor of the Government,” Justice Sivasubramaniam complained. (Newsindpress.com, 10/03/05)
From the above summary of the various Police actions and legal proceedings connected with the affair, it is evident that time and again the actions of the Tamil Nadu Government and Police have been illegal, without any evidence and have been duly condemned by the Courts. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Police are desperate to find subsidiary charges against Sri Jayendra Saraswati to imprison him again. If there was the smallest truth behind the vicious rumors spread through the media about sexual misconduct, child molestation, etc., we can be certain that the authorities would have pounced on the opportunity. An examination of the official charge sheet, served at last on 31March 2005 after months of postponement, shows that it contains no such charges.
As pointed out by many observers, the Shankaracharyas of Kanchi were victimized by an orchestrated trial by media even before the least evidence was presented to the Courts. But as we have seen, the arguments for their arrest were rejected by the Supreme Court. Given the “interest” that Chief Minister Ms. Jayalalitha has shown for the affair, Sri Jayendra Saraswati has appealed to the Supreme Court to have the trial transferred to another state in India. His appeal is being examined by the Supreme Court.
Most jurists who have examined the charge sheet say it is empty despite its inordinate length and vast number of witnesses. It is to fill this embarrassing vacuum that the Chief Minister and Police of Tamil Nadu have repeatedly embarked on “fishing expeditions” and introduced other charges against the Shankaracharyas and Matham employees. Many political analysts feel that the entire case is a frame-up job. The real conspiracy, they say, is against the Shankaracharyas and the Matham.
It is not our aim here to analyze the socio-politico-religious ramifications of the affair (some of which are said to extend beyond the borders of India) and point fingers at “the real conspirators.” Our sole objective has been to present the verifiable facts of the case. Despite all the zeal deployed by the Police, not a single piece of evidence has been accepted by the courts as proof of guilt of the Shankaracharyas and Matham employees. On the hand, given the bizarre undertakings of the Tamil Nadu Government and Police, and the number of times they have been rebutted by the Courts in various cases connected with this affair, one can but agree with Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr who, on 12 January 2005, wrote in The Times of India:
“The motives of the guardians of the law are always to be questioned, especially in India where the police and prosecution are the minions of the political executive. In far too many cases, this has been borne out and it would be a travesty of truth to argue that the police and the prosecution have no ulterior motive (in the Kanchi case), and that they are merely carrying out their duties.
“In the last decade, the Tamil Nadu police and prosecution had no option but to go after the “political opponent” (of the ruling party)…If this is the reputation of the Tamil Nadu police and prosecution, what credibility do they carry in the first place? They have none whatsoever, and it is indeed incumbent upon them that they should be much more meticulous if they have to clean up their act. But there is nothing of the sorts in the works…What is amazing is the credulity displayed by the media merlins, who accepted the police version as gospel truth, and they did not for once try to get at the game being played out. They did not do so because in modern, secular India, the religious man is a greater suspect than the police who violate law with impunity, in some instances at the behest of their political masters, and in others due to their own arrogance arising out of brutal power…
“What accounts for the passivity of the media in this case? It is mere cowardice. It is an unwillingness to stand up for an unpopular but right issue. The basic proposition is that Jayendra Saraswathi is a good man. There is need to make this moral judgment beforehand, and then try to disprove it through hard evidence. The media is adopting the slothful way of suspecting the man, and demanding that he prove his innocence.” (See enclosed editorial in The Times of India by Parsa Venkateshwar Rao, Jr.)
In the English language press in India, Outlook Magazine has outdone all in misinformation. It has not just displayed credulity and passivity but has actively campaigned in the demonization of Sri Jayendra Saraswati. (See enclosed articles from Outlook.) Moreover, under the guise of impartial reporting, Outlook’s editor has used the BBC to spread slander worldwide. He has deliberately suppressed the significant facts of the case and trumpeted innuendos and calumny.
Finally the “National Post,” a major Canadian daily has published an article by Cleo Paskal in the weekend section, raising doubts about the political motives of the State and Federal governments in the whole case.
We sincerely hope that the BBC is basically innocent in this affair and will, after examination of the facts, make due reparations for the harm to which it has unknowingly been a party. This is all the more urgent since the target of this vicious mediatic attack is a selfless benefactor of humanity. For half a century Sri Jayendra Saraswati has served his fellow-men no less than Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama. It is no concern of ours that some should be honored with Nobel Prizes and others not. That is the way of the world and politics. But the least that an honorable institution like the BBC can do is to redress the injustice to which it has been a party.
(All the facts of the Kanchi Case mentioned above have been reported in various Indian newspapers and magazines. The relevant articles are available under “Archives” at: http://www.kanchi-sathya.org.)
|Posted by Victory Means Guruprasath on August 11, 2012 at 3:15 AM||comments (0)|
Here is the full text of the speech of Former Cabinet Minister& Member of NDA Coalition, India Dr. Subramanian Swamy at Defence Seminar 2012;
The world witnessed a historic event in May 2009, when in a final assault of the Sri Lankan armed forces, a treacherous and murderous terrorist outfit called the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE] was decimated. Its Supremo V. Prabhakaran and his main associates were killed on May 19th. It was heralded the world over as milestone in the war against terrorism.
Correctly disregarding the call from several countries for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement, the Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakshe chose to bring a 29 years sordid chapter of terrorism to a decisive end by military means. By this victory, India was a major beneficiary.
Much has improved in Sri Lanka since the formal end of violent strife on that historic date of May 19, 2009 in Sri Lanka, when coming to know of Prabhakaran’s death, the rump LTTE surrendered and laid down arms.
Thus, the spate of paralyzing suicide bombings of a quarter century causing killing and maiming of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, both Tamils and Sinhalas, especially in southern parts of the island nation ended with the destruction of the LTTE.
But in the process, a large number of Tamil civilians were dislocated and many crossed the shores to become refugees in India. Many civilians and army personnel perished in the cross fire between the army and the LTTE amidst allegations of human rights violations and torture.
The Sri Lankan Government set up a high powered committee called Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission [LLRC], under the chairmanship of the former Attorney General Mr. Chittaranjan De Silva to go into all these allegations and identify the responsibility that devolves for the same.
The Commission has submitted its Report containing 135 main recommendations. The Sri Lankan President has appointed his Secretary Mr. Lalith Weeratunga as Head of a Task Force to implement these recommendations. More than 30 recommendations of national import have been identified for immediate implementation by the end of 2013, some within this year.
Today, Tamil families no more fear the so-called Tigers’ forced recruitment of their children, disruption of their education, and their various brutalization and abuses. The extortion of funds from civilians to finance terrorist operations of the LTTE has also ended. Normalcy in daily life has returned after three decades.
The credit for this victory over terrorism naturally must belong to the political leadership of the President Mr. Rajapakshe and his ability to inspire the armed forces to fight on and die for the cause.
The people of India recognize this as a contribution to our national security and fit for being honoured by India’s highest award in the future.
The Sri Lankan people gave the President a huge mandate in the subsequently held General Elections. With this halo and public mandate, it is clear that President Rajapakshe is now crucially positioned to effectively take necessary steps to solve another pending and pressing issue: the need for a healthy Sinhala –Tamil reconciliation, by finding a mutually acceptable way to heal the festering Sinhala-Tamil divide, and to bring about a meeting of minds of the two communities.
Decades of brutal insurgency have unfortunately polarized communities and undermined institutions that guarantee civilian rights. However this was not the only insurgency that the Sri Lankan state had waged. In 1970-71, the Government had battled the JVP, a terrorist Left wing Sinhala chauvinist outfit then, and wiped them out.
The JVP later re-tooled themselves as a parliamentary group, and became a part of the solution instead of remaining a problem. The LTTE failed to learn from that example, and chose to remain a brutal part of the problem, for which not only the LTTE but the Tamil populace whom in its hubris the LTTE claimed to be the sole representative, paid a heavy price.
While the immediate problem to be tackled after May 2009 was the rehabilitation of the victims of the insurgency, of providing solace to the bereaved families of those killed in the cross fire, the displaced and the injured, nevertheless the more fundamental long term problem before Sri Lanka today is the essential reconciliation of those across Sri Lanka who are scarred mentally and emotionally by the past brutalities that they had faced, and the uncertainty today in their minds about their place in Sri Lanka’s future.
The situation facing the Tamils is particularly delicate. The war conducted by the Sri Lankan armed forces against a sinister terrorist organization, had also by the sensationalized propaganda of international interlopers and busy bodies, more or less become polarized into a conflict between the Sinhala and the Tamil communities which unfortunately was abetted by the political miscalculations of some short sighted leaders of the two communities over the last three decades.
The LTTE in fact had wanted that polarization, and Tamil leadership fell into the quicksand created by it. They were egged on across the Palk Strait by selfish leaders in Tamil Nadu, many of whom were being financed by the LTTE.
As an Indian and a Tamil, let me say at this point that the overwhelming proportion of the people of Tamil Nadu had rejected the LTTE whenever they were made to make a call.
When the dismissal by the Union Government of India of the DMK led state government in January 1991 took place-- for colluding with the LTTE-- and which dismissal I had supervised as a senior most Union Cabinet Minister holding the Law & Justice portfolio, there was overwhelming support from the people of Tamil Nadu.
In June 1991 General Elections, the DMK was reduced to a tally of 2 in a House of 234 MLAs, and to zero MPs elected from the state to Parliament.
Not a single incident of violence took place when the dismissal was carried out. It became apparent then that the Tamils of the state think of themselves as Indians first and Tamils afterwards.
Therefore, let me assure you that for us patriotic Indians, national interests come first, and if state, sectarian or regional interests clash with it, then it is the latter provincial interests that will be sacrificed.
Hence, I can tell you with full conviction today that the Indian people wish Sri Lanka well. We in India in fact feel kinship with you Sri Lankans, emotionally, historically, religiously, linguistically and also for the benefit of our mutual national security. As recent genetic research reveals, Indians and Sri Lankans have the same DNA.
Thus, we Indian people do not necessarily agree with our government on every decision it takes against the interests of Sri Lanka on political compulsions, which is not unusual in a democracy.
For example, an overwhelming majority of the Indian people disapproved of the Indian Government decision to support the US sponsored Resolution in the UN Commission on Human Rights on the alleged extrajudicial killings carried out in the final stages of the insurgency of the LTTE.
But I make it clear at the same time, even the most ardent well wisher of Sri Lanka in India wants to see that the present feeling of marginalization that seems to have gripped the Tamil community for real or imagined reasons, including sections which were never with the LTTE such as the Plantation Tamils, is ended by a reconciliation process wherein the Tamils feel empowered to participate in nation building as if the LTTE era had never happened.
This empowerment would require devolution within the basic structure of the unitary Constitution of Sri Lanka, for which the exact proposals must come from the within the Parliament of Sri Lanka, and can never be successfully imposed from abroad. This devolution is moreover not an Indian demand, but certainly it is our concern and expectation as well wishers of Sri Lanka who stood by you in your grueling fight against terrorism.
The devolution must, we in India recognize, be within the comfort zone of Sinhala majority feelings and at the same time be considered adequate by the Tamil minority.
Does such a possibility exist given the polarizations of the past? I think so, and that is what propose to expound here today.
Real and Imagined Sinhala-Tamil Differences
Sri Lanka situated at the southern extremity of the Indian peninsula, and separated by a 34 kms stretch of sea called Palk Strait/Gulf of Mannar.
India’s Sanskrit texts have for long called the island as Lanka, and the nation’s Constitution in 1972 formally adopted the name ‘Sri Lanka’.
Because India’s unique relationship with Sri Lanka, viz., as geographical neighbour, cultural sibling, and as historical cohort since the people of Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal have historic links with the Sinhala community [which is 75 percent of the total Sri Lanka's population]. Also, the people of Tamil Nadu and Kerala have long-standing and continuing links with Sri Lankan Tamils going back in ages. There is no real ethnic differences between Tamils and Sinhalese or even Indians. Ethnicity based on race is an imaginary concept foisted by the British Imperialists.
The current Tamil-Sinhala emotional divide can end, by partly exorcising a few false notions in the minds of Tamils and Sri Lankans embedded by text books and sustained false propaganda authored by the British Imperialists and their tutees, and nurtured on both sides of the Palk Straits for political convenience. How this divide has manifested itself over time, may be seen from a brief review of this history.
But the origins of the current tension between the two communities, are therefore not ancient but born in the Sinhala’s perceived role of the Tamils as beneficiaries during the British colonial period post 1850.
The British-Tamil friendly equation became possible because of the British familiarity with Tamils in India before coming to Sri Lanka. This familiarity led to collaboration between many Tamils and the British, as in India of the so-called Dravidian Movement, in ruling the occupied Lanka nation. Tamils of this Movement had fully cooperated with the British in India too.
In fact the so-called Self-Respect Movement which later became the Dravidian Movement in Tamil Nadu was inspired by the British Imperialists to subvert the Freedom Movement led by the some upper caste leaders like Rajagopalachari, Satyamurthy Subramanian Bharathi, and other enlightened leaders such as Muthuramalinga Thevar, V.O. Chidambaram, and Kamaraj.
The result of the British-Tamil collaboration in Sri Lanka was that the Tamils, despite being a minority, became disproportionately influential in the management of the Sri Lankan political and economic affairs right till the time of the country's independence in 1948. The Tamils became better educated, and economically successful in the non-agricultural sectors of Sri Lankan society.
Thus the antagonisms were compounded by the Sinhalese feeling of being discriminated against, unfairly treated by the British and that too with the support of Tamils.
This antagonism according to my understanding is at the root of the Sinhala resistance to constitutional devolution of power to Tamil populated areas. This is something that must be exorcised.
Minimizing the Real Differences Between Sinhalas and Tamils
A deeper subconscious apprehension in the Sinhalese psyche about Sri Lanka Tamils demand for greater devolution is their ‘minority complex’ that manifests when the Tamils of India extend support to Tamils of Sri Lanka.
Though the Sinhala community constitutes over 75 per cent of the population of Sri Lanka, it often views the Tamils not as a minority but as part of the looming Tamil political and demographic presence to the north of the island in Indian peninsular area of Tamil Nadu, a population of 65+million, which is seen as the natural support base for Sri Lankan Tamils.
Thus the proximate linguistic political and cultural links of the Sri Lankan Tamils with Tamil Nadu, makes the Sinhalas feel threatened with dismemberment of their country – which the Sinhalas feel could be initiated by India under pressure from its own Tamil citizens.
Hence, the Sinhala aversion to respond spontaneously to any just Tamil demand for devolution of power or autonomy. India needs to be constantly cognizant of, and concerned with this Sinhala apprehension, without sacrificing the right to voice support in a friendly way for the human rights of the Tamil minority.
The Indian Government however needs to rein in the sub-national jingoism that erupts from time to time in Tamil Nadu triggered by slanted media reports.
Of course in a modern democracy, decision on governance issues are determined by counting heads – as representing “the will of the people”, the opinion of the majority of the people. The problem with such a dictum in real life is that if the minority and the majority are distinct mutually antagonistic communities, human rights violations and sacrifice of fundamental rights result.
If democracy be the rule of the majority, the protection of minorities against injustice and hegemony is not a matter of compassion of the majority. It is definitely not! The reason is that modern constitutional democracy itself lays the legal basis for minority rights.
Human rights in a democracy are held to be inalienable – no human being could be deprived of those rights in a democracy by the will of the majority of the sovereign people.
This is the basic governance norm of democracy that was forgotten, especially since 1979 in Sri Lanka by the majority.
There however is no ethnicity involved in Sinhala majorityism. It is instead fanned by antagonism of the past and fears about being swamped by the perceived patronage of Tamil Nadu by the Union government. These fears need to be constantly addressed by the Government of India.
On the question of ethnicity, Tamils and Sinhalas are two linguistic communities but not ethnically different. They are, as I said earlier, of the same DNA genetic structure, and are all ethnically Indians.
Nor can it be said that the Hindu and Buddhist religions in the two countries respectively, are at least since the last 12 centuries, antagonistic theologies. We in India consider Buddha as a Hindu by birth, and who never repudiated the core concepts of Hinduism. He was a reformer and opposed to orthodoxy. Today Hindus own Buddha as one of their own- and revere and worship Buddha.
In Sri Lanka about three-fourths of the population is Sinhala who profess Buddhism; Hindu, Christian, Muslims Tamils form twenty four per cent of the population, of which more than twelve per cent are Sri Lankan Tamils whose forefathers have been in the island for over hundreds of years; the rest of them are plantation workers brought over by the British as industrial labour in the last century, plus those Muslims descended mostly from Hindus, and whose mother tongue is Tamil.
The core cause of the Sri Lanka strife is thus not ethnicity or religion as the West is prone to project, but an erroneously perceived distinction in the minds of the Sinhalas and Tamils on language-Sinhalese and Tamil.
Even the linguistic distinction is artificial and which distinction is an infection injected by British colonialists and their comprador historians. Sinhala and Tamil languages have deep connection with Sanskrit and with Brahmi script.
Another cause is the recent past history of broken agreements between the leaders of the two communities.
After independence the Sinhala majority adopted two policies that have been the source of much discontent amongst Tamils (and later cause of much violence): a "Sinhala only" language policy and "standardization" of marks for entrance to universities.
At the time of independence the Tamils had 32% of the voting power in the Legislature. Upon the disenfranchisement of the ‘Estate’ Tamils (who worked on the plantations) the percentage dropped to 20%. At the General Elections, the Sinhala majority secured more than a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Then came the new Constitution of 1972, adopted by the predominantly Sinhalese Parliament in which Section 29 of the Soulbury Constitution was deleted; constitutional protec¬tion being denied, the minority became restive, and one event cascaded into another, inevitably to violence by the end of the 1970s.
In 1975, in a study prepared for the Minority Rights Group, Walter Schwarz prophetically wrote:
"If Sri Lanka is not to experience communal violence or terrorism... there will have to be more readiness for compromise and moderation than has yet been shown - It would be a pity if Sri Lanka's leadership waited for bombs to explode and for the prisons to fill up again before conceding that the Ta¬mils need re-assurance that they have a place in the future of the Island."
Lack of appreciation of the perils of a conflict led to the riots of July-August 1981 and then to the more shocking near genocidal events of July 1983 led by Sinhala mobs triggered by the assassinations carried out by the LTTE. India’s direct intervention followed, because of what was perceived in India as a genocide of Tamils.
That year, 1983, may be taken as a turning point and defining moment for the Sri Lankan current crisis. The basic problem was however embedded in the island’s history.
The failure to compromise, to resile from erroneous positions, and to learn from history thus is at the root of the Sri Lanka divide. I can do no better at this stage than repeat Walter Schwartz’s 1975 prophetic warning.
The present stalemate in Sri Lanka is not acceptable to the Tamils, even to those of us in India who oppose Tamil chauvinism and terrorism, and to the democratic world in general.
The moment of truth has therefore arrived. Sri Lanka should, we feel, respond to the regional aspirations of the Sri Lanka Tamils and chart the mutually acceptable path to reconciliation within a fixed target date. It is India’s concern, but the choice on how to do it is for the sovereign government of Sri Lanka.
A future Indian government which hopefully is not so precariously placed as today’s, will ensure love and support for a united cultural sibling nation of Sri Lanka, so that hot heads in Sri Lanka and in Tamil Nadu do not rear their ugly and violent heads again. Sri Lanka thus must build a reconciled society on the historic victory achieved in 2009 against the LTTE.
The solution lies in the simple device of devolution-- federalism or quasi-federalism. The US is the model for the former and India for the latter. However any proposal for devolution runs into the fear psychosis of both Tamils and Sinhalas and hence that must be constantly addressed and minimized.
The latter’s fear of devolution as being the fore runner of secession of the fertile lands of the north east and the outlet for take-over by India. The Tamils fear the present devolution proposals of the so-called 13th Amendment are feeble and just time-buying tactics of the Sinhala community, and therefore being short of a properly devolved quasi-federal state, there is no long-term security. They cite past broken agreements.
The Bandarnaike-Chelvanayakam Pact (July 1957) the first such attempt of the two linguistic communities to solve by devolution. The pact was between the then Prime Minister, Mr S W R D Bandaranaike and the then leader of the Tamil Federal Party, Mr S J V Chelvanayakam, inter alia provided for a wide measure of autonomy through Regional Councils to be set up in the Tamil areas of the north and east. The Councils were to have powers over a wide range of subjects including agriculture, cooperatives, land and land development, colonisation, education, health, fisheries, housing, social services, electricity, water supplies and roads.
It also provided for Tamil to be recognised as a language of the national Tamil minority of Sri Lanka and as the language of administration in the northern and eastern provinces. It further recognised that "early consideration" should be given to the question of Sri Lanka citizenship for plantation Tamils. Had this Pact been implemented, the country would have been spared much subsequent strife and violence.
However no sooner it was signed, an island-wide campaign was, mounted by the then opposition United National Party (UNP) and the Buddhist clergy denouncing the pact as a 'betrayal of the Sinhalese/Buddhist people.' On April 9, 1958, a large number of leading Buddhist monks stormed the Prime Minister's residence and demanded that the Pact be abrogated forthwith. A besieged PM capitulated, but the monks insisted on getting this promise in writing. The Prime Minister obliged and gave the written pledge to the monks [Emergency 1958 by Tarzie Vittachi].
In 1965 effort was made by the then leader of the UNP, Mr Dudley Senanayake, and Mr S J V Chelvanayakam both as coalition partners in a new Government. The provisions of this agreement were similar to but not as detailed as the earlier 1957 Pact. In part fulfilment of the agreement, the government introduced regulations for the "reasonable use of the Tamil language".
The SLFP, in Opposition, now led by Bandaranaike’s wife Sirimavo, formed the same alliance with the Buddhist clergy, replicated the earlier UNP/Buddhist operation in 1958, mounted a campaign characterising the regulations as a "sell-out to the Tamils".
Although the regulations received parliamentary approval, these were never implemented since the government failed to honour the provision of the Agreement by enacting appropriate legislation, the Federal Party of Chelvanayakam resigned from the government and went into opposition. The seeds were planted for polarisation and confrontation.
The United Front Government under the SLFP led by Sirimavo Bandaranaike gained an absolute majority in the 1970 general elections. This government introduced of "standardisation" for university admissions, the marks equalization scheme, whereby a Tamil to get 25% more marks to be imposition of further restrictions on the employment prospects of Tamils.
The promulgation of the 1972 Republican Constitution contributed to a further widening of the differences between Tamil and Sinhalese, since it removed the vestiges of the theoretical protection accorded to the minorities in the Independence (Soulboury’s) Constitution of 1948, such as Article 29 of the 1948 Constitution.
Not only was this Article dropped without any similar provision being substituted, the 1972 Constitution, inter alia, granted constitutional status to Sinhala language as the sole Official Language. It also allocated to Buddhism the status of a state religion by giving it a "foremost place" and enjoining the state to afford protection to Buddhism.
Although the Tamil Federal Party (TFP) had, since its formation in 1949, adopted the position that Sri Lanka was comprised of two distinct communities Sinhala and Tamil and advocated a federal system of government as the most suitable constitutional structure for a country with two peoples speaking two different equal languages, it had, nevertheless, remained unreservedly opposed to a division or separation of the country.
The 1970 General Elections the Federal party had made a categorical appeal to the Tamil people "not to lend their support to any political movement that advocates a bifurcation of the country". And the Tamil people supported the appeal in a very large measure by voting for the TFP.
The situation radically changed following the 1972 Constitution represented of the promise made to the Tamil electorate. In May 1972, a renewed sense of radical unity among the Tamils dawned with the formation of the Tamil United Front (later the Tamil United Liberation Front), an umbrella organisation of the main Tamil political parties.
The TULF organised protest demonstrations and campaigns in the Tamil areas against the new Constitution. Tamil youth campaigned strongly against the new Constitution. "Standardisation" for admissions to universities was the trigger since it produced predictable resentment among the Tamil youth.
The government responded with strong counter measures with draconian measures. Hundreds of Tamil youth were arrested and sent to prison without being charged. Allegations of torture were widespread. There soon emerged sections of the Tamil youth who reacted violently. For the first time in Sri Lankan Tamil politics, the use of violence in pursuit of political purposes began to emerge as a viable option, phenomenon giving a new and alarming twist to the heightening conflict.
In May 1976, the TULF adopted a resolution which stated for the first time explicitly that the Tamils constituted a nation and that they had a right to self-determination. It committed itself to the "restoration and reconstitution of the Free, Sovereign, Secular, Socialist State of Tamil Eelam based on the right of self-determination inherent to every nation" and declared that such a state "has become inevitable in order to safeguard the very existence of the Tamil nation in this country".[Vaddukoddai Convention, May 14, 1976].
The TULF resolution also called upon the "Tamil youth in particular to come forward to throw themselves fully in the sacred fight for freedom and flinch not till the goal of a sovereign socialist state of Tamil Eelam is reached".
Although the Secretary General of the TULF Mr.M.Sivasithambaram in a letter to the PM declared "Ours is a non-violent, civil disobedience movement. According to the tenets of Gandhiji's teachings, we shall suffer whatever stern action you (Sinhalas) propose to take. History has also shown such sacrifices triumph in the end”.
In 1977 the United National Party (UNP) led by J R Jayawardene won an unprecedented electoral victory in the General Elections to Parliament held in July 1977 winning 141 of the 168 seats in Parliament. The TULF became the largest opposition party, and Amrithalingam the leader of the Opposition in Parliament. The polarization spread to the Sri Lanka electorate and competitive radicalism began to pollute Sri Lanka’s democratic politics.
A reorganised UNP under the leadership of Mr. Jayawardene, as President, had recognised before the elections that "the lack of a solution to their problems has made the Tamil speaking people support even a movement for the creation of a separate state". The UNP manifesto upon which it secured its massive victory, inter alia, stated:
"The United National Party accepts the position that there are numerous problems confronting the Tamil speaking people. The lack of a solution to their problems has made the Tamil speaking people support even a movement for the creation of a separate state. In the interest of a national integration and unity so necessary for the economic development of the whole country, the Party feels such problems should be solved without loss of time. The party, when it comes to power will take all possible steps to remedy their grievances in such fields as
(3) Use of Tamil Language
(4) Employment in the Public and Semi-Public Corporations.
We shall summon an All-Party conference as stated earlier and implement its decisions. The decisions of an All-Party Conference, which will be summoned to consider the problems of non-Sinhala speaking people will be included in the Constitution."
It is generally accepted that, except where the TULF candidates contested, the UNP received the largest number of Tamil votes. The Ceylon Workers Congress representing the bulk of the plantation Tamils also supported the UNP, and its leader, Mr S Thondaman, became a cabinet minister in the Jayewardene led government. The TULF, although having a mandate on its separatist platform, was also amenable to a solution.
A unique opportunity had thus been created in which a fair and permanent solution to the Tamil problem could have been achieved through the means of a round table conference as promised by the UNP. The Parliamentary vote had established that Tamils as a community has a grievance. Time was ticking away.
The Jayewardene government, however, did not summon its round table conference as promised. It pushed through instead the 1978 Republican Constitution within a matter of weeks when the country was still under a State of Emergency.
The TULF urged that provision be made in the proposed Constitution for a measure of autonomy for the Tamil regions of the north and east. When this was rejected, the TULF MPs took no further part in the making of the Constitution.
Thus, as in the case of the 1972 Constitution, the 1978 Constitution was also promulgated without the participation of the elected representatives of the Tamil people.
The pre-eminent and dominant Constitutional position given to the Sinhala language and Buddhism was ensured in the by making provision for Sinhala to be the sole official language and to "be the language of administration throughout Sri Lanka". It also enjoined that the State "shall give Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana (Administration)". Sasana incidentally is Sanskrit word.
It also declared Sri Lanka to be a single "Unitary State", without provinces as we know them, thereby apparently diminishing any chance for a solution of the conflict.
Militant groups, including the newly formed LTTE, began depicting TULF leaders as capitulationists, as people who could be taken for a ride by the Sinhala leadership. They argued only an armed rebellion can get Tamils justice, and Eelam was the only answer.
The violent events of July 1983 and the resulting flight of nearly 80,000 Tamils to the neighbouring South Indian State of Tamil Nadu left India no alternative but to take an active role in the island. The then Indian Prime Minister Mrs.Indira Gandhi’s special envoy, visited Sri Lanka a number of times to discuss with the government, major political parties and the Buddhist clergy a possible solution.
But Mrs.Gandhi was also not above playing politics. She despised Jayewardene personally, and saw the Sri Lankan crisis more as she had seen the East Pakistan crisis of 1971.
After several rounds of discussion between her emissary Sri Lankan government leaders and the TULF, a document which came to be known as 'Annexure C' was drawn up and finally agreed with President Jayawardene when he visited New Delhi for the Commonwealth Leaders' Conference in November 1983.
The contents of Annexure C were to be the basis for negotiations at an All Party Conference (APC) to be convened by President Jaywardene.
Annexure C, inter alia, provided for the following:
(a) District Councils were to be the basic unit of devolution. However, District Councils within a province may combine into one or more Regional Councils if the districts so desired and approved at a Referendum;
(b) in the case of the northern and eastern provinces, the union of the District Councils within each province be accepted;
(c) each Regional Council was to have a Committee of Ministers drawn from among the elected members and headed by a Chief Minister;
(d) the Regional Councils were to have legislative and executive powers over specified areas including internal law and order, justice, social and economic development, cultural matters and land policy. They would also have power to levy taxes and mobilise resources through loans in addition to receiving block grants from central government;
(e) membership of the armed forces should reflect the ethnic r^tio and the police ... force in the north and east should reflect the ethnic ratio in those provinces;
(f) Subject to a national policy on land settlement to be worked out later, all settlement schemes should be based on ethnic proportion so as not to alter the demographic balance; agreement to be reached upon settlement schemes for major projects.
(g) The Constitution and other laws dealing with the official language Sinhala and the national language Tamil, the National Anthem and the National Flag to be accepted.
Nine political parties were originally invited to participate in the APC which commenced on 10 January 1984. Later participation was widened to include the Buddhist, Christian, Muslim and Hindu clergies together with other interest groups. A Conference of political parties summoned to arrive at a political solution to the ethnic conflict was soon transformed into one of groups representing a multitude of conflicting vested interest groups.
Annexure C, which was agreed to by the President as the basis for negotiation, was later abandoned after objection to it was raised by Buddhist organisations. The APC lasted throughout 1984 with postponements and long delays between meetings. The absence of the second largest Sinhalese political party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) which boycotted the APC due to the fact that its leader, Mrs.Bandaranaike, remained deprived of her political rights, due to certain criminal cases foisted on her by the Government, seriously undermined any chances of solution based on consensus. The APC become a non-starter, a dead letter.
In the absence of an agreement between the participants, President Jayawardene chose to submit proposals in the form of two draft Bills, describing them as the considered views emerging from the earlier Conference.
The proposals included provision for 3,000 village level local authorities, a further two tiers of District and Provincial Councils and also for the setting up of a second chamber of parliament to be called the Council of State, with 75 members, 50 of whom were to be nominated by the 25 District Councils and the balance by the President.
But his hard line Cabinet Minsiter, Mr Cyril Mathew, publicly opposed the proposals and exhorted the Buddhist clergy to do likewise. The SLFP also rejected the proposals, characterising them as a "legislative give away" to the Tamils with nothing in return. The TULF considered too at the other end of the political spectrum the proposals inadequate and stated that they "did not embody any scheme of autonomy which could be accepted by the Tamil people"; but it did not rule out any further negotiations on the proposals.
On 26 December 1984, President Jayawardene flatly announced that his government had decided not to go ahead with the proposals. He offered no other proposal or promises for the future. Another opportunity for a peaceful negotiated resolution of the conflict was thus lost.
From then on, Sri Lanka had been on a roller-coaster of terrorist violence and counter state measures, all causing loss of civilian lives in both communities.
I. A PROPOSAL FOR RECONCILIATION
There are many a proposal on the desk of the Sri Lankan President Mr. Rajapakshe, so I see little point in giving another fully structured proposal.
Rather I shall concentrate here on certain fundamentals of any viable and mutually acceptable reconciliation between the Sinhala majority and the Tamil minority.
First, no proposal for reconciliation can be pushed for acceptance in Sri Lanka from abroad, whether from India, or United Nations or any from any European busy bodies. The proposal must emerge indigenously in Sri Lanka after full democratic consultations with the stakeholders, none of whom shall have a veto, and adopted by the Sri Lanka Parliament by way of a resolution or if necessary by constitutional amendment.
Second, since there appears already a wide acceptability in Sri Lanka of the “13+” Amendment, which is a package that has been, in principle, substantially accepted by Parliament, hence the final reconciliation proposal should based on this Proposal, after adopting further amendments, to enhance or curtail the provisions of the 13+ Amendment.
Third, Sri Lanka by a Constitutional Amendment will become a Union of States, with exclusive as well as concurrent power delegated under the Constitution for the Union and the States to exercise and accordingly, a Union, Concurrent, and State Lists will be incorporated in the Constitution enumerating the subjects under the three categories.
Fourth, the Sri Lanka Constitution will remain Unitary in character, in the sense that the Parliament will have power under the Constitution to dismiss and take over the administration of a state for specified contingencies such as a state being unable to enforce the relevant provisions of the Constitution.
Fifth, the Head of the state or provincial government will have primary responsibility to maintain public order through a state police constituted for this purpose, but the Union shall have a Central Reserve Police and a contingent of the Armed Forces stationed in a special conclave in the state to intervene for the maintenance of public order whenever the President determines with ex-post approval of Parliament, that a situation has arisen that requires such an intervention.
Sixth, Parliament will enact an amendment to the Constitution to empower the Union to appoint Special District Magistrates whenever necessary and whose power will supersede the orders issued in exercise of State Magistrates’ power, to maintain public order.
Seventh, the Sri Lankan State will be secular in the conduct of its administration, even if it is accepted that culturally Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country, but will be entrusted to promote those religions which accept that all religions which if faithfully practiced will lead to God.
Eighth, with increasing proximity of the Tamil and Sinhala communities after devolution, as the two communities being of one genetic stock, united in history, culture with a common heritage of languages of Sanskrit and Pali, and scripts evolved from Brahmi, the resettling of Tamils in Sinhala dominated areas and Sinhalas in Tamil concentration areas, must be by the Government of Sri Lanka encouraged, by incentives and security arrangements, but definitely not by coercion or state initiatives. That will be the ultimate unity to seek.
|Posted by Victory Means Guruprasath on July 27, 2012 at 10:25 AM||comments (0)|
Here is the excerpt of the very important press release issued by Dr. Subramanian Swamy on 11 Aug. 2010 in Chennai which states that Rahul aka Raul Vinci is the main beneficiary of CWG bribes.But surprisingly neither any Congress man dared to file a defamation case against Dr. Swany and everyone is mum including the “secular” press of India.
This is a must read for all patriotic Indians.
STATEMENT OF DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY, PRESIDENT OF JANATA PARTY MADE IN CHENNAI ON 11.08.2010
1. While abroad recently I was informed by my reliable sources that of the Rs.40000 crores spent to date on Commonwealth Games preparations, about Rs.15000 crores have gone as bribes under cover of payments to consultants and contractors. The recipient of the largest share of the bribe delivered in London is Rahul Gandhi, a Congress MP and son of Sonia Gandhi. In London Mr.Gandhi is known under an alias as Raul Vinci. The Indian High Commission employee in London who has denied his letter of recommendation now, acts as a valet for Mr.Gandhi whenever he visits London, which is at least once a month. Mr.Gandhi is accompanied by his undeclared wife, Colombian girl Veronique.
2. The plan of UPA to protect Mr.Gandhi from expose and prosecution in this CWG scam is to blame it all on Suresh Kalmadi and Shiela Dikshit. The Prime Minister must show boldness now because corruption at the public person level has attained Himalayan heights bringing disgrace to the nation and the economy performing below our potential.
3. I demand therefore constituting an open Commission of Inquiry under a sitting Supreme Court judge with CBI as it's investigating arm. The public and whistle blowers should be invited to depose before Commission.
and Thanks to RP Singh & Janamejeyam