Rajeev Shukla: Meet the man who is a minister, networker, BCCI mandarin and businessman

By Sruthijith KK & Rohini Singh, ET Bureau | 13 Jun, 2013, 07.53AM IST

Shukla knew both Shah Rukh Khan and RIL’s Ambani long before they invested in his companies.

NEW DELHI: India’s city of opportunity is Mumbai. It is to that city of commerce and cinema that young men from around the country migrate, with little but dreams of fame and fortune. Rajeev Shukla epitomises the promise of Delhi. By skilfully negotiating the shifting maze of power in the Capital, Shukla, who came to the city as a journalist, is today a third-term Rajya Sabha MP, a junior minister with the planning and parliamentary affairs portfolios, a spokesman for the Congress, a senior official of the very rich and very powerful BCCI and the promoter of a clutch of media firms that broadcast satellite channels and produce TV soaps.ET SPECIAL:

To download ET mobile app, call 1800-200-5810

Last week, he resigned as chairman of IPL after a betting and spot-fixing scandal engulfed the tournament. Shukla’s success, people who’ve known him for years say, lies in his ability to connect with people and connect people.
Shukla inhabits the worlds of politics, business, cricket and entertainment — things all Indians are passionate about. When his friends from one of these worlds need access to another, Shukla is the handy link that not merely connects but injects a measure of personal goodwill that helps forge bonds. In 2004, when Congress came back to power under Sonia Gandhi, Shukla helped organise private screenings of Shah Rukh Khan’s films Veer Zara and Main Hoon Na at Delhi’s Mahadeva auditorium. Both Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi attended the screenings.
When the siblings have been spotted at cricket matches, it has usually been alongside Shukla, the BCCI mandarin. “He is generally a nice guy, fun to be around, always has many stories to tell, knows the latest gossip and is usually willing to help out,” said a senior leader of a regional party who asked that neither he nor his party be named.
Shukla is blessed with an ace stock picker’s talent to gauge people’s political or business fortunes. He is also able to align himself with those who he judges to be on the rise, even if it necessitates inviting himself to parties or wangling a front-row seat at a high-profile event. And it is not as if people mind having him around. With sharp memory, an appreciation for the art of gossip and native political intelligence, Shukla can be a delightful raconteur. “I don’t do negative things. I don’t try to hurt people in any way and I try to help out wherever I can. I have always believed that what goes around comes around,” Shukla told ET, answering a question about just how he is acceptable to squabbling politicians and rival BCCI camps alike.
Shukla’s wife and BAG Group promoter Anurradha Prasad’s father Thakur Prasad was a well-known lawyer and a leader of the Jan Sangh. Her brother Ravi Shankar Prasad is a BJP spokesperson and served as the information and broadcasting minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayeegovernment.
FRIENDS & INVESTORS
In recent years, as Shukla has started expanding the family media business run by his wife Anurradha Prasad, his various worlds have increasingly started intersecting. Shah Rukh Khan and his wife Gauri, for instance, are investors in Shukla’s companies. Gauri Khan invested Rs 10 crore in E24 Broadcast (formerly BAG Glamour) in early 2007. Shah Rukh is an investor in ARVR Communications, a company promoted by Anurradha Prasad that is the largest shareholder in BAG Films and Media Ltd, the publicly traded flagship company of the BAG Group (BAG is an acronym for Bhagwan, Allah, God).
Red Chillies CEO Venky Mysore said the investments were made before Shukla became IPL chairman. “The investments made in BAG Glamour & ARVR Communications were part of his portfolio and made back in 2007. This was before IPL was conceived of or well before Rajeev Shukla became the chairman of IPL. Furthermore, there was no obligation to report such investments to BCCI nor do we believe there is any conflict of interest,” Venky Mysore wrote in an email.

Shukla also enjoys a great rapport with India’s biggest industrialist Mukesh Ambani. Through transactions involving a web of companies, entities that form part of Reliance Industries’ promoter group are linked to companies that have made a Rs 76-crore investment in three BAG Group companies — BAG Film and Media, E24 Broadcast (formerly BAG Glamour) and News24 Broadcast (formerly BAG Newsline).
High Growth Distributors, the investor in all three companies, received Rs 76 crore in unsecured debentures from Sarvasiddhi Commercials, which is part-owned by Xanti Commercials and Tiara Comtrade. These companies are, in turn, owned by Reliance Investment and Trading Pvt Ltd (RITL) and Reliance Consolidated Holdings Ltd (RCHL) via preference shares. RITL is owned by a number of entities that are disclosed as promoter group companies on the Reliance Industries balance sheet as on March 31. These promoter group companies include Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd, Reliance Property Management Services Pvt Ltd and Ekansha Enterprise Pvt Ltd.
High Growth Distributors invested Rs 26.15 crore in BAG Films during 2006-07 and followed this up the next fiscal with a Rs 25-crore investment each in E24 Broadcast and News24 Broadcast. These companies run eponymous channels in the entertainment and news segments.
Nita Ambani also sits on the advisory board of the media school run by the BAG Network, according to the website of ISOMES, or the International School of Media and Entertainment Studies. ARVR Communications (formerly Anu Films and Communications) also has investments from Indiabulls Group promoter Sameer Gehlaut and a Rs 25-crore investment from companies controlled by Mahendra Nahata of HFCL (Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd).
Nahata told ET that he had invested in Shukla’s companies because his company needed content for the mobile TV business it has entered. “These are independent investments and have nothing to do with Mukesh Ambani,” he said. In 2010, he had sold HFCL Infotel, a broadband company, to RIL. “Reliance Industries or group companies or affiliates or associates have no beneficial ownership in BAG Films & Media,” a Reliance Industries spokesperson wrote in an email. He did not respond to a question on whether RIL Chairman Mukesh Ambani had any beneficial interest in BAG Group companies.
Shukla knew both Shah Rukh Khan and RIL’s Ambani long before they invested in his companies. As the host of the talk show ‘Ru Ba Ru’ on Zee, Shukla interviewed Shah Rukh in 1996, shortly after the success of Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. This and several others of Shukla’s interviews from that era are available on YouTube. A notable one is with a rising BJP functionary of the time — Narendra Modi. “Modi was at that time desperate to be interviewed. He would always complain that nobody does his interview. He came to our office and got it done,”
Shukla said, laughing, during an interview at his home even as news channels reported from Goa that the BJP had appointed the Gujarat chief minister head of the party’s election campaign committee. Shukla worked at the Sunday Observer between 1997 and 2000 at senior editorial positions. The newspaper was promoted by Reliance Industries before the split in the Ambani family. When Shah Rukh was detained at a US airport in 2009, the first person he called was Shukla, the actor later said in an interview. Shukla worked the phones with the external affairs ministry immediately. His news channel also got to break the news.
This is how Shukla’s various worlds come together. In the world of media, too, Shukla has impeccable connections. Star India, which won the BCCI media rights in 2012, does ad sales for News24 channel, giving the news broadcaster a minimum guarantee of revenues. BAG Films has long produced soaps for Star network channels. Star India did not respond to a request for comment.

Even when a Delhi Police investigation led to the arrest of three IPL players and consumed the tournament in controversy and harsh media glare, Shukla would have had a good source at the very top. Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar is a family friend and his daughter, 29-year-old Ankita Kumar, is a director in five companies promoted by Anuraddha Prasad — BAG Business Ventures, E24 Glamour, Approach Films, News24 Broadcast and Dhamaal24 Radio Network. “I am no longer a shareholder or a director in any BAG Group company,” Shukla said. Prasad did not respond to a request for comment.
A FEEL FOR POLITICS
Shukla made a spectacular entry into politics in 2000, when he won more than double the votes at the command of his party, the splinter outfit Loktantrik Congress Party. The party had 20 MLAs and estimated the support of seven independents. Fifteen candidates from various parties contested for 11 Rajya Sabha seats. Pundits predicted that Shukla would come last. When the votes were counted, Shukla came first, with 51 votes, thanks to heavy cross-voting from BJP benches and Shukla’s friendship with leaders of smaller parties.
As the Lucknow bureau chief of the Hindi daily Dainik Jagran, Shukla had covered the UP Assembly for years. “I have always thought that it is better to join politics openly than to maintain the facade of a journalist and try to operate in politics. That is why I took the plunge,” he said.
Shukla came to Delhi in 1983 as a reporter for the now-defunct Ravivar magazine. One major story reported by Shukla was on how the then finance minister, VP Singh, was transferring land to his cronies to work around the restrictions of the Land Ceiling Act. He later rose to become the political editor of ABP Group’s Sunday magazine and editor of the Sunday Observer, which was promoted by the Ambanis of Reliance Industries. As a reporter during the late 80s, Shukla grew close to Rajiv Gandhi. “Those days reporters used to accompany the prime minister even on domestic trips. So all of us who covered the PMO got to meet the PM regularly,” Shukla says.

In 2002, Shukla left the NDA and joined the Congress. “In 2002, nobody believed the Congress would come to power. Because of my relationship with Rajiv Gandhi, I felt that I have to join Congress at this difficult time,” he says. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-company/corporate-trends/rajeev-shukla-meet-the-man-who-is-a-minister-networker-bcci-mandarin-and-businessman/articleshow/20563920.cms

Ex-minister Dasari Rao over-ruled Shinde to allocate coal blocks to Jindal

ABHISHEK BHALLA AND ADITYA MENON  | New Delhi, June 13, 2013 | 08:07

Dasari Rao Congress MP Naveen Jindal is making headlines now but the moves that caused them were made six years ago. Early in 2007, then minister of state for coal Dasari Narayan Rao over-ruled then power minister Sushilkumar Shinde on the allocation of four coal blocks to Jindal Power & Steel. Shinde’s categorical instructions to Rao that four coal blocks in Jharkhand be equally shared between Bhushan Energy and Jindal Power & Steel were overruled in order to allocate all to Jindal. The four blocks-Jitpur, Amarkonda Murgadangal, Amarkonda Murgadangal and Rohne (which went to JSW Steel) were awarded on February 20, 2007, January 17, 2008 (two blocks) and June 5, 2008. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director Ranjit Sinha on Wednesday confirmed to Mail Today that Rao had rejected Shinde’s demand outright and awarded all four Jharkhand blocks to Jindal. “We have the correspondence exchanged between them which is now part of the FIR. Further, the Jindals made false representations on assets, land, etc to secure these coal blocks. They certainly did not meet the qualification criteria set by the power ministry and yet managed to get these blocks allocated to them,” Sinha said. Congress MP Naveen Jindal The CBI probe into the allocation of coal blocks also shows that the Jharkhand government pushed Lanco Infra out to favour Naveen Jindal’s companies in 2007, just as Dasari Narayan Rao rejected Bhushan Energy to give Amarkonda to Jindal. A quid pro quo has been apparently established, with Jindal having given a Rs2.25-crore unsecured loan to Saubhagya Media Ltd, Dasari Narayan Rao’s company, in 2008. In Jharkhand alone, the Jindals benefited to the tune of 663.62 million metric tonnes (MMT) of coal reserves. (A metric ton has 1,000 kilograms. India’s total coal production in 2012-13 was about 550 MMT, and its coal reserves are estimated at 286 billion tonnes, the fifth highest in the world.) Sushilkumar Shinde Of the four coal blocks three are operational, while the bank guarantee has been invoked by the coal ministry on November 21, 2012 in the Jitpur block. During Rao’s tenure as coal minister from 2004 to 2006 first and 2006 to 2008 later, the Jindals were allocated coal blocks that have reserves of 1044.86 MMT. This was followed by a gang buster allocation of virtually the biggest coal block in the country-Ramchandi Promotion Block in Odisha-on February 27, 2009-which was worth 1,500 MMT. The coal minister at the time was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Between 2004 and 2009, the Jindals have been allocated coal blocks whose reserves total 2,660 MMT. In 2004-05, Jindal Steel’s net sales were Rs2,271 crore. They have since grown exponentially to Rs 15,113 crore. Jindal Steel Power Limited head of external affairs Manu Kapoor said, “JSPL is a law abiding company and is governed by a strong ethical code of conduct. This is an ongoing CBI investigation into coal block allocation. At this stage of the investigation, JSPL is committed to fully cooperate with the CBI.” The CBI investigation into the Jindal- Rao nexus is not limited to the Rs 2.25 crore transaction it has traced. The agency has established the money trail from companies owned by Naveen Jindal to Saubhagya Media Limited. Sources said this is clear evidence of a bribe being paid to the then minister in return for ensuring coal block allocations. Rao’s tenure coincided with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held additional charge of coal ministry between 2006 and 2009. During his tenure the Jindals were allocated five coal blocks. “It is suspected that Rao influenced some members of the screening committee when he was the minister of state. Roles of these officials are also being investigated,” said a CBI officer. While applying for the coal blocks in January 2007, the two companies that have been booked by CBI, Jindal Steel and Power Limited with Naveen Jindal as its Director and Gagan Sponge Iron Private Limited where the Jindal group has a share, did not disclose the previous allocations. The companies had already been allocated six coal blocks but they claimed to have only three.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/coal-scam-naveen-jindal-dasari-narayan-rao-cbi-ranjit-singh/1/279806.html

Ishrat Jahan: The inconvenient story no one wants to tell — Praveen Swami

The whole truth about Ishrat Jahan’s life and death will likely not please anyone.  IBNLive

Ishrat Jahan: The inconvenient story no one wants to tell by Praveen Swami in Firstpost 13/6/13

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/ishrat-jahan-the-inconvenient-story-no-one-wants-to-tell-867173.html

Late in the summer of 2004, the Lashkar-e-Taiba’s top operations commander Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi held the terrorist organisation’s first meeting with David Headley, the young Chicago drug dealer-turned-jihadist at the heart of the 26/11 project. Lakhvi told Headley he would be working with Muzammil Bhat, the full-bearded 6’4” giant in the room, who counted among the Lashkar’s most able operatives. Bhat’s achievements, Federal Bureau of Investigations interrogators recorded Headley as being told, included multiple strikes in Kashmir and recruiting a “female suicide bomber named Ishrat Jahaan [sic].”

“Zaki,” Headley went on, “mentioned Muzammil’s plans to attack Akshardham temple, Somnath and Siddhi temples. These attacks were revenge for the 1988 attack on the mosque in Yuppe [sic, the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid in Uttar Pradesh].”

Nine years since a hail of bullets ripped through Mumbra resident Ishrat Jahan Raza’s body, a Central Bureau of Investigations into her killing, along with three men, threatens to indict the highest leadership of India’s intelligence services for cold-blooded execution.

The whole truth about Ishrat Jahan’s life and death will likely not please anyone. IBNLive

Even as the CBI works towards finding out just how Ishrat died, there’s a growing mass of evidence that suggests the United Progressive Alliance government has been economical with the truth about her life and her death.

Last year, the National Investigations Agency told Gujarat High Court judgesJayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari they had nothing but “hearsay” on Ishrat.Firstpost’s documentation on the FBI interrogation of Headley shows the union government knew otherwise—but remained silent.

It isn’t the only thing it has chosen to be silent on.

Early on the morning of 15 June 2004, Ishrat Jahan, Javed Sheikh, Zeeshan Johar and Amjad Ali Rana were shot dead on the road leading to the Kotarpur waterworks on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. KP Singh was at that time director of the Intelligence Bureau; Nehchal Sandhu, who is today deputy national security advisor, was then in charge of counter-terrorism operations; MK Narayanan, who is today West Bengal governor, was then advisor on internal security. And Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister, then as now.

The first three, without doubt, would have known of the IB warning that went out to all states on 22 April 2004, warning of imminent attacks on top Hindu nationalist politicians, including LK Advani.

Later, the IB’s Gujarat station would provide the Gujarat Police more detail, telling Ahmedabad’s police chief there were two Pakistani terrorists with Punjabi accents planning an attack, in coordination with a Pune resident.

From accounts given to Firstpost by three separate intelligence sources, the IB’s operation had its genesis in February 2004, when the Jammu and Kashmir Police shot dead Poonch-based Lashkar operative Ehsan Illahi.

Letters found on Illahi’s body led the police to an Ahmedabad-based lawyer. From there, the operation rolled on. There’s some reason to believe the Lashkar’s plot was penetrated. First Information Report 8 of 2004, filed by the Ahmedabad Police Crime Branch after the killing, records that the authorities knew of the imminent arrival of a blue Tata Indica carrying the victims, bearing the licence plate number MH02 JA4786—suggesting the Intelligence Bureau had an informant on the inside.

“No one suggested that based on an intelligence input you should kill someone,” former Union Home Minister P Chidambaram said in 2009. That’s true, but it neatly dodges the question of what the UPA did when four terrorists whom its intelligence services were following ended up dead.

The CBI hasn’t sought any answers, so far, from any of the people who can answer that question.

We know next to nothing, too, about what led Javed Sheikh to his death. Born Praneshkumar Pillai at Thamarakulam village in Kerala’s Alappuzha district, Sheikh met and fell in love with Sajida Sheikh in 1986. He converted to Islam in an (unsuccessful) effort to overcome her family’s resistance. In September 1995, though, the two married and moved to Mumbai’s Mumbra area. Then, they shifted to Pune after a business dispute turned violent. Sheikh’s life continued to be turbulent; the police filed four rioting cases against him in 1997 alone.

In 2003, Sheikh left for Dubai, securing a job on a forged Indian Technical Institute certificate. He returned, according to Sajida Sheikh’s testimony, embittered by videotapes he had seen of the anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat.

On 29 March 2004, Sheikh again flew to Oman, on passport E6624023, identifying him as Praneshkumar M. Gopinath Pillai—having obtained this in addition to a passport in his Muslim name. He flew back to Mumbai on 11 Aprilcarrying Rs 2.5 lakh in cash, which he used to purchase the Indica he drove to his death.

The government said, in a 2004 affidavit, that Sheikh “was in regular touch with Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives, particularly Muzammil Bhat.” Government sources say there is wiretap evidence to back this up, but the UPA hasn’t ever ordered it made public, and the CBI hasn’t sought it.

Sheikh met Ishrat and her mother in Mumbra on 1 May 2004—where Sheikh said he needed a salesgirl for a new perfume store. There is no evidence that Sheikh ran a perfume business.

On 30 May, he drove his wife and children to the family home in Alappuzha. From 6 June to 9 June, the family stayed at Sajida Sheikh’s family home in Ahmednagar. Then, Sajida Sheikh said, her husband called on the morning of 11 June to say he had to go to Mumbai on unexpected work. Two days later, when Sajida Sheikh called her husband, his cellphone was out of network reach.

Hotel staff at the Tulsi Guest House in Bardoli, on National Highway 6 outside of Surat, say Sheikh and Ishrat checked in after 2 am on 12 June 2004. On 14 June, their car developed mechanical trouble. The staff at the Shakti Motor Garage outside Ahmedabad told the police that Sheikh paid Rs 1,025 for repairs.

Earlier this month, additional solicitor-general Indira Jaisingh told the Supreme Court the CBI has evidence the group was kidnapped on the orders of former state intelligence chief PP Pandey at least a day before they were shot dead. Last month, the CBI interrogated former Gujarat Intelligence Bureau station chief Rajinder Kumar, now in charge of counter-intelligence operations. The organisation is reported to be seeking his arrest, saying he was responsible for having the alleged terrorists “detained illegally and brought to Gujarat.” It’s hard to see how his superiors wouldn’t have known—and why they aren’t being asked about it.

Funnily, though, the five police officers alleged to have been actually present when Ishrat was allegedly kidnapped and killed—Girish Singhal, Tarun Barot, JG Parmar, Bharat Patel and Anaju Chaudhary—got bail after the CBI failed to file charges against them in the 90 days allowed by law.

This presumably happened because the CBI doesn’t have enough evidence against them to sustain a prosecution—though it claims to have witnesses to the kidnapping and illegal detention.

Nine years ago, no one knew for sure whether Ishrat was a terrorist or not, and whether she was killed in cold blood or a legitimate exchange of fire.

It’s unclear why the CBI hasn’t spoken to large numbers of people who might have something to add to this story.

From the testimony of Faizabad resident Muhammad Wasi, made before an Ahmedabad magistrate, there’s reason to believe Sheikh shopped for pistols and a sten gun in Uttar Pradesh sometime after February 2004. Wasi claims Sheikh was introduced to him by another Faizabad resident, Muhammad Mehrajuddin—whom the CBI hasn’t even sought to locate.

The CBI hasn’t questioned Muhammad Abdul Razzak, an alleged jihadist held by the Delhi Police in 2005, who claimed to have told interrogators he sent Sheikh to a jihad training camp.

Kashmir residents Majid Husain Qadri, Pervez Ahmad Khan Abdul Aziz Shah, alleged to have helped Amjad Ali Rana after he was shot trying to cross the Line of Control, have never once been questioned. Investigators say the three men had Johar treated in New Delhi, at the City Clinic in Paharganj. Siddharth Sahai, who performed surgery on Rana, identified him when the police showed him photographs.

Then, there’s Headley’s testimony—totally ignored so far.

For years now, we’ve got plenty of things that make headlines, but nothing resembling even part of the truth.

In 2009, metropolitan magistrate KS Tamang indicted the police for faking the encounter, but in a report full of mind-boggling nonsense: “given the nature of women, none usually wears her college identity card during journey”; “when any lady travels from Mumbai to Ahmedabad, she invariably carries her purse and handkerchief in her hands.” It made multiple errors of appraisal, from misreading forensic evidence to presumptively declaring the suspects “innocents”.

Gujarat’s High Court responded to petitions by the families of Ishrat and Sheikh by appointing a special investigation team. From the outset, there was contention with Karnail Singh and Mohan Jha, among allegations of bias. Notably, lead officer Satish Verma rejected the findings of forensic experts who concluded that the encounter didn’t appear faked at all. Verma himself faces allegations relating to alleged negligence in the landing of smuggled explosives and extrajudicial killings—and the targets of investigation claim, rightly or wrongly, that he harbours biases against them.

Like all truths, the whole truth about Ishrat Jahan’s life and death likely won’t please anyone. It’s critical, though, to the credibility of India’s criminal justice system, and the future of our struggle against terrorism. Nothing anyone has done so far, though, suggests anyone really wants to tell the story—and nothing the CBI is doing gives reason to think that’s going to change.

Also read -

1. former Home Secretary G K Pillai supports Gujarat Govt claim that Ishrat was a terrorist. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/let-website-called-ishrat-a-martyr-gk-pillai/204739-3.html?from=nl

2. ttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ishrat-Jahan-was-an-LeT-fidayeen-Headley/articleshow/6129125.cms

NEW DELHI: Pakistani American terrorist David Headley has said that Ishrat Jahan, the Mumbai girl who was killed along with three alleged terrorists in 2004 in a police encounter, was indeed a Lashkar-e-Taiba fidayeen

Aircel-Maxis deal: Fresh trouble for Maran brothers

DC Online | 39 sec ago 13 June 2013 6 pm

New Delhi: Trouble seems to be brewing for the Maran brothers on the Aircel-Maxis deal with the CBI getting a feedback from Malaysia on bribes paid to the brothers to clinch the deal.

The CBI had earlier filed an FIR against the  Marans – Kalanidhi and Dayanidhi. But with fresh evidence coming in from Malaysia, the CBI is likely to reopen the case.

In March this year, the CBI had told the Supreme Court that it was sending a team to meet the Malaysian Attorney General to trace the elusive money trail in the Maran-Aircel Maxis case, allegedly involving former telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran and Kuala Lumpur-based business tycoon T Ananda Krishnan.

The CBI has now got the information that may spell trouble for the Marans. With this information, a fresh chargesheet is likely to be filed in the Supreme Court.

It was Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy who had accused Maran of indulging in armtwisting in the sale of the stakes of Aircel to Maxis Group of Malaysia.

The case pertains to Maran “forcing” Chennai-based telecom promoter C Sivasankaran to sell the stake in Aircel to Maxis Group in 2006 owned by Ananda Krishnan. The CBI had told the court that the Malaysia angle probe was important to track the money trail as the funds for the deal had come through Mauritius.
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130613/news-current-affairs/article/aircel-maxis-deal-fresh-trouble-maran-brothers

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY ON OPERATION BLUESTAR AND SANT JARNAIL SINGH BHINDRANWALE

Dr. Subramanian Swamy interviewed by Gurcharanjeet Singh Lamba of ” GET PUNJABI” TV Channel in New York. 

 

Dr. Subramanian Swamy had lived with Sant Jarnail Singh  Bhindranwale for five day.  He was a  witness to the events leading to the Operation Blue Star.  In this interviews Dr. Swamy  says that Sant Bhindranwale was a  Sant. 

 

After listening to Dr. Subramanian Swamy I also believe that Sant Bhindranwale was really a Sant.

 

Boss, read the true history before speaking

ByS Gurumurthy

06th April 2013 07:41 AM

Nine years after advent in public life, Rahul Gandhi addressed the Confederation of the Indian Industry [CII]. Media conferred on him the title ‘Boss’. The Boss told captains of industry: “They used to look at India and say, Boss, the Hindu rate of Growth. They have been saying like this for 3,000 years. Now the Hindu Rate of growth is like the European rate of growth’. This less serious comment calls for serious response. Otherwise illiteracy about India will continue to persist for lack of literacy among Indians who speak for India. But, it calls for a peep into the world and the Indian economic history which most Indian academics, particularly economists, seem to be least interested in and therefore less aware of.

The label ‘Hindu rate of growth’ was coined by Professor Rajkrishna, a socialist establishment economist, in 1978 to rationalise why India was growing ‘slowly’ despite following the socialist prescriptions. Raj Krishna’s label was original but its philosophy was borrowed. It all originated in the colonial discourse on India. A notable victim of colonial discourse on India was Karl Marx. Even before he brought out his magnum opus Das Kapital, Karl Marx wrote an article on the Indian economy [June 25, 1853] in New York Harold Tribune. In his article, he was generally positive about the distinct ‘Hindoo’ India’s village system of agriculture and manufacturing which, he said, gave to people their independent organisation and social life. But he said that that had made India changeless for two thousand years. So the British, he said, were doing the right thing, though painful, causing a social revolution by demolishing the village system which Marx described as ‘semi-barbarian and semi-civilised’. Why semi-barbarian and semi-civilised?

Not because the village economic model was wrong per se, but, because, Marx said, the Hindoos were worshipping cows and monkeys and were even claiming antiquity greater than Christianity’s! Karl Marx, who never came to India, never met any informed Indian, nor read any worthwhile Indian literature dismissed India as a semi-barbarian. His knowledge about India was limited colonial records on India. Then came Max Weber. He had theorised that only Protestant Christian societies could progress under modern capitalist model since Protestantism alone promoted individualism and enterprise. He was entitled to his comment because he had studied the rise of America and European protestant nations as compared to the Catholic countries which had stagnated. But he impertinently wrote in late 1920s that India and China, which followed Hindu-Buddhist faiths, would not succeed under capitalist model because they believed in karma, rebirth and caste. He too never went to India, perhaps never met a proper Indian, but still adversely commented on Hinduism and Buddhism. Studies have established that the Marx and Weber theories had exerted the greatest influence on Indian academic, sociological and economic thinking. In the same stream of thought, Winston Churchill called Indians anarchic and barbaric. After freedom J K Galbraith described India as a functioning anarchy. Professor Rajkrishna’s remark was the Indian affirmation of this thought stream that held Hinduism guilty for keeping semi-barbaric and under-developed. This is what the Boss also has recalled in his CII speech.

But this colonial theory was proved fake in 1983 — exactly five years after Rajkrishna trashed Hinduism for India’s low growth. In that year Paul Bairoch, a Belgian economist, came out with his study of the world economy and his findings astounded the West. He said that in 1750 India’s share of world GDP was 24.5 per cent, China’s 33 per cent, but the combined share of Britain and the US was – believe it – just two per cent. Yes only two per cent!

India’s share, Bairoch found, fell to 20 per cent in 1800; to 18 per cent in 1830; and finally crashed to 1.7 per cent in 1900, while China’s crashed to 6.2 per cent from 33 per cent. In these 150 years, the combined share of Britain and the US rose to from 2 per cent to over 41 per cent. Bairoch shook the West by saying that in middle 19th century, the West had a lower standard of living than Asians – read Indians and Chinese. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], network of rich nations, forthwith constituted a Development Institute Studies under Angus Maddisson, a great economic historian, to conduct a comprehensive research into economic history – the implied agenda was to prove Bairoch wrong.

Angus Maddisson postulated, ‘if Bairoch is right, then much more of the backwardness of the third world presumably has to be explained by colonial exploitation’ and ‘much less of Europe’s advantage can be due to scientific precocity, centuries of slow accumulation, and organisational and financial superiority’. After two decades of hard work, Maddision published his studies titled ‘World Economic History – A Millennial Perspective in 2001’.

His study confirmed Bairoch’s study of 150 years and more, as Maddisson studied the entire 2000 years economic history. Maddisson showed that India was the leading economic power of the world from the 1st year of the first millennium till 1700 – with 32 per cent share of world’s GDP in the first 1000 years and 28 per cent to 24 per cent in the second millennium till 1700.

China was second to India except in 1600 when China temporarily overtook India. India again overtook China in 1700. The global economic play was in the hands of India and China till 1830. And two nations disqualified for development by Weber for following Hindu and Buddhist religions. Maddison confirmed, actually confessed, that [Hindu] India fell only due to colonial exploitation. Now the Maddisson study, endorsed by OECD, is the most authentic economic history of the world. What does it prove? The Hindu rate of growth had kept India going as the most powerful economy of the world for 1850 years out of 2000 years. That is why William Dalrymple described the rise of India ‘as the empire striking back’ — meaning that India’s rise was not rags to riches story.

The Bairoch-Maddisson studies have sealed the discourse decades back. Their studies have also been corroborated by other studies and records. Some of them are: studies into the Mayuran export-led economic Model Hindu India [American Journal of Economics and Sociology April 1993]; study into consumption during Akbar’s regime as being higher than in Europe by Centre for West Asia Studies Jamia Milia Islamia University; the Economic History of Greco-Roman World which described how two thousand years ago India was bankrupting Roman Egypt of its gold reserves by its export surplus; the history of Indian merchant navy which had a fleet strength of 40,000 ships in Akbar’s time and as many as 34,000 ships before the British arrived and the Bank of International Settlements [BIS] Annual report of 1934-35 which said that between 1493 and 1930 India absorbed 14 per cent of world gold production – which meant that it earned that much export surplus for five centuries continuously.

QED: Hindu rate of growth had made India super power. Colonialism did India down to poverty. Nehruvian socialism made it stagnate even after freedom.

The slow growth of India was due to Nehruvian socialism. But thanks to Rajkrishna the label Hindu rate of growth was globalised by the World Bank President Robert McNamara in 1980s. He said that India would always be in need of aid and it would ever be a burden on the world.

Another person who carried on the tradition of Marx-Weber-Rajkrishna-McNamara to trivialise Hindu India was Montek Alhuwalia who endorsed Rajkrishna’s description of India even after the 21st century opened. The only exception in the present establishment is Shiv Shankar Menon, the National Security Adviser, who profoundly called India’s rise “re-rise”. Will the Boss begin learning the true history of Hindu rate of growth, not repeat the spurious history when he talks to the FICCI or elsewhere later?

S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.

http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/article1532597.ece

Coal scam: Will the high-ups be probed?

ByS Gurumurthy

07th May 2013 07:07 AM

Hedging on the likely Congress victory in the Karnataka elections, the  Congress party has decided to back Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar who has been caught in a blatant attempt to protect some sensitive person/s in the coal scam.

The CBI director has said that Ashwani not only saw the status report on the coal scam, which the CBI was supposed to submit in confidence to the Supreme Court, but he also tinkered with it so that it became as much Ashwani’s report as it is the CBI’s. Being not involved in the scam, Ashwani was not scoring out sentences and adding new ones in the report to save himself. It does not need a seer to say that he was doing it, certainly not out of compassion to protect some downtrodden, but only to  save some other persons higher-up. So the need to defend Ashwani  is understandable.

What if he does a Harin Raval for self-defence and points fingers at some one, up in the hierarchy. So the higher-ups are forced to  protect those exposed like Ashwani from acting in self-defence and  exposing others. The rule of self-defence is common to all living beings including the humans.  All animals act in self-defence except the loyal dogs, which risk their lives and protect even the cruel masters.

Sitaram Kesri, who was president of the Congress before Sonia Gandhi forcibly took over from him, described himself as the loyal dog of her family just months before he was deposed by the family as the president. The strength of the Congress — read the ruling family — is measured by the population of Kesris it boasts of. But with the Supreme Court looking into the core of the fraud, even such loyalty to the family seems to have come under stress like in the case of Raval.

Media reports said that the Congress circles in Gujarat, from where Raval hails, wondered what could have prompted a long-time loyalist like Raval to spill the beans at such a crucial juncture. Raval, the Additional Solicitor General and the CBI counsel in Supreme Court, felt betrayed by his master Attorney General(AG) Ghulam Vahanvati and was forced to tell the truth in self-defence.

In his letter to the  AG,  Raval has meticulously described the off-court events which capture the AG himself as a principal player in the cover-up. The crucial events on five dates — January 24, April 6, 8, 12 and 24, 2013 — have exposed the cover-up.

First, on January 24, Raval representing the CBI undertook to file an affidavit by the CBI on the state of the investigation into the coal scam and subsequently he and the AG met Ashwini where the AG advised against filing an affidavit and instead felt that the CBI should file a status report. So the AG, not the CBI or its counsel Raval, took the decision to change from affidavit to the status report. Second, on 6th March, Raval got a message from the AG to bring the status reports  of the CBI and meet him and Ashwani at  12.30 pm at the latter’s office.  At the meeting, one of the draft reports was shown by the CBI to Ashwani and the AG. Ashwani and the AG suggested to the CBI to change the report in some parts. As the AG had some other work, he asked Raval and  the CBI officials to meet him later that evening at 4.30 pm at his home office with  [nine] other status reports. In compliance, the CBI officials brought the drafts which were perused and settled by the AG in Raval’s presence.

Third, on  April 8, the AG was present when Raval mentioned to the court that the CBI would present the status report on April 12, 2013.

Fourth, on March 12, when the CBI submitted the sealed reports the AG, who was present in the court, told the judges that neither he nor any one in the government had seen the  CBI report.  Raval also corroborated that lie to the court. But suspecting foul play, the court asked the CBI director to file an affidavit confirming that the report was not shared with the government.

Fifth, on  April 26, the CBI director stunned the nation and the court by his affidavit which confirmed to the court what it had suspected, namely that the agency’s confidential report to the court was indeed shared with the  government. It now turns out that not only the  Law Minister and the AG, but also the Prime Minister’s Office had had a look at the CBI reports. With Raval’s client, the CBI proving Raval as a prevaricator, Raval angrily wrote to the AG about all that had happened, exposed him and resigned. This extraordinary cover-up by compromising the AG himself is unthinkable unless extraordinary  persons up in the hierarchy are to be protected. Who then are the likely targets up in the hierarchy?

The very fact that during the UPA’s first tenure, the fraudulent coal allocations were made when Manmohan was himself the coal minister for about three-and-a-half years makes him an inevitable target for probe. Moreover, even before the scam began in 2004,  coal secretary P C Parakh had brought to his(PM) notice the potential fraud inherent in the discretionary allocation of the captive coal fields and objected to it in writing. Manmohan agreed with him, he asked him to move to auctioning the coal fields in 2004 itself, but would not allow him to do it. And yet Manmohan  continued the fraudulent coal allocations to unqualified, disqualified, and non-existent entities. And these allocations are precisely the ones the Supreme Court has directed the CBI to probe. His direct responsibility as the Coal Minister makes the probe against the PM inevitable.

The CAG report fixed the cost of the fraudulent allocations at `1.86 lakh crore. That honest Comptroller and Auditor General Vinod  Rai is hounded by the ruling party and the Prime Minister himself also indicate their nervousness at the probe. The Prime Minister, the unavoidable target of the probe, is forced into a strong defence of Ashwani, obviously in his own interest. Media reports said that the CBI had filed an affidavit on Monday [May 6 2013] that officials of the PMO were indeed  involved in doctoring the CBI report along with the Law Minister, the AG and Raval. If true, this will fix the Prime Minister even more firmly. But the probe may not stop at the PMO or the PM if what the Mumbai Mirror reported on September 15, 2012 is to be investigated. A report bylined to a very senior journalist said that on August 31, Manmohan met UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi and told her that his office had cleared the questionable coal allotments on the recommendation of her political secretary Ahmed Patel, thus washing his hands of the tainted allotments and telling Sonia  that he had no role or interest in determining who the  beneficiaries should be. And laying the blame close at the party’s door, the PM said that his then principal secretary T K A Nair had merely coordinated  the allotments as desired by Patel. No Pundit is needed to say that Patel means Sonia herself. But who will investigate Manmohan  when he is the Prime Minister? And who will investigate Patel when Sonia is the president of the party which runs the government.

Will the Supreme Court be able to get the CBI to act against the two who run the country today? And even if it does, will the CBI truthfully act. Only the Supreme Court and the CBI can tell.

S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.

http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/Coal-scam-Will-the-high-ups-be-probed/2013/05/07/article1578317.ece1