The tripartite coalition government headed by Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has been stitched, but the distribution of portfolios between parties has become a major bone of contention in Maharashtra.
A group of NCP and Congress state legislatures are seeking deputy chief minister and all-important ministries like finance and home.
There is a rift between the two parties over these important ministries with Sharad Pawar and Prithviraj Chavan eyeing for the post.
Sharad Pawar, at any cost, wants to allocate home portfolio to a party colleague, because he is facing charges of having links with international terrorist Dawood Ibrahim.
He is also facing charges of complicity in shielding the D-Company supremo from arrests and sabotaging the Indian intelligence’s efforts in nabbing the Mumbai 1993 bomb blast accused.
The NCP does not want to concede home ministry, if it does, then Sharad Pawar will become a pawn in the hands of Congress President Sonia Gandhi, which will result in needless tensions between the two parties, leading to collapse of the government.
Thackeray was sworn in as the 18th chief minister of Maharashtra on November 28 after putting an end to the political imbroglio in Maharashtra.
The delay in finalising on deputy chief minister allocation is creating tensions between NCP and Congress. The grand old party, in fact, is perturbed over a group of NCP members clamoring for Ajit Pawar to occupy deputy chief minister's gaddi.
Sources say that the Congress does not want to damage the image of the tripartite coalition government by including Ajit Pawar in the ministry. So also, NCP does not want Congress leader Ashok Chavan to occupy in any ministerial seat as he is facing investigation into Adarsh Scam.
If Ajit Pawar does not get deputy chief minister's post, there are chances of him revolting and destablising the government, as he is enjoying the support of at least 21 NCP MLAs, who can bring down the government, just as the disqualified MLAs of Congress and JDS did in Karnataka a few months back.
Also, the inexperience of Thackeray in governance could give a torrid time for him to keep the flock together as it is not in his genes to coordinate, mediate and manage, people.
Experienced leaders like Jayant Patil, Chhagan Bhujbal, Ajit Pawar, Ashok Chavan and Balasaheb Thorat, may try to dominate over him, brewing tensions between them. Sharad Pawar could fiddle with his ego by calling shots from behind-the-scene in the garb of a de facto head of the government.
Not far behind will be Sonia Gandhi, who has the experience of wielding enormous extra-constitutional powers through National Advisory Committee during a decade's UPA regime at the centre.
So, Thackeray's crown is full of thorns, which can prick to bleed him blue. Period.
Even after several years of this ghastly incident, the debate on Nathuram Godse, the killer of his, does not ebb down.
The debate once again erupted after BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur allegedly referred to Godse as a "deshbhakt" during a debate in the Lok Sabha on November 27 triggering protest by Opposition members.
This is the second time Pragya Thakur has described Godse as a patriot, during 2019 Lok Sabha election campaign, triggering a huge political storm.
Amid opposition protests over Pragya's comments, BJP went on the backfoot and said in Lok Sabha that the party condemns any philosophy which describes Gandhiji's killer as a patriot.
Not satisfied with the response of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, the Opposition led by the Congress staged a walkout.
Among the opposition parties, apart from Congress who staged a walkout, were Trinamool Congress, DMK, Left parties, NCP and AIMIM.
Yes, whoever praises Gandhiji's killer should be condemned, but equally should be put to shame, who kill his ideas almost everyday and claim themselves to be intellectuals of highest order.
This should be done because Gandhiji is immortal.
Can any political party in Lok Sabha proudly claim they have tread the path of Gandhiji's ideals? Congress, is the worst political party, that has crushed all his ideals for decades.
Gandhiji had intentions of dissolving Congress after Independence, but has it been implemented? He advocated Truth and non-violence, but any party has tread this path? All of them are immersed in corruption including coal and spectrum allocation scams.
A dumb political leader, who goes about lying on almost all issues, has any right to claim Gandhiji's ideals of Truth and non-violence? Or a leader like Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury can claim his speeches are non-violent as Gandhiji's?
Do the parties also have any right over Gandhiji's legacy, who ignore his ideas about cow protection and economic philosophy, which is an anti-thesis to free economy. Did any Congress man raise voice against P V Narasimha Rao's government for violation before it was implemented?
And, the Left parties, less said the better. They see Gandhiji as an irrelevant historical relic, casteist and racist misogynist, among others. During the freedom struggle, they called him Camprado, meaning a person bought by rich men.
No political party, except BJP, mentions Gandhian socialism in their ideological papers.
What could be more shameful than any acts of Congress governments. The Manmohan Singh government failed to purchase Gandhiji's eyeglasses and some of his other belongings sold for $1.8 million in 2009 US auction. It, instead, took the legal route, despite knowing well that the Indian courts do not have jurisdiction in United States.
Even in 2012, the government did not purchase 29 items of Gandhiji's memorabilia at an auction in UK, instead they were acquired by a prominent businessman Kamal Morarka from Mumbai.
The truth is all parties in the name of Gandhiji play politics, but do not have slightest of inclinations to put to practice his ideals.
Yes, Godse should be condemned for killing Gandhiji, but cannot be called a terrorist, because the Supreme Court had declared him as a killer.
The Left intellectuals and media call Godse terrorist, but speak in support of terrorists like Afzal Guru. They must be exposed.
The dreams of Uddhav Thackeray becoming chief minister has been met, but how long would he remain in that coveted post, is a big question.
Looking at the events happened till the swearing-in ceremony, it appears Uddhav could also meet the same fate as BJP's Devendra Fadnavis.
Fadnavis had created a record by becoming the chief minister with the shortest tenure in Maharashtra. His second stint as chief minister lasted only 80 hours.
This possibility cannot be ruled out, considering the present political situation in the state. After all, who could have imagined the midnight coup of Amit Shah in forming the government with the help of Ajit Pawar, Sharad Pawar's nephew.
Ajit Pawar attended the swearing-in ceremony yesterday, but there was no smile on his face because he was given to understand that he would be given deputy chief minister's post.
This, however, is not a big deal for NCP because Ajit Pawar has been deputy chief minister in the previous NCP-Congress governments.
Because of his "rebellion" to join hands with Fadnavis to form the government, chances of him becoming deputy chief minister has dimmed.
The Congress, according to sources, are against giving any ministerial berth to Ajit Pawar, because he is facing investigation in irrigation and PMC bank scams, and moreover, they are wary of his rebellious intentions.
Two NCP leaders, Jayant Patil and Chagan Bhujbal, took oath as ministers. The former has the blessings of Sharad Pawar. He was appointed NCP's Legislature Party Leader after Ajit Pawar had joined hands with Fadnavis to become deputy chief minister, which collapsed in 80 hours.
THOUGH Shiv Sena, NCP and Congress successfully cobbled up a government, their unity will be put to test if floor test is sought for in Maharashtra assembly.
Ajit Pawar appears to be unhappy and restless, and could turn tables against triparte government any time, considering the twists and turns Maharashtra has witnessed in the last one month.
The Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi has a total strength of 154 seats in the assembly. When he had joined hands with Fadnavis to form the government, Ajit Pawar had claimed support of 36 NCP MLAs.
According to highly reliable sources, at least 21 NCP MLAs are with Ajit Pawar and are bidding time to strike at an opportune occasion.
Will Ajit Pawar press for floor test again? He can, because he is still unsure of getting deputy chief minister's post.
Here, one should consider the remarks of Fadnavis, when he was asked about the reason for extending support to Ajit Pawar.
He had said he would talk about it at right time.
So, the drama in Maharashtra is not yet over. Keep track of Ajit Pawar's next move.
Many of the people in India are confused over the political drama unfolding in Maharashtra.
How innocent?
They are confused because the wheeler-dealer journalists are not in the picture in the formation of government as we all have been witnessing in the past.
Can anyone forget Radia tape case?
Any how, the only advise I can give to people is watch the Maharashtra politics unfold and enjoy from far.
Let me begin with the latest update.
Many television journalists are explaining the developments from the political angle, but I will try to explain from the legal point of view.
Since I have also covered court proceedings, according to my understanding, the script writer of this political game is NCP's Sharad Pawar.
However, I do not claim I am not infallible. My understanding might go wrong. Let me be humble.
Why do I say the script writer is Sharad Pawar?
The veteran NCP leader has already buried Congress and Shiv Sena in Maharashtra. This will be remembered for a very long time.
And, there will be tons of debates in the future claiming that Sharad Pawar was innocent because he was with Sena and Congress till the end.
Let me explain.
First let me tell you what happened in Supreme Court in last two days. It has reserved its verdict for tomorrow. It can only fix the date and timing of floor test in Maharashtra assembly.
One who are vouching for Karnataka type verdict, let me tell them that there is a very big difference between Karnataka and Maharashtra.
One should understand that, in Maharashtra, the government has already been formed after NCP submitted letter of support to BJP. Also, Devendra Fadnavis and NCP's Ajit Pawar have already assumed charges of Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister.
In Karnataka, BS Yeddyurappa had approached Karnataka Governor to claim formation of government with BJP MLAs only, not with MLAs belonging to other parties.
Whereas in Maharashtra, both Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar submitted letters to the Governor. Hence, there is a big difference between the two states.
What the tripartite alliance petition says?
The petition challenges the decision of the Governor to invite BJP to form a "minority government" and asserts that they have the numbers to stake claim to form the government.
They also categorically assert that all the MLAs of Shiv Sena, NCP and Congress are completely and solidly with the alliance except for Ajit Pawar.
The petitioners also claimed that there is no material available to indicate that Fadnavis had letters of support from 144 MLAs as was claimed further pointing out that the majority mark stands at 145.
They also questioned the timing of administration of oath as early as in the morning and President's rule rescinded from Maharashtra in the wee hours.
The petitioners also alleged that the Governor had acted in a "partisan manner" and "made a mockery of the high office of the Governor".
In fact, the petitioners have further added that the actions of the Governor indicate that he has acted at the behest of a political party, in this case, the BJP.
Therefore, they prayed to the court to quash Governor's order of inviting Fadnavis to form the government as void and initio, illegal, and arbitrary.
They further sought for a direction to be passed by the Court for the Governor to invite the alliance, which has the support of more than 144 MLAs, to form the government.
The objections to the pleas
Firstly, the Supreme Court does not have powers to dismiss any state government. Even in Yeddyurappa case, the Supreme Court had given a ruling on the date and timing of the floor test in Karnataka assembly.
Secondly, the Supreme Court neither has any authority to direct the Governor to invite tripartite alliance to form the government.
Also, the Governor is immune from any court action.
Thirdly, based on the petitioners' plea, the Supreme Court, on November 24, had asked to place before it the letters submitted to Governor by Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar and said a floor test of Fadnavis government was the only issue before it.
Today, the letters were submitted to the Supreme Court, thereby the tripartite alliance plea to quash Fadnavis government is rendered null.
Moreover, Ajit Pawar, in his plea, today claimed that had he acted as the Leader of the NCP and there is nothing to the contrary to show that he was not the NCP leader on November 22.
In other words, Jayant Patil's appointment as NCP Leader after November 22 is unconstitutional. Interestingly, no parties have questioned the veracity of the letters, especially where Ajit Pawar mentions he is the Leader of NCP.
In contrast to BJP-NCP's letters submitted to the Governor, the counsel for NCP, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, withdrew the affidavit claiming that the tripartite alliance has the numbers to form the government.
This only means that the alliance did not have the numbers and hence to avoid contempt of court, Singhvi withdrew the affidavit.
Therefore, Ajit Pawar is NCP leader as per law and hence, he has the power to issue whip to his party legislators during the floor test.
Sharad Pawar's Game
Before the Modi-Shah-Pawar meeting, the NDA government had bestowed Padma Vibushan to the senior NCP leader and Amit Shah, just before the elections, expedited the ED probe against him in PMC bank case, so that the Maratha strongman's politics meanders around BJP.
In the backdrop of the trio's meeting, some questions arise. Why has Sharad Pawar not expelled Ajit Pawar for anti-party activities? In fact, he said he cannot do so because he alone cannot remove him.
Yet another question arises - Why did Ajit Pawar approach Governor to claim stake to form government the same night when he was made NCP Leader? Why not before that? Doesn't it looks like a ploy?
Did Sharad Pawar wait for giving a legal stamp to Ajit Pawar's letter before asking him to approach the Governor?
Has he also scripted a weak petition in Supreme Court?
Looks like, because he is known for scripting deceptive narrations to hurt rival parties all these years.
So, let me summarize the whole script of Sharad Pawar -
1) He made Ajit Pawar the NCP Leader
2) He handed over the letter of support to Ajit Pawar
3) He played the role of forming a rebel government
4) He filed a weak petition in the court
5) He appointed Jayant Patil as new NCP Leader thereafter which will not stand good legally
After doing all this, it is necessary for Sharad pawar to save his image in the public.
So what he does?
He sends messages through media that it was Ajit Pawar's personal decision to form rebel government and shows "solidarity" with Congress and Shiv Sena leaders by moving with them.
This is a classic case of eyewash politics.
Not only Sharad Pawar, Congress also has indulged in eyewash politics by approaching the Governor's office, in his absence today, to give the letter of forming tripartite alliance government.
If it had numbers, the alliance could have submitted the affidavit in the Supreme Court, but they didn't.
Now, what next?
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will fix date and time of the floor test. After that, the whole process will begin. First the house will appoint a Protem Speaker. Second, all legislators will be made to take oath. Third, a Speaker will be elected. Fourth, the agenda will be taken up - either the floor test.
There could be an uproar in the assembly on the issue of who has the power to issue whip to NCP MLAs? In all certainty, the letter endorsed by Supreme Court claiming that Ajit Pawar is the party's legislature leader.
Ajit Pawar will then issue the whip asking all NCP MLAs to mandatorily vote for the government, if some violate, they will be disqualified.
Therefore, the chances of BJP and NCP forming a government is more likely.
Then what will Sharad Pawar do?
If 36 MLAs who were with him in the hotel votes for in Ajit Pawar's favour, then Sharad Pawar will talk about his helplessness to Congress and Shiv Sena by saying he tried everything politically, but failed constitutionally.
After a while, he could push for MP Supriya Sule, his daughter, into the central ministry as a reward for forming Maharashtra government.
Suppose, if 36 MLAs votes for Ajit Pawar and other MLAs stay with Sharad Pawar, then there will be two NCP parties lead by Supriya Sule and Ajit Pawar.
If you look at it from any angle, Sharad Pawar will be as good as a father to Supriya Sule and as good as uncle to Ajit Pawar ... Period.
Besides the great names, there is one and he is Lutyens media's favorite - Kanhaiya Kumar, a JNU alumnus. He was famously accused of flashing his penis at a woman who objected to his urinating in public. He was fined Rs 3000 after he was found guilty in a formal inquiry initiated by the university.
Rona Wilson. He is accused of planning a Rajiv Gandhi type assassination plot to target Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his road shows in the run-up to 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
Shehla Rashid, a parasite, who makes a living by spreading fake news to sow seeds of hatred on religious and caste lines. She is charged with collecting lakhs of rupees for Kathua rape and not handing over the amount to the victim’s family.
Despite all this, these virulent rats are still hero worshiped by hypocritical journalists like Michael Angelos and Bakait Pandeys (Rajdeep Sardesais and Ravish Kumars), whose only agenda is to browbeat Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his policies.
Distasteful history
From being listed as one of the most prominent educational institutes to being one of the most controversial universities in India, Jawaharlal Nehru University has come a long way to oppose Modi government on almost all issues.
The journey, began in 2016 when university administration and students locked horns over holding an event against the hanging of parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, though the administration denied permission for the event.
However, the students held a debate on February 9, 2016, during which anti-national slogans were allegedly raised, leading to several university students charged with sedition charges.
In an act of hooliganism, the students, in March 2019, confined Vice Chancellor Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar's wife inside his residence after they broke into the house to protest against his decision to ban protest in vicinity of administration block.
A few months later, the students launched a protest against JNU's decision disallowing posters or writing slogans for any protest, terming it as an attempt to stifle their right to expression. However, the university's intention was to stop defacement of its property.
Even as the heat over this controversy had not subsided, the students opposed the hiked fee structure for hostels and confined a female associate professor in a classroom. She was rescued by police after a harrowing 20 hours of confinement.
Thereafter, the students resorted to vandalism by desecrating Swami Vivekananda's statue by unidentified assailants and writing abusive words below it, directed towards right-wing ideology and BJP government.
Later, a media team belonging to IANS was assaulted by these goons on November 12. They also assaulted JNU's women security officers on November 14.
They also manhandled a Zee News reporter and made lewd remarks against her. Amidst chants of "Zee News murdabad" and "Hindi media murdabad", these 'uncles and aunties' manhandled the reporter. Similar was the treatment meted out to eight women reporters of Hindi news channel Sudharshan News.
The selective silence
The students also attempted to silence Republic Media Network by turning off its microphone during a press conference held by them at JNU and none of the lefty-liberal brigade and Lutyens media came forward to condemn these act of hooliganism.
The silence over these unruly behavior of the students even against women reporters exposes their political agenda, tacitly backed by the Congress and the left parties, besides so-called liberal intelligentsia.
They have completely ignored the outrageous conduct of the 'students' and not condemned vandalisation of Swami Vivekananda's statue which is scheduled for inauguration at the university.
Hypocrisy is thy name of these set of divisive journalists. Hundreds of journalists, in February 2016, had marched towards Supreme Court demanding action against lawyers, who allegedly had beaten up journalists and JNU students gathered to witness the presentation of JNU Students Union President Kanhaiya Kumar arrested on the charge of sedition.
The much-needed change
It is high time for them to re-invent themselves. They are unable to understand the reason for the voters dumping their style of journalism like putrid food, election after election.
They have failed to initiate a genuine campaign against the current government because of their infatuation towards rabid and repeated slogans of "RSS, Church attack, Intolerant India, Award Wapasi, Cow Slaughter, Lynching, MeToo and Domestic Slowdown, Rupee Depreciation, Deflating Consumer Sentiments, GDP Growth", which hardly evince interest in voters to defeat Modi.
They had underestimated the impact of toilets, cooking gas and electricity in villages, which had changed the aspirations of rural masses. They also failed to acknowledge the success of universal healthcare, crop insurance and Mudra loans, which made greater sense to farmers.
Realising and understanding the politics of Modi can be a good starting point for the Lutyens media.
But, the problem all along has been their bet on the wrong player and team — Congress, led by empty pots Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, who make most of the noise, with the full backing of another set of empty pots - the Lutyens media and the Left intelligentsia.
The Cellular Operators Association of India led by Bharati Airtel and Vodafone Idea, have resorted to threatening and blackmailing the Indian government, by raising a false alarm on unprecedented crisis in telecom sector after the recent Supreme Court judgement on definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue.
They are threatening and blackmailing the government by referring to possible job loss; quality of service loss and loss of investments in the sector.
Many media picked up unconfirmed reports about Vodafone shutting its operations in India if the government does not give some relaxation to the company on demands for mobile spectrum fees.
If the company wants to exit India, so be it? Because, in its absence too, there will be vibrant competition between PSUs and private players, including the new entrants.
Moreover, it has been been claiming financial stress since long, but raking in moolah without bothering to modernise the networks, as evident for TRAI data in its IUC CP.
According to a Reuters report, Vodafone Global CEO Nick Read raised questions against Indian government by saying, "Financially there has been a heavy burden through unsupportive regulation, excessive taxes and on top of that we got the negative Supreme Court decision."
Is there any merit in the claims made by Read and COAI?
In contrast, the government has been more favorable to the telcos than what is being made out to be by Read and others. It had reduced 15 per cent AGR fixed as license fee 13 per cent and lastly to 8 per cent in 2013, which resulted in a massive loss of more than Rs 3 lakh crore, under the revised policy effective from 1999.
The government and judiciary also are convinced that the companies were under-reporting revenues for long. In 2017, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, in its report tabled in Parliament, had claimed that six private telecom players had understated their revenues by over Rs 61,000 crore, causing a loss of Rs 7,697.62 crore to the exchequer.
In contrast, the telcos were unsupportive as they broke the promises made to the government under the contract and went on to make abnormal profits through cartelisation, which helped them to flourish by charging heavily on data and voice services, but Jio's entry compelled them to reduce tariffs, benefiting subscribers.
Also, they did not make provisions, which should have been done, as they were aware of the government and court's position as early as 2008 and 2011.
On raising a false alarm on unprecedented crisis in telecom, if the situation was as such, how on earth Airtel started and continued business in African countries despite initial "losses?"
The truth is - the sector is in the consolidation phase, and hence, short-term losses during this period cannot be taken as stress, when an investor looks for future opportunities, especially in an era of Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain technology and robotics, which promise to act as a multiplier in the economy.
Therefore, the talk of the stress is only to get maximum concessions and no company will exit for sure considering the bright future. And even when if the stress exits, it cannot be attributable to the policymaker as they are result of wrong business decisions.
Both Airtel and Vodafone have sufficient financial capacity to pay the government dues by monetising their existing assets and investments and by issuing fresh equity in their companies.
These service providers have stakes in many profitable ventures in the country and abroad and have made multi-million dollars of profits in the countries post investing the proceeds from telecom business, including the regulatory levies withheld for decades.
The telecom industry is staring at Rs 92,641-crore payout following the verdict. The court last week had given verdict in favor of the government, who sought inclusion of revenue from non-telecommunication businesses in calculating the AGR of telecom companies, a share of which is paid as licence and spectrum fee to the exchequer.
Bharti Airtel faces a liability of around Rs 42,000 crore after including licence fees and spectrum usage charges, Vodafone-Idea about Rs 40,000 crore and Jio around Rs 14 crore.
What is required on part of the promoters and top management of the companies is to sincerely pay up AGR as agreed in the licence conditions and restore their credibility.
And, three months time given by the court to share the revenue is lenient compared to stringent provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. Period.
The Supreme Court yesterday wound up the fake Rafale scam by dismissing all review pleas seeking investigation into the defence deal.
The court, in its verdict, rejected the pleas filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Union Ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, who argued that Narendra Modi Government had suppressed information from the court regarding the deal to procure 36 Rafale jets.
In the aftermath of this verdict, it is expected that the malicious attempt to malign the character and personal integrity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi by media and a particular faction of the political establishment, ebbs down as soon as possible.
Former Congress President Rahul Gandhi and libtards fabricated lies and passed on to the mainstream media who were eager to provide them a platform to sway the minds of the voters in the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The media led by 'The Hindu' Editor N Ram effectively campaigned against Modi government.
In this whole campaign, it will not be an exaggeration to claim that Ram benefited the most in terms of advertisements placed by rival companies of Rafale in 'The Hindu', which is owned by him. Reasons for Rahul Gandhi to peddle Rafale lies
Reason 1: What bothers Congress and Rahul Gandhi most is Modi's clean image. He has been in politics for the last three decades, but not a single corruption charge has been leveled against him. They tried hard to tarnish his image with 2002 Gujarat riots, but failed.
They also used many adjectives, including Sonia Gandhi and Mani Shankar Aiyar's 'Maut ka Saudagar' and 'Chaiwala', during election campaigns in the past. In the last election, they used 'Chowkidar Chor Hai' and 'Neech' slogans to change people's perception that Modi is an an honest politician.
Also, the Congress did not have a single genuine issue to defeat Modi, considering the comparative performance of both NDA and UPA governments. NDA's performance was far better than a decade's rule of UPA, which was remote-controlled by Sonia Gandhi.
So, they tried to do what they do best - to lie and spread it with the help of their well-oiled lobbies at every place. They believe that a lie told 1,000 times would be converted into the universal truth. Hence, they kicked up a campaign on Rafale deal against Modi.
It is very apt to mention here that Ram and Co, in a bid to help Congress and Rahul gandhi in the runup to 2019 Lok Sabha elections, had intentionally cropped an internal note of the Ministry of Defense to exclude the then Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar’s response and present a distorted view of the events that transpired.
Soon, ANI and Republic TV, exposed Ram's fallen journalistic ethics by publishing the full page of the note, which showed that he had cropped the document to omit Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar's reply to it.
Parrikar's reply made it clear that both PMO and French President offices were monitoring the government to government deal, and the comments of the secretary are an overreaction.
Moreover, the negotiations referred to in Defence Secretary G Mohan Kumar's dissent order in the note had nothing to with pricing at all, thus dislodging the lie of Rahul Gandhi's claims of Modi stealing Rs 30,000 crores based on Ram's distorted presentation of events.
Also, it is important to note that the dissenting Deputy Secretary (Air-II) was neither a part of Defence Acquisition Council nor a part of Indian Negotiating Team for the defence deal.
Therefore, the Supreme Court observed that the whole Rafale deal process was struck between the French and Indian government according to law and hence there should not be any further probe into the issue.
More than anything else, Supreme Court gave relief to Rahul Gandhi while simultaneously reprimanding him strongly in the contempt case filed by BJP leader Meenakshi Lekhi against him for attributing his 'Chowkidar Chor Hai' political slogan to the apex court, ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
Pronouncing the judgement, Justice SC Kaul said that it was unfortunate that the contemnor (Rahul Gandhi) had made such remarks and that he - holding such an important position - should have been more careful.
Justice Kaul observed that no court should be dragged into any political discourse.
Following this, citing the affidavit filed by Rahul Gandhi in which he had apologised, the three-judge bench in a concurring judgment said that it would not like to continue with the contempt proceedings further.
Not only Rahul Gandhi has been accused of running a fake "Chowkidar Chor Hai" campaign to win elections, but also accused of working as a "lobbyist" for foreign firms.
Earlier, the Congress scion had accused Modi of acting as a "middleman" of Anil Ambani in the Rafale jet deal, as he cited an Airbus internal email to claim the businessman was aware of the MoU before India and France signed it.
It is suspected that the email was provided by Airbus, which was the only competitor to Rafale in a bid to win the deal.
In a scathing rebuttal, Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad sought explanation from Rahul Gandhi, asking him from did he get the internal email of Airbus and alleged that he is working as a lobbyist for foreign firms, including Airbus.
Airbus, an European aircraft manufacturer, is already under a needle of suspicion in deals finalised during the previous Congress-led government. The firm is also linked to a corporate lobbyist, Deepak Talwar who was deported from the UAE and is being probed on money laundering charges.
In a separate Augusta Westand chopper case, investigations revealed that jailed Christian Michel had access to internal discussions of the UPA Cabinet and Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meetings and to confidential conversation between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Reason 2: Rafale deal also "troubled" Congress because Modi government had cancelled the offset bid of notorious arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari, a close aide of Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra.
Bhandari who ran Offsets India Solutions, at one point of time, had applied considerable pressure to get a slice of work in the Rafale deal. However, the French firm - Dassault Aviation decide against working with OIS after a few initial rounds of talks.
In May 2016, Bhandari's offices in New Delhi were raided by Enforcement Directorate, as they were probing into the arms dealers indulgence in wrongful defence deals. Thereafter, he fled to London ever since.
Bhandari has been booked under the Official Secrets Act after confidential defence ministry documents were found in his offices. Investigators also are looking into charges of his attempts to influence defence deals with European companies in India.
What the verdict proves?
The closure of Rafale case proves that the watchdogs of the government themselves have been corrupted beyond limits, that they shamelessly share the same plank with people belonging to one particular section of the political establishment, having common interests that are opposed to the ideals and values of Sangh Parivar.
So, with no other options left with the political establishment led by Rahul Gandhi who was ably supported by the media, staged a failed coup using their resources to create a false narrative to influence voters by calling Modi, a thief and a dishonest politician.
Some elite, who appear to be rightists on Twitter and other social platforms, are blaming BJP for committing a wrong on Shiv Sena in Maharashtra.
They are questioning National BJP President Amit Shah's silence over implementation of "fifty-fifty" formula for power-sharing as promised by him to the party's ally and Shiv Sena Chief Uddhav Thackeray in the runup to the Maharashtra elections.
They do not have faith in the clarifications given by former Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis and union minister Nitin Gadkari, repudiating Thackeray's claim, though both belong to Maharashtra.
They just want Shah to speak on the issue, though he had done so in he midst of election campaigns before.
Amit Shah's Pre-poll comments on 505:50 formula
Two videos of Shah are making raves on social media platforms. One is his interview with Navika Kumar of Times Now and the second with India Today's Rahul Kanwal.
In both the interviews, Shah is clearly saying there was no such 50:50 formula between BJP and Sena. Inspite of this undisputed truth, a few elite, who appear to be rightists, are not ready to accept his clarification.
These are the very people who wanted to benefit during BJP's rule, but when they failed in this endeavor, they launched vigorous attacks on BJP and at one point of time, they were also all praise for Kamal Nath in Madhya Pradesh.
These are the same people who had opposed former Chhattissgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh in the last assembly elections, are today complaining about being throttled by the Congress on false charges.
They wake up and seek BJP's support when their lives are under threat. What can one expect from such elite who indulge in sophistry for personal gains?
The Sena's Sophistry
One such sophistic and opportunistic party is the Sena. Readers will be surprised. In the early stages of Sena's history, the party had sought Muslim League's support to get its candidate Sudhir Joshi elected to the mayor's post after Bombay Municipal Corporation election results in 1973.
For this, late Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray had shared the stage with Muslim League leader GM Banatwala at Mastan Talao in Nagpada in South Mumbai.
Not only this, Sena also had allied with Congress (O) and had backed Murli Deora of Congress in the mayoral polls, in 1971 Lok Sabha elections and 1977 mayoral polls, respectively.
It also backed the Emergency in 1977 and did not field any candidate for the Lok Sabha polls held that year.
In 1978, Sena had allied with Congress (I) faction led by Indira Gandhi after attempts were made to forge an alliance with Janata Party failed. All 33 of its candidates lost the election in the anti-Indira wave.
The bonhomie between Congress and Sena ended in 80s after Indira's death. The relations deteriorated further during Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi's terms.
The party tilted towards Hindutva and gravitated towards the BJP, during Ramjanmabhoomi agitation in 80s and 90s, but voted for Congress-backed Pratibha Patil and Pranab Mukherjee in presidential polls.
The friendship of Balasaheb and Sharad Pawar was very thick as well. Their bonhomie goes five decades back. It was so deep that Balasaheb did not field any candidate when Pawar's daughter Supriya Sule contested 2006 Rajya Sabha polls.
Incidentally, Pawar fielded a weak candidate against Thackeray's grandson Aditya, who won by a margin of over 67,000 votes in the recent Assembly election.
To call Sena, an opportunistic party, hence will not be an exaggeration.
Does SEna Deserves CM's Post?
Being aware of Sena's sophistic and opportunistic inclinations, BJP, under Narendra Modi and Shah's leadership, understands the dangers of running a coalition government under Sena's chief ministership.
The national party is well aware of its mistake of remaining silent over Sena's goonda and extortionist politics during its rule under Manohar Joshi and Narayan Rane's chief ministership. Among many murder cases that hit media headlines then, the murder of an ordinary middle resident of Mumbai, Ramesh Kini, became the biggest controversy in 1996.
Kini was intimidated by the landlords, asking him to vacate his flat. Since the landlords were close to Thackeray family, he used to be called to the "Samana" office to put pressure on him. All of a sudden, one day he was found dead in a cinema theatre in Pune, forcing her wife to suspect the direct hand of Raj Thackeray in the crime.
This smacked off a row in political circles and Sena-BJP government tried to suppress the police investigation into the case. Even the High Court's ruling to hand over the case to CBI did not yield result as police had destroyed most of the evidence.
Despite Raj Thackeray escaping legal action, this one case really sullied Sena-BJP's image and their regime met its Waterloo in the assembly elections of 1999.
Thereafter, for almost next 15 years, both parties sat in the opposition from 1999 to 2014.
BJP only came to power when they fought election on its own and became the single largest party in 2014 elections, but formed government with Sena, who had to be content with Fadnavis as chief minister.
After 2019 assembly poll results, a controversy erupted, with Sena demanding the BJP to agree to a 50:50 formula and rotational chief ministership, which it had said, had already been discussed with Shah and Fadnavis, which both leaders refuted.
Shah and Modi are well within their rights not to give chief minister's post to Sena because it had won more number of seats.
They also are well within their rights not to hand over chief minister's baton to a Shiv Sainik who would bring the draconian goonda raj back into Maharashtra. Period.
At last, Shiv Sena and BJP ties have broken, ending a nearly 30-year-old alliance, after the lone Sena minister in Narendra Modi government, Arvind Sawant, resigned yesterday.
The breakup was the outcome of the bickering between the two alliance partners over rotational chief ministership.
This is not the first time that the two parties have parted ways, ever since they came together in 1984.
After Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari invited Sena to form government by proving their majority in state assembly, NCP's supremo Sharad Pawar laid a condition to Thackeray that he would agree to come together if the latter cuts ties with BJP by quitting NDA.
In fact, the Sena-BJP alliance had a rickety relationship in the past, but both managed to keep it intact. Sena's breakup with BJP is largely aimed at disallowing the saffron party from playing a dominant role in Maharashtra politics by pitching for Aaditya Thackeray's chief ministership, despite the fact that the Sena had just grabbed 56 seats as against BJP's 101 seats in the 228-member assembly.
Though the pre-poll alliance won a clear majority, Sena decided to get the plum post for Aaditya as per a 50-50 formula of rotational chief minister, which it claimed was agreed upon ahead of the Lok Sabha election 2019.
However, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis refuted any such deal between Uddhav and BJP President Amit Shah.
The Wavering Relationship Between Sena And BJP
In January 2018, Sena had declared that it was severing its ties with BJP and fight 2019 Lok Sabha and assembly elections, on its own. However, they buried their differences and fought the elections together, which saw BJP returning to power at the centre with a bigger mandate.
Sena was offered four more seats than 20 given to it in he previous election.
In 2014 too, BJP and Sena contested state polls on their own. The saffron party formed the government on the basis of being the single largest party with 122 seats. Sena had won 63 seats, but joined the government a month later.
This election, both fought elections together, but when the time came for forming the government, the Sena backstabbed.
The Sena-Congress Relationship
It could be a surprise for readers to know that this is not the first time that the Sena found support from Congress. In 1966, Balasaheb Thackeray had no political resources, and hence found support from the ruling Congress, which was fighting the communists and trade unions.
Those days, Sena was derisively called "Vasant Sena", because two Congress chief ministers Vasantrao Naik and Vasantdada Patil, played a stellar role in its formation.
Balasaheb also supported Congress when he welcomed the imposition of 1975 Emergency in his Marathi magazine "Marmik" and heaped praise over Indira Gandhi's son Sanjay Gandhi.
By the beginning of 1980s, however, Balasaheb reinvented Sena into Hindutva party, as Congress had all, but hijacked its Marathi identity issues, and communism was on the wane in Maharashtra, thus snatching away two of his major political issues.
With the rise of BJP in 1980s and early 90s, Balasaheb quickly forged an alliance for playing Hindutva politics, which had a wider appeal than anti-communism or regionalism.
Is Sena Hindutvawadi or Marathiwadi party?
For those who feel Balasaheb stood up for Hindus forget that when he formed his party he targeted Gujratis, South Indians, and in recent years, North Indians, who were Hindus.
He had built his chauvinistic politics around the emotive cause of Marathi Asmita and never missed an opportunity to play this card whenever an occasion arose.
Sena, which was an important member of the Opposition NDA in 2007, supported UPA candidate Pratibha Patil in the Presidential election, which poured water on BJP's dreams to see its candidate Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat becoming the President.
Shekhawat was an independent candidate. Balasaheb also had delivered a blow to BJP led NDA by supporting UPA candidate Pranab Mukherjee in 2012.
Why Sena is joining hands with Congress, NCP?
Clearly, Sena is an opportunistic regional party which is wearing the robe of saffron, which it wants to shed for few reasons.
Firstly, Sena knows very well the growing dominance of the BJP in Maharashtra, which is evident in the resounding victory achieved by it, winning 122 seats, almost twice of Sena's 63, on its own in 2014 Maharashtra elections.
The saffron party even passed the floor test in the assembly through voice vote and Devendra Fadnavis was elected chief minister.
However, as BJP was short of the numbers to form the government, after some tantrums Sena joined hands with BJP to form the government with 186 MLAs together.
Not only this, BJP broke Sena's bastion, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. Fighting all alone in the dirtiests of BMC election campaigns in 2017, BJP won 82 seats and Sena 84.
Knowing well the shrinking image of Sena to be a kingmaker party, Uddhav Thackeray decided to field his son Aaditya Thackeray in the election fray, so that he can control not only the party, but also senior leaders and regional satraps like Manohar Joshi, by sitting in the government.
Secondly, Uddhav knows the drawback of two parties touting the same Hindutva ideology, as voters normally vote for a bigger party with a larger footprint.
He also is aware of his cousin Raj Thackeray hijacking the Marathi Asmita slogan from Sena's jargon. Though Raj has not found traction in Maharashtra, he has caused damage to the Sena's poll prospects with the division of Marathi votes.
Thirdly, Uddhav feels that by supporting Congress and Pawar, who is facing charges of corruption and having close relationship with international terrorist Dawood Ibrahim, Sena can stop BJP's growth in Maharashtra.
This is a real misconception. Uddhav forgets two things - He is no Balasaheb and Amit Shah is no Pramod Mahajan.
Shah, who is called modern Chanakya, in all earnest will be waiting for making a kill, given the internal contradictions of Congress, NCP and Sena.
Unlike BS Yediyurappa who was desperate to form BJP government in Karnataka, Fadnavis should at least sit in the opposition for at least a year or two, and wait for the possible coaliton to crumble on its own.
There can be nothing criminal than residing in India and yet denigrating one of its most revered historical heroes.
Congress leaders Buta Singh and Sheila Dikshit, during Rajiv Gandhi's premiership, made an attempt to initiate a debate on the very existence of Lord Ram and if he was born in Ayodhya.
Congress, in September 2007, had also filed affidavits in the Supreme Court claiming there was no historical or scientific evidence to establish existence of Lord Ram and Ram Setu as a man-made bridge.
Even, late Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar, in 1990, had also questioned the Lord Ram's existence.
This was the first time that an organised view was expressed by historians, representing the Babri Masjid Action Committee, contested Ayodhya as the birthplace of Lord Ram.
In 1998, archaeologist MVN Krishna Rao declared that Banawali in Haryana along the banks of ancient River Saraswati was the birthplace of Lord Ram, in a paper titled, "Ram and Ravan in Indus seals."
In 2000, Rajesh Kochhar, a physicist with deep interest in culture and history, claimed in his book that Lord Ram was not born in Ayodhya, but Afghanistan.
In 2015, Abdul Rahim Quraishi of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) argued, in his paper, that Lord Ram was born in Rehman Dheri of Pakistan, citing writings of former ASI official Jassu Ram to arrive at his conclusion.
However, none of these alternative claims is universally accepted.
Then, what are the claims universally accepted?
The existence of Ram as a historical figure is not only supported by the domestic folk narratives, but also outside India, in countries like America, Russia, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Iran, Philipines, Nepal, Burma, Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, China, Mangolia and Thailand.
Interestingly, Rama is mentioned in the Bible. Matthew's Chapter 2:18 mentions "A voice was heard in Rama."
Rama was about 6 miles northwest of Jerusalem, near Bethel, and was some 10 or 12 miles from Bethlehem.
Rama is the place where Joseph lived who begged the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:57). This is also the same place in which Samuel was born, where he resided, died and buried.
It is for the Biblical Society to define why was the city named as Rama and who was Rama?
Maharishi Valmiki had written Ramayana, a historical epic, woven around the heroism of Lord Ram, who was Dashratha's son and was born in the clan of Raghu. Similarly, Mahakavi Kalidas wrote Raghuvansham, which chronicles the lineage of Raghu and various kings who ruled after Lord Ram.
If Lord Ram was a mythological hero, then Valmiki would not have provided the history of His forefathers, and Kalidasa would have failed to provide details of His forefathers, and various successors, who ruled after Him?
Even today, Sri Lanka believes in Ramayana and proudly shows the coronation of Vibhishan in its parliament. It not only has converted Ashok Vatika into a famous tourist attraction, but also paying pension to the descendants of Ravan.
Thailand, even though it is a Budhist country, has a place named Ayodhya and the king there is called Ram.
The Dutch handed over New Guinea to Indonesia by reciting verse 30-31 from Valmiki Ramayana's Kiskindha Khand, Sarg 40, after it asked the agitating Indonesian public asking for an irrefutable proof.
The verse says, "Yatanvanto yavdweepam ... shishiro naam parvat", which meant - "Sughreev had advised the leaders in his army to visit the eastern frontiers, in search of Sita, to go to Yavadwipa (Java) - the conglomeration of seven kingdoms, and from there to visit Swarnadeep (Sumatra) and after Sumatra to visit Shishir mountain (New Guinea) inhabited by gods and demons, which kisses the sky with its summit."
Can anyone question the historicity of Lord Ram and other characters of the Ramayana? Rishi Valmiki was a contemporary of Lord Ram and has used the present tense in Ramayana, not the past and future tense.
In the historical epic, Valmiki proudly introduces himself to Lord Ram as the 10th son of Pracheta, who did not lie ever.
Can our ancient visionaries and authors like Rishi Valmiki, Muni Vyas, Kalidas, Bhas, Bhavbhooti, Ashvaghosh, Samarth Guru Ramdas, Guru Govind Singh, Swami Dayanand, Swami Vivekanand, the leading lights of Buddhist and Jain traditions, be liars, selfish and believed in fictitious characters?
In other words, are some of us are saying that what present-day professors and scholars of colleges and universities, writing on culture and history, are the only ones who are committed to truth?
Are they saying all the Western legends and mythologies all are true and our history, puranas, smritis and Upanishadic parables and fairy tales?
The lives of Rishi Valmiki and Lord Ram have been chronicled in detail in Skand Puran, Valmiki Ramayana, Tulsidas' Sri Ramcharitmanas, Bhavishya Puran and Adhyatma Ramayana.
In fact, the Supreme Court delivered Ayodhya verdict on November 9, relying upon Skand Puran, Sri Ramcharitmanas and Valmiki's Ramayana.
Referring to Skand Puran, the court said there is a reference to the place of birth of Lord Ram in an extract for scripture.
"The witness relied on an extract from Shri Tulsi Dohashatak by Goswami Tulsi Das and on Episode 18 (Bal Khand) of Valmiki Ramayan and the Vaishnav Khand of Skand Puran to sustain the faith and belief in the birthplace of Lord Ram," it said in its verdict.
The court also said Shlok 10 of Valimiki Ramayan stating that Kaushalya gave birth to a son who was the Lord of the whole world and Ayodhya was blessed with his arrival.
The court also referred to the accounts of English historian William Flinch, Jesuit missionary Joseph Tiefenthaler and British surveyor Robert Montgomery Martin.
One of the most vital observations made by these travelers, was former chief officiating officer of Faizabad district P Carnegy's, who noted: "Ayodhya is to Hindu what Macca is to the Mohamedan and Jerusalem to the Jews."
What could be the proudest moment for Hindus that the Supreme Court has sent a very strong message to the world that, in fact, Lord Ram is not a mythical, but a real hero.
'
After the central government revoked Aatish Taseer's OCI on technical grounds of not complying with norms, the son of a celebrated Indian journalist Tavleen Singh is playing a staggering victim hood card after he failed to comply with country's law to obtain the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card.
Taseer, in an article written in Time magazine, had argued that his OCI card was revoked due to criticism of Narendra Modi government, but the fact is it was done, as he neither concealed the Pakistani origin of his father Salman Taseer.
The Clause 7A of the OCI card under the provisions of Citizenship Act, 1955, clearly states that: "Provided further that no person, who or either of whose parents or grandparents or great grandparents is or had been a citizen of Pakistan, Bangladesh or such other country as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, shall be eligible for registration as an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder under this sub-section."
Taseer also was given an opportunity to submit his reply on his OIC card, but failed to dispute the notice, which was revealed by MHA Spokesperson in a statement.
On November 7, Taseer tweeted complaining that he was not given the full 21 days, but rather 24 hours to reply.
"This is untrue. Here is the Consul General’s acknowledgment of my reply. I was given not the full 21 days, but rather 24 hours to reply. I’ve heard nothing from the ministry since," he tweeted.
He, however, missed on the point of a fraud his mother committed. Taseer must explain how did he manage to hold the OCI card, despite concealing his father's Pakistani origin.
In yet another tweet, Taseer is trying to give saffron colour to the issue by saying, "I live in the real world, Chottywala. I’m published by real newspapers and real publishing houses. My ideas are tested everyday in the freest city in the world. It is you, Doctor Schacht, who can only ever survive at the edge of that black lagoon that is not Hinduism, but Hindutva."
Taseer also lies about freedom of expression and plight of Muslims in India among others, which insult to readers' sensibilities.
Further, Taseer proclaims his love for India , which could be easily challenged given his recent rants against Hindus. He referred to Indians as cow urine drinkers, which is mostly used by Islam fundamentalists to mock Hindus.
In yet another instance, Taseer mocks at Hindus and their beliefs by suggesting that the Indian government can redesign the central secretariat into an institute for the study of 'cow urine' or the US Capitol into museum of aviation during vedic period.
Reacting to it, Padma Bhushan recipient Dravid Frawley said: "Leftist journalists in India can rudely abuse others, particularly Hindus, but when criticized in return are made into victims by their supporters in the media. They represent neither dharma, nor ethics in their behavior but only arrogance and entitlement."
In yet another tweet against Taseer, celebrated author and former IAS officer, Sanjay Dixit said: "Idiots like u do not have intellectual depth to understand the only real name that Sanatana Dharma has, i.e. Hindutva, because it is accessed thru concepts of Quasi-cyclical Time, and multi-valued Logic. Hindutva is what is, Hinduism is what Abraham's children would like it to be."
So, it is evident that Taseer is trying to rake up slogans like "Divider In Chief", "Freedom of Expression" and "Hindutva", to create a false narrative, as he is failing to hide the fact.
This is the habbit of the Lutyens brigade and media to which Taseer belongs.
They did the same in Rohith Vemula suicide case. They tried to paint Modi government black by insinuating that former HRD Minister Smriti Irani and BJP Leader Bandaru Dattatreya put undue pressure which triggered his suicide.
They also launched a campaign claiming Vemula beloging to Schedule Caste, but all their claims were rubbished by AK Roopanwal commission setup by HRD ministry.
The commission, in its 108-page report, said Vemula's mother belongs to Mala community, hence she and Rohith, could not be included in the Schedule Caste.
Vemula had killed himself in a hostel room on the HU campus last year in Hyderabad, sparking a huge political slugfest.
NOW that the Home Affairs has revoked Taseer's OCI card, it is time for them to do the same for Siddharth Varadarajan, who is violating Indian law by running a news portal in India as US citizen.
On October 22, the Assam government decided that those having more than two children will not be considered for government jobs with effect from January 1, 2021 as per the small family norm.
The decision was taken to stabilize Assam's population growth rate, when average family size of the state is above the national average, which has pushed its population by almost one crore to 3.12 crore between 2001 and 2011 census.
In all its fairness, this decision is for all communities to obey. It is a bad assumption that the minority community always produces more than two children.
Instead of encouraging them to have more children, it is collective responsibility to educate them about the benefits of having fewer children.
However, the Lutyens media, which always looks at some issues through communal spectacles, are agitated over this decision of the Assam government.
One of the Lutyens media went overboard while reporting the two-child norm decision. In a rather theatric manner, NDTV anchor Sonal Mehrotra Kapoor told viewers that, "The interesting bit in this is that the Chief Minister himself has six kids, but he has decided to finally implement this two-child policy."
The video also was posted by NDTV on Twitter, but deleted later, after it was ridiculed by Twitterattis, who said Assam Chief Minister Sarbanand Sonowal does not have six children as he is a bachelor.
This is not the first time Sonal is caught spreading lies.
On August 2 last year, she had published a news on NDTV headlined: "Assam BJP Lawmaker's Nephew Not On Citizen's List. It Happens."
The news mentioned Jaydip Phukan as BJP MP Bijoya Chakravarty's nephew and alleged that former's name was not enlisted in NRC draft since he was outside India.
It also misquoted Bijoya as saying, "He has filed a review and he is getting it. Sometimes, it happens. It will be corrected."
Annoyed with the news, Jaydip expressed his ire against the author of the article on his Facebook handle saying that he is not the nephew of Bijoya and his name is enlisted in the NCR draft alongside his family members.
He also mailed a letter to NDTV, pleading to immediately make the corrections and pull down his image from the incorrect news published by them.
He also tried to contact Sonal to make necessary corrections, but she was unavailable.
In yet another fake news controversy, NDTV published an opinion piece by Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar with a morphed and fake picture of former President Pranab Mukherjee on the occasion of the final leg of three-year training programme called Tritiya Varsh Varg.
The fake picture depicts Pranab da wearing the black cap or doing the RSS salute in contrast to the real picture.
It is surprising that despite Congress IT Cell member Ruchir Sharma calling the picture fake, NDTV moved on to publish it, without cross-checking its genuineness.
NDTV, however, did not change the picture.
In another controversy in July last year, NDTV had used a misleading and unrelated picture for a story on child lifting hoax. They used a violent mob's image to depict an unrelated incident occurred at Maharashtra’s Dhule.
Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore had criticised NDTV for using unrelated image and called it an act that looked like a propaganda.
After changing the image, NDTV neither acknowledged the error, nor apologized for it, but ultimately did so after Rathore brought to their notice on his twitter handle.
In April 2017, social media users and vigilant media observers exposed yet another sin of NDTV and Nidhi Razdan for holding an entire debate based on fake news.
The channel drafted a narrative: Is India becoming a Nanny State? Eventually, it debated central government's plans to fix the portion size of food in restaurants, which actually was untrue as Union Food Minister Ram Vilas Paswan explicitly ruled it out.
But, NDTV and Nidhi kept on repeating the lie of 'fixing portions' during the debate.
There are hordes of such fake news perpetrated by NDTV totally in line with another top anchor Sunetra Choudhury who once famously tweeted: "news is always subjective."
Their news is also in line with yet another top anchor Sreenivasan Jain who sliced and diced Baba Ramdev's interview to perpetuate his propaganda.
It is a shame that such liars masquerading as a journalist with facts rule the prime time space in India.
It could be a co-incidence that whenever Rahul Gandhi is abroad, a controversy hits headlines in national media.
Earlier, it was unveiling of Tri Colour News Network Limited and then shutting it down in less than two weeks after Congress lost the 2019 general elections.
The owner of London's TNN (standing for Tri Colour News Network Ltd) World, a Romanian national called Dina Biciin, had switched the business model, from a global news platform earlier to a sensual massage service later.
This channel was used as a platform by Congress leader Kapil Sibal to target Narendra Modi government by airing spate of undercover stories slamming India's demonetisation and EVMs.
This time, yet another controversy has erupted when the Congress prince had been on a foreign tour for meditation as per the claims of the Congress party.
The fresh controversy does not revolve around erotic parlour, but social media behemoth Whatsapp, which has sued an Israeli Company - NSO - in a US Court for snooping on Indian ultra-left and human rights activists, besides journalists, lawyers and Dalits.
Though Whatsapp did not mention names of the victims, whose phones were under surveillance by operators using Israeli spyware Pegasus in writing, The Indian Express published their names by means of a source-based story.
The paper claimed that Whatsapp had contacted each one of the victims after knowing about the surveillance carried out by Pegasus, but can it stand legal scrutiny?
According to NSO's brochure, one of the key features of Pegasus is that it does not leave any trace on the device and consumes minimal battery, memory and data, so as to not arouse suspicion in more alert users.
Another key feature of the spyware is installation of a self-destruct mechanism to avoid exposure.
So, if Pegasus does not leave any trace on the device and boasts of a self-destruct mechanism, how is it possible for Lutyens media to publish names of Indian lawyers, journalists and other activists involved in Bhima Koregaon case.
Why is that the Whatsapp not giving any written statements to the press or making submissions corroborating names of the victims in the US court?
This is so, because, the firm knows and in fact told the court that it is very difficult to identify the victims due to the inherent features of Pegasus.
The Whatsapp, in its complaint, also claimed that the surveillance was carried out 'between April 29, 2019 and May 19, 2019' on users in 20 countries across four continents. Immediately, the Congress linked the the snooping period to Lok Sabha elections.
The Congress, in its frontal attack over the issue, asked if Modi dispensation spied on citizens and political leaders ahead of the 2019 parliamentary election.
If the Modi administration wanted to snoop on political leaders, in the limited and modest wisdom of people, it could have started right before the first phase of elections, not fourth phase. By then, political pundits had predicted a huge win for BJP.
The Lutyens media also presumed that Modi government would have used the spyware because surveillance technology vendors such as NSO claim that they sell their products only to government.
The fact of the matter, however, is that many of these vendors insist on a company as a counter party in their contracts. A Ghanaian company, for instance, had hired Pegasus at over $8 million a year to track just 25 mobile phones.
The government flatly denied purchasing the spyware in a reply to an RTI filed on October 23 by activist Saurav Das in which he asked whether the Indian government purchased or gave purchase order for the Pegasus software from the NSO Group.
In response, the Ministry of Home Affairs on October 31 said, "Please refer to your online RTI application dated 23.10.2019 received by the undersigned CPIO on 24.10.2019. It is informed that no such information is available with the undersigned CPIO."
"An appeal, if any, against this reply can be made within 30 days," the MHA reply added.
The goverment also has asked the messaging platform for an explanation after raising concerns over breach of the privacy of citizens.
In this context, there should be an investigation into the matter.
Now, let us assume that the government was snooping on activists involved in caste violence at Bhima Koregaon, a small village near Pune.
Is it wrong to spy on such activists, who are members of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) and plotted to assassinate Prime Minister Modi to destabilise democracy and wage war against Indian citizens?
Does the Lutyens media and libtards, by rallying to support these criminal activists, want the Indian Prime Minister to get assassinated?
ATLEAST, senior journalists and politicians should not be surprised over war of words between Congress and BJP over the snooping row.
Such controversies have been raked up on several occasions in the past. Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was one of India's first politicians to indulge in snooping.
She asked the IB to keep a tab on the then Home Minister Giani Zail Singh.
According to a book - In Open Secrets, India's Intelligence Unveiled - written by former joint Director of Intelligence Bureau and late Maloy Krishna Dhar, Zail Singh's conversations were tapped at the behest of Indira.
His talk with Khalistan militant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was recorded and handed over to her.
Not only that, Indira also directed the IB to track her daughter-in-law Maneka Gandhi, wife of Sanjay Gandhi.
The sleuths also spied on all her friends and tapped their conversations. They also snooped on Maneka's mother and the editorial board of a magazine run by her.
Rajiv Gandhi, Indira's son, too ordered the IB to snoop on Zail Singh, who was then the President by bugging the Rashtrapathi Bhavan. However, he had a hunch of it and met his visitors only in the garden.
Rajiv himself was affected by the bug. One of his cabinet secretaries had recorded a conversation, which had Rajiv instructing him to deliver cash in a suitcase to his brother-in-law in Italy.
Former Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee too had complained about his office being allegedly bugged on the alleged orders of P Chidambaram in his capacity as the Home Minister.
However, the case was closed after the IB told the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that Pranab's office was not bugged. Insiders, however, said that the snooping was done by a private agency, not IB.
So, Congress targeting BJP for snooping activists, is a perfect case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Yet another P Chidambaram's lie came to the fore when the Delhi High Court denied bail to him on health grounds.
The court, on November 1, had rejected his bail plea on medical grounds saying the senior Congress leader does not need hospitalization as all his vitals are normal.
The Delhi High Court, on October 31, had directed the AIIMS Director to set up a medical board to give its view on Chidambaram's health, who is suffering from Crohn's disease and is currently lodged in Tihar jail in the INX Media money laundering case.
The court also directed that Chidambaram's medical check up be done regularly.
All this is heartening, but one of the directions of the court to jail authorities to provide clean surroundings, mineral water, home-cooked food, protection from mosquitoes to Chidambaram, totally disregards "equality before law" for citizens as embedded in the Indian Constitution.
By no stretch of imagination, equality can be extended to confer special privileges for a select group of people.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, was right in his submission to the court, that Chidambaram does not require a sterile environment based on a report of AIIMS Medical Board, which was constituted on the court's order to examine the senior Congress leader's health condition.
Chidambaram's lies
Time and again, Chidambaram has been caught lying. His list of lies in Ishrat Jahan case is much talked about in the country.
Former Home Secretary of India, GK Pillai, had busted Chidambaram's lie about deleting a reference to the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terror group from the second affidavit filed in the Supreme Court naming Ishrat as a terrorist.
When Chidambaram was asked about the first affidavit, he feigned ignorance about it, but the lie was busted by Times Now. The national channel accessed the copy of the first affidavit which had the then home minister's signature on it.
The document was also signed by the chief of investigative agencies.
Pillai also busted Chidambaram's lie that he had made some editorial changes in the (second) affidavit. He said the affidavit was drafted by Chidambaram. There is a huge difference between editorial changes and drafting.
Moreover, Chidambaram drafted the affidavit without consulting the home secretary or attorney general.
He also claimed that there was no conclusive evidence found establishing the fact that Ishrat was a Let terrorist, but the truth of the matter is the CBI had not made any such conclusions.
On June 15 2004, four terrorists - Amjad Ali Rana, Ishrat Jahan Raza, Javed Ghulam Sheikh and Zeeshan Johar - were killed in an encounter by Gujarat police.
The police carried out the operation after the IB was tipped off by Jammu and Kashmir police about these LeT operatives, who were in the city to assassinate Narendra Modi - he was then Gujrat chief minister.
Two contradictory affidavit were filed on Ishrat in 2009, but former Home Secretary of India GK Pillai and former MHA Under Secretary RVS Mani's statements, a Pakistani-American terrorist David Headley’s affirmation and former IB Special Director Rajinder Kumar's allegation had pushed Chidambaram into a cavernous hole.
Mani, in March 2016, had revealed that Chidambaram forced him to file the second affidavit in the Ishrat Jahan case which did not name her as a terrorist.
He alleged that he was tortured by the then IPS officer Satish Verma to file the amended affidavit since he was reluctant to do so. He said he was burnt with cigarettes by SIT personnel and thrashed another person in front of him to break him down psychologically.
Headley, on February 11 2016, had claimed that Ishrat was a suicide bomber of LeT.
Kumar, in February 2016, had revealed that he was offered allurements to give false evidence for implicating Modi, in Ishrat case. He alleged that a senior Congress leader from Gujrat was giving instructions to some disgruntled police officers with an aim to somehow prove that the affidavit of MHA is proven wrong.
Another list of lies: In September this year, Chidambaram had claimed that he had never met Indrani Mukherjea, co-founder of INX Media group and key witness in the corruption case.
Solicitor General Mehta had told the Delhi High Court that Chidambaram had met Indrani and the probe had revealed that the visitors register at the offive of the then finance minister was destroyed due to "lapse of time" by 2017 when the FIR was registered.
Chidambaram could well be facing yet another probe of his role in NSE co-location scam. He is suspected of misusing his office to manipulate the stock market, helping select brokers to profit illegally, and in turn profiteering himself.
Probably, the next list of lies could well be on its way when the investigating agencies start a probe in the matter.
India has been at war with Pakistan ever since the British left the country.
The reason is not too far to fetch.
Pakistan's primary areas of interest lies in Jammu and Kashmir and it has successfully managed to create a wedge between Kashmiris and non-Kashmiris.
It has also managed to propagate an obnoxious narrative that the minorities in India are secondry citizens, despite the truth that thousands of Pakistani Sikhs and Hindus undergo religious discrimination in their backyard.
Pakistan has made almost all countries believe that it is India that is making life hell for the minorities, not them.
Sadly, this narrative has been carried forward in India by the Lutyens media and fake liberals including Muftis and Abdullahs.
Shah Faesal and Shehla Rashid have been trying to paint a grim picture of Kashmir after Narendra Modi government abrogated the decades old Article 370, which conferred unconstitutional privileges to Kashmir while discriminating against the rest of the country.
The Lutyens media also indulged in all sorts of fear mongering. Rajdeep Sardesai, Shekhar Gupta and Barkha Dutt shouted from the rooftops that Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah were about to open the gates of hell.
They concocted scare stories like the US would condemn and impose sanctions on India and our economy would plunge.
Yet another story they brewed was that the Pakistanis would infiltrate into Kashmir and ignite a full-blown war between India and Pakistan.
Kashmiris would unleash the mother of all terrorist movements that would cause civil war in India - was another story they cooked.
They also tried propagating fake narrative of how Indian citizens have lost faith in its democracy, but the high voter turnout during Block Development Council elections held last month contradicts their political agenda.
Kashmiris have yet again reposed their faith in India’s democracy by turning in large numbers to exercise their voting rights in BDC elections and giving two hoots to blatant anti-India politics played by the Congress, PDP and National Conference.
The BDC elections in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir along with Leh and Ladakh recorded a historic 98 per cent voter turnout.
The elections were held on October 24 since 1947. There were over 1,080 candidates in the fray in 310 blocks. Out of all the candidates, 27 were elected unopposed, while independents swept the fray with 217 blocks while the BJP bagged 81 blocks and Congress, which controlled the erstwhile state, could manage to win one block.
The Union Territory had never recorded such a large turnout in polling during imposition of Article 370.
These are very positive signs for the well-being of Jammu-Kashmir, Leh and Ladakh union territories and also convey total rejection of politics played by Muftis and Abdullahs by their people. And there is not a single word written by the Lutyens media on this. After all, they vouch for Tabrez, not Kamlesh.
They are okay with a chief minister whose party won 30-odd seats in Karnataka, but not with a chief minister whose party won 40 seats in Haryana.
