Monthly Report - United Studies Inc Student Exchange: Fill & Download for Free

Two disclaimers:1 - Despite my following reasoning, I don’t even believe ‘democracy’ is a fundamental end-all and be-all of what it means to be an optimal social primate. And as an American, I am looking at the word as representing the current Multi-national, neo-liberal, zero-sum trends.2 - Despite having American citizenship, I have lived over half my life in Japan … 36 years and counting, and with a permanent visa, this is probably a terminal relationship.On my answer —Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time — Winston ChurchillQuite a catchy tune … but I have no idea whether democracy is the worst, or better, or just another experiment in how to manage social primates that have bred to populations of herding / swarming size.I just see democracy as one of many tools for sustainability of the species … and if lucky, perhaps even a higher quality of life.But as any other tool, democracy can be used and misused, depending on one’s inclination and perspective. For example, anyone who has been marginalized as a minority will likely be aware of the dangers of tyranny of the majority.I don’t have the time or scope for exploring the implications of John Rawls’ original position on morality here. It leads down one heck of a rabbit hole. But I would like to make a plug for Michael J. Sandel’s definition of ‘corruption’ as — any time ‘lower level’ values displace ‘higher level’ ideals.Certainly this is a provisional social construct. But I think most of us would agree that ‘everyone has their price’ is an easy to understand euphemism for how Michael Sandel is defining corruption.For my short answer … Yes.Just follow the money — https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/27/fake-news-inquiry-data-misuse-deomcracy-at-risk-mps-conclude?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=282232&subid=10308016&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2It is not just democracy that is under threat.Family values and its institutions … adoption, weddings, birthdays, or funerals … are all under threat of being devoured by capitalism. It doesn’t take much triangulating to see the relationship between the misuse of corporate human capital in Japan Inc.’s ‘democracy’ to see the devastating effects on demographics … a falling population, but gutting the countryside for further concentration of power and opportunity in the Tokyo area.In pre-reformation Europe, the Catholic church similarly grew rich and therefore corrupt, partially due to selling special dispensations (those express train prayers to heaven) to the robber barons of that era.But here, in present day Japan, depending on the amount of donation offered to a priest performing burial rituals お布施, the deceased is given a new ‘spiritual’ name (kaimyou - Dharma name) that is ranked and correlated with the amount of money donated.I’d call that culturally sanctioned blackmail, but I guess we Americans do the same with weddings and funerals … the more money one has, the more lavish the ceremony is expected to be. I guess it comes with the package of what it means to be a social primate.But how much is ‘enough’? Where does one draw the line if it comes at the expense of others?This jives well with Sandel’s home run definition of corruption.Capitalism is devouring science.Common sense determines that neither scientific fact nor theory have been subject to the values of democracy, though lord knows it is not through lack of trying.I will leave it to the likes of Neil DeGrasse Tyson to point out the incompatibly of democracy with science in many of his excellent documentaries …or an even more scientifically capable contemporary, Steven Pinker …… but the good professors (institutionally sanctioned) are NOT making similar documentaries about how capitalism is devouring science.‘Publish or Perish’ — is NOT a scientific heuristics.It is an economic model, and an ultimately self-destructive one at that.In fact, they, among others (yeah, you too Michio) are making a tidy little sum riding off those gigs. It’s just too bad that the likes of Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn are not so photogenic. Karl had much to say about what happens when science becomes subservient to capitalistic agendas in the Nazi form of Nationalism.And I think there is quite a bit much more than being ‘politically correct’ at stake when the whole scientific domain is being questioned as gender influenced … How Masculine and Feminine Traits Influence Science.For some examples of how capitalism is devouring of science, I modestly suggest reading Naomi Klein regarding Project MKUltra. Or Noam Chomsky on the M.I.T. - D.A.R.P.A. connection. Or for that matter Google’s true origin partly lies in CIA and NSA research grants for mass surveillance, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Agra.As I am making this edit, today’s news alone (Thursday, July 24, 2018 spells it out … Monsanto-on-trial … again.And to bring it closer to home (in Japan) … a copy of July 27-28th news … https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/27/national/crime-legal/japanese-prosecutors-raid-jaxa-facilities-connection-second-education-ministry-bribes-case/#.W1xSNygVSHoAnd to make sure the article is not ‘lost’ … another source, JapanToday.Prosecutors raid space agency over bureaucrat's bribery caseJuly 28 — 06:55 am JST TOKYOProsecutors on Friday raided locations linked to the space agency after they arrested a senior education ministry official earlier on a bribery charge in the second graft scandal to hit the ministry in a month.Kazuaki Kawabata, 57-year-old former director general for international affairs at the education ministry, was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of receiving bribes in the form of being wined and dined by a consulting firm executive in return for providing a favor to his firm.Prosecutors suspect former consulting firm executive Koji Taniguchi, 47, already arrested and indicted for alleged complicity in another bribery scandal involving a different senior education ministry official, provided 1.4 million yen ($12,600) worth of meals and drinks to Kawabata between 2015 and 2017.Kawabata was on loan at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency at the time and was in a position to evaluate the agency's business contracts.Kawabata allegedly helped Taniguchi invite astronaut Satoshi Furukawa to an event at Tokyo Medical University in November 2016 among other favors he offered him, according to sources close to the matter.Furukawa was allegedly asked by the former chairman of the university's board of regents, Masahiko Usui, about whether the astronaut could take part in the event, they said.Taniguchi bribed Kawabata by wining and dining him more than 10 times, the sources said, adding that Kawabata and Taniguchi have denied the allegations.Other sources said the education ministry bureaucrat is also suspected of receiving taxi vouchers from the consulting firm executive.Earlier in the month, another education ministry bureaucrat, Futoshi Sano, 59, and the former official of Tokyo Medical University were indicted for bribery.Sano, former director general of the ministry's science and technology bureau, allegedly helped the university get selected for the ministry's funding program in return for securing the enrollment of his son at the school.Taniguchi is suspected of bringing Sano and Usui together.The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology was preparing to set up a third-party committee to investigate the suspected bribery involving Sano, but the minister, Yoshimasa Hayashi, said the plan will be postponed in the wake of Kawabata's arrest.© KYODONo mistake, ‘greed-is-good’ capitalism is devouring science, not driving it.Education, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, has been in danger of being devoured.For one semester, even while I was an Associate Professor at Jissen Women’s College, I took a leave of absence and attended open-classes as a student at a rival institution, Showa Women’s College. Among the courses I took, one was taught by a professor and employee of the central Ministry of Education (For about 7 years, I also used to be one of 2 or 3 native English speaking informants as textbook proofreaders and cultural advisors for the Ministry 平成17年4月文部科学省教科用図書検定調査審議会専門委員（平成23年3月迄). His course was about the history of Public Education in Japan.The Japanese public education system is based on England’s Victorian era education, which in turn was based on the structure and heuristics of two other institutions at that time … the penal system and the military. A liberal arts education was largely reserved for the elite ruling class.That’s a pretty grim hint as to the traditional ways in which large populations are ‘managed’ through capitalist values.Tied up with education, racial equality is in danger of being devoured … DeVos Doesn’t Believe that Promoting Racial Diversity in Schools Is a Worthwhile Cause.That military thing of ‘corruption’ through replacing one value with a lower value can be found in the outsourcing of the U.S. government’s accountability in warfare. Blackwater Protection was and still is, a convenient excuse for the U.S. government’s plausible deniability. But I guess the ancient Roman army did the same thing with ‘barbarian’ mercenaries long before capitalism was a gleam in Adam Smith’s eye.And as hinted earlier, the penal system — in private, for-profit hands?For the CEOs … the more inmates, the merrier. And throw away the keys. There is no financial incentive for rehabilitation.As for U.S. Public Health policy? Outside of the U.S., the laughing stock of the ‘developed’ world. Inside, a crying shame.That alone is enough to make me question the distinction between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ as an arrogant conceit. A more accurate distinction between countries might better be found along a sliding scale of institutionally sanctioned, legalized corruption.Personal health care costs account for the single greatest cause of family bankruptcy in the U.S. On the the other hand, a cozy little group of insurance company executives and Big-Pharma CEOs can afford another private jet or island retreat.For the personally ambitious, there is big money to be made off of sickness, infirmity, and death.And those ‘closed-door’ international trade talks are closed for good reason.For example, one of the conditions of the TPP was that medical products banned in the U.S. could be used in countries with less economic leverage, and any claims from citizens of those countries regarding health or environmental degradation will not be subject to that country’s laws or judicial system. The multi-national corporation will have the right to regulate, judge, and penalize themselves … as they wish, or not, and citizens of those economically marginalized countries, democratic or not, will have no say in the matter.Even elected politicians are not privy to all of the information in those closed-door trade talks.Anyone here old enough to remember Perestroika or Glasnost?Evidently, ‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander’ does not apply to Capitalist management.It just goes on and on.One. Horror. Show. After. Another.I would say the loss of ‘democracy’ to the corruption of money should be among the least of our worries.Yanis is brilliant, full stop.Spot-on analysis.And compared to reading Piketty’s massive tome, a lot easier to listen to.Besides, I think his barber is doing a great job.I am just weighing in because of his observations from about 1:10 of the YouTube video above — when he explains how the Chinese economic system may be more humane than the U.S. counterparts. The local governments may allow somewhat more freedom than the national government, and individuals may be arguably just as free to follow, ignore, or game the system as their American counterparts.This is the same in Japan, For now.But as we are seeing in the U.S. now, the authoritarian dynamics could change overnight, and I assume the same could be said for China.Japanese scientists are worried about the same thing — Japanese scientists call for boycott of military research. But that is already old news. Japan is well under way in following the U.S.’s model of tax funded research at M.I.T. being funneled into Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.I think it was only three or four years ago, that Tokyo University was bringing out damage control PR in denying they were involved in military related research. Things have changed in a very short time. … Scientists and defense research | The Japan Times——————————————In any country, the socially progressive left will always be less united than the right. It's like trying to herd cats ... or order a jazz musician to follow a note for note transcription of a military marching band score.IMHO, the above observation points to something fundamentally contradictory about human nature.As a social primate, we do pretty well in small communities with empathy-driven morality. Of course even small groups can be led by bullies, and many a spouse has suffered at the hand of their 'beloved'.But when we become herding primates, probably anything larger than Dunbar’s Number, and guided by a rule-driven morality (or algorithm), it is just a matter of time before we become self-destructive swarming primates ... that 'Tower of Babel' thingy.I guess part of it is because large populations necessarily become hierarchically institutionalized, and therefore dependent on a rule-driven (legal/logical based - not empathy based) morality.But when empathy is no longer the basis for morality, the 'Dark Triad' personality types are most able to take advantage of the inevitable gap between empathy and rules ... the narcissists, machiavellian opportunists, and psychopaths among us.You know … your boss.(kudos to Alan Louis)Altruists become relegated to fools ... Diogenes carrying a lantern in the daylight, looking for an honest man.Diogenes … my hero, the template for ‘pro-social trolling’ … and the capitalist in me is wondering if I can get a copyright on that phrasing ;-)Compared to more egalitarian communities which are small enough for us to acknowledge and recognize each other as unique individuals, large populations and accompanying institutions simply provide too many niche opportunities for those dark-triad types to rise to the top.It might be useful to think of the ratio of dark-triads to altruists in a hierarchy as similar to the increase of surface area to volume of any structure as it increases in size.This surface area to volume ration, as biologists understand, is a salient variable which limits the size of living things.Surface Area to Volume Ratio - OBEN Science 7EAnd to extend the metaphor, as the surface area of hierarchies expand in proportion to the volume of its limited natural resources (can’t outsource costs and losses forever ya know), those dark-triad vampires, also proportionally increase to the point that those behavior traits become the dominant culture of the institution.Hmmm … the capitalist in me wondering if I should coin the above observation in the domain of social sciences as ‘Martin’s Law’. Or in the spirit of open source … ‘more like guidelines’.No matter what 'fool-proof' system is in place, those dark-triad types will suck the human capital dry, siphoning all resources into their own gated communities, until inevitably, 'too big to fail', fails, like a dinosaur collapsing under its own weight.'Housing loan crisis', 'Lehman Shock', the Great Wall Street crash of the ‘20’s ... a stinkweed by any other name would smell as rank. Alas, were it just restricted to smell.2012, what we ‘learned’ — Fukushima reactor meltdown was a man-made disaster, says official report.As a former Comparative Culture teacher, I should say a bit about how Japan Inc. parses ‘human error’ and ‘man-made’ disasters. Imagine a wide range of meanings ranging from an ‘honest mistake’ at one extreme, and getting caught doing what hierarchical social primates are primed to do … ‘gaming the system for personal advantage’ at the other extreme.Those two terms conveniently cover the gamut.Well hey, it’s the Fourth of July, 2018, and following good pedagogic practice, let’s see if, indeed we ‘learned’ anything.Just 3 stories today is enough to say it all …1 — Nuclear watchdog OKs restart of aging Ibaraki nuclear plant hit by tsunamiPhoto: REUTERS file(Read it while it’s ‘hot’ folks, to aid our short collective memories, Japan Today will typically delete the article from its archives in a week or so, so I have it copy-pasted for any future readers interested, assuming there is a future.)Yours truly, as an English teacher at the Tokai Mura nuclear power plant - before.And after?Can’t really say. Like the weather and earthquakes, that will be up to the Watchdog Committee’s official stamp of approval.2 — Japan oks ambitious nuke energy target plutonium reuse plan — Japan on Tuesday approved an energy plan that sets ambitious targets for nuclear energy use and sustains a struggling program for spent-fuel recycling despite setbacks after the 2011 Fukushima disaster.(But praise the lord we have government officials and Watchdog Committees!)3 — Senior education ministry official arrested over bribery — Tokyo prosecutors on Wednesday arrested a high-ranking Japan education ministry official on a bribery charge, suspecting he granted a research subsidy to a medical school in exchange for admitting his child as a student.Oops.Might as well add another few for good measure …(edit July 7, point 4, because of the relevance to points 1 and 2)4 — 5.9-magnitude quake felt in Tokyo, no tsunami warning. I felt that one. ALL of Tokyo felt it … and for close to 30 seconds.Mother nature couldn’t give a f.f. for the government’s official approval of where and when the next temblor will be permitted. But money-driven authoritarianism and mother nature have never been on good speaking terms, much less happily wedded.5 — Fukuoka's 'guest teachers' of English outstay their welcome. — After 36 year years of studying and teaching here, I found out the hard way that Japanese work contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. And this is not restricted to lay-teachers … Cautionary tale: Bern on how no protections against harassment in Japan’s universities targets NJ regardless of Japan savviness and skill levelHaving worked in American and Japanese Universities, high schools, and volunteered at kindergartens, I know a little bit about education. Now, having resigned in protest from a tenured Associate Professor position (qualifications here … Steven Martin, I am forced to pick up odd jobs at universities, but not as a professor — though still desperately trying to hang on to my identity as an educator, following its best, subversive to authority, liberal arts tradition. Now working for a subcontractor, likely similar to those mentioned above in the Fukuoka article.I have a contract here before me, that I will not sign. It makes no mention of accountability to the students who educators should be serving.Educational content and pedagogy have been boiled down to little more than economic constraints and opportunities. Just like any other business, everything is based on the bottom-line.Now with falling demographics and numbers of Japanese students to draw on, the overabundance of ‘educational institutes’ are forced to accept anyone who can breathe, and now an increasing number of the young and restless from China and Southeast Asia. This makes for some interesting cross-cultural possibilities.But it is an extra pedagogical burden on those who speak only Japanese and English, and these outsourcing companies are choosing teachers whose main qualification is ‘they look foreign, speak English, and are desperate enough for money to just sign on the dotted line and follow orders’.I try to make do.Here is a sketch done in my English class last week, by a speaker who maybe can say ‘Hello, how are you today?’ — yet she could visualize and understand Plato’s Allegory of the Cave better than most American counterparts. Bright girl.The ‘most recent comment’ under the following YouTube link describes how I got their attention last week, kept it, built on it .., and enjoyed a blast from the past.As bad as my situation is, still can’t pay the rent, it could be worse.6 — Japan’s open to foreign workers. Just don’t call them immigrants … The latest LDP plan is to open the door to 500,000 low-skilled, kkk workers (no not Jeff Sessions and company), the 3k jobs are kienai, kitsui, and kikken (dirty, hard, and dangerous) — jobs that anyone tries to avoid, but dirt-poor immigrants see as opportunity. There are just two teensy-weensy conditions to the special 5 year visas (10 years if language skills are up to snuff).• There is no legal path beyond the expiration date of that visa allowing for immigration or naturalization. When that visa expires, the worker has no choice. They MUST return to their native country.• If the 5 year or 10 year worker has a spouse or kids, even those immediate family members will not be allowed into Japan. All human needs will be taken care of by the Japanese company they work for.‘Special work visas’? I would call that a legal euphemism for ‘human trafficking’.It appears that Japan Inc. is hell bent on using hidden labor to build the infrastructure catering to the wealthy visitors who come to ‘do’ Japan. Not so different from Qatar, the UAE, and other oil rich sultanates.(edit) Today’s morning headline in Japan Today … https://japantoday.com/category/national/japan-firms-used-foreign-trainees-at-fukushima-cleanup-reportsI have saved the above to hard disc because as per policy, that website typically deletes its articles a week or two after posting it. No wonder we fail to learn from history … we are not allowed to even make a collective memory. So for anyone who wants the details of the article above (which are few — even the guilty companies were not named), I have saved the article to hard disc. And again, that title …4 firms made foreign trainees do Fukushima decontamination workYokoso (welcome to) Japan … tourists and ‘trainees’ alike.Japan’s 4th of July headlines is one for the record books … to hell in a hand basket. A big one.————————————So class, what have we learned since that 2012 official government report?Hmm. Something about a dead parrot?More like a whole menagerie — George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' in a nutshell.Credit: Carl Glover via FlickrJust a guess, but those 'dark triad' types probably make up between 1 and 5 percent of any population.But even among the remaining, more typical, members of ours species, Hannah Arendt .... and then later the behavioral psychologists Solomon Asch (conformity experiment), Stanley Milgram (experiment in obedience), and Philip Zimbardo (the malleability of identity in the Stanford Prison experiment) pointed out how easily even the average Joe Blow's behavior can be manipulated with relatively light touches of authoritarianism.Noam Chomsky in 'Manufacturing Consent', and later later Naomi Klein in 'The Shock Doctrine', shows us some blueprints. Antony Loewenstein is showing how this is playing out down under with Disaster Capitalism: Making a Killing Out of Catastrophe.And William Blum shows us some of the gut-ugly details in Killing Hope.A couple of yeas ago, Stephen Hawking wrote an editorial for The Guardian saying This is the most dangerous time for our planet ... implying we will either make it to Mars and exploit its resources, or destroy ourselves in a final malthusian meltdown over the remaining resources on earth.An increasing number of STEM specialists believe we may have already passed a species-ending tipping point.Chomsky, in his 2010 Chapel Hill speech, 'Human intelligence and the environment’ began that speech with a couple of paragraphs referring to the debate between Carl Sagan and Ernst Mayr regarding the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos. Predictably, and sensibly, Sagan argued for the probability, on statistical chance alone.But Mayr gave a surprisingly sensible counter-argument from an evolutionary biologist's point of view. The biological record indicates an average of about 100,000 years for the shelf life of an apex (dominant) species ... and we are at about that point.Mayr said that while there is probably life out there, it is not likely to have a human-like intelligence. He went on to further imply that human intelligence is not the apex of evolution — it is merely one of many tools for the survival of a social primate.But worse, he suspects human intelligence is more likely a fatal mutation. An evolutionary spandrel at best.The more I observe of our swarming, self-destructive nature, the more I tend to agree with Mayr.

History(1850–1969) - In 1844, 23-year-old Henry Lehman, the son of a Jewish cattle merchant, immigrated to the United States from Rimpar, Bavaria.He settled in Montgomery, Alabama, where he opened a dry-goods store, "H. Lehman". In 1847, following the arrival of his brother Emanuel Lehman, the firm became "H. Lehman and Bro." With the arrival of their youngest brother, Mayer Lehman, in 1850, the firm changed its name again and "Lehman Brothers" was founded.During the 1850s, cotton was one of the most important crops in the United States. Capitalizing on cotton's high market value, the three brothers began to routinely accept raw cotton from customers as payment for merchandise, eventually beginning a second business trading in cotton. Within a few years this business grew to become the most significant part of their operation. Following Henry's death from yellow fever in 1855, the remaining brothers continued to focus on their commodities-trading/brokerage operations.The Lehmans were also involved in the Atlantic slave trade in the 1850s.By 1858, the center of cotton trading had shifted from the South to New York City, where factors and commission houses were based. Lehman opened its first branch office at 119 Liberty Street and 32-year-old Emanuel relocated there to run the office. In 1862, facing difficulties as a result of the Civil War, the firm teamed up with a cotton merchant named John Durr to form Lehman, Durr & Co Following the war the company helped finance Alabama's reconstruction. The firm's headquarters were eventually moved to New York City, where it helped found the New York Cotton Exchange in 1870; Emanuel sat on the board of governors until 1884. The firm also dealt in the emerging market for railroad bonds and entered the financial-advisory business.Lehman became a member of the Coffee Exchange as early as 1883 and finally the New York Stock Exchange in 87. In 1899, it underwrote its first public offering, the preferred and common stock of the International Steam Pump Company.Despite the offering of International Steam, the firm's real shift from being a commodities house to a house of issue did not begin until 1906. In that year, under Emanuel's son Philip Lehman, the firm partnered with Goldman, Sachs & Co., to bring the General Cigar Co. to market, followed closely by Sears, Roebuck and Company. During the following two decades, almost one hundred new issues were underwritten by Lehman, many times in conjunction with Goldman, Sachs. Among these were F.W. Woolworth Company, May Department Stores Company, Gimbel Brothers, Inc., R.H. Macy & Company, The Studebaker Corporation, the B.F. Goodrich Co. and Endicott Johnson Corporation.Following Philip Lehman's retirement in 1925, his son Robert "Bobbie" Lehman took over as head of the firm. During Bobbie's tenure, the company weathered the capital crisis of the Great Depression by focusing on venture capital while the equities market recovered.Traditionally a family-only partnership, in 1924, John M. Hancock became the first non-family member to join the firm, followed by Monroe C. Gutman and Paul Mazur in 1927. By 1928, the firm moved to its now famous One William Street location.In the 1930s, Lehman underwrote the initial public offering of the first television manufacturer, DuMont, and helped fund the Radio Corporation of America (RCA). It also helped finance the rapidly growing oil industry, including the companies Halliburton and Kerr-McGee. In the 1950s, Lehman underwrote the IPO of Digital Equipment Corporation. Later, it arranged the acquisition of Digital by Compaq.(1969–1984) - Robert Lehman died in 1969 after 44 years as the patriarch of the firm, leaving no member of the Lehman family actively involved with the partnership. Robert's death, coupled with a lack of a clear successor from within the Lehman family left a void in the company. At the same time, Lehman was facing strong headwinds amidst the difficult economic environment of the early 1970s. By 1972, the firm was facing hard times and in 1973, Pete Peterson, chairman and chief executive officer of the Bell & Howell Corporation, was brought in to save the firm.Under Peterson's leadership as chairman and CEO, the firm acquired Abraham & Co. in 1975, and two years later merged with the venerable, but struggling, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., to form Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc., the country's fourth-largest investment bank, behind Salomon Brothers, Goldman Sachs and First Boston. Peterson led the firm from significant operating losses to five consecutive years of record profits with a return on equity among the highest in the investment-banking industry.By the early 1980s, hostilities between the firm's investment bankers and traders (who were driving most of the firm's profits) prompted Peterson to promote Lewis Glucksman, the firm's President, COO and former trader, to be his co-CEO in May 1983. Glucksman introduced a number of changes that had the effect of increasing tensions, which when coupled with Glucksman’s management style and a downturn in the markets, resulted in a power struggle that ousted Peterson and left Glucksman as the sole CEO.Upset bankers who had soured over the power struggle, left the company. Stephen A. Schwarzman, chairman of the firm's M&A committee, recalled in a February 2003 interview with Private Equity International that "Lehman Brothers had an extremely competitive internal environment, which ultimately became dysfunctional." The company suffered under the disintegration, and Glucksman was pressured into selling the firm.Merger with American Express (1984–1994) - Shearson/American Express, an American Express-owned securities company focused on brokerage rather than investment banking, acquired Lehman in 1984, for $360 million. On May 11, the combined firms became Shearson Lehman/American Express. In 1988, Shearson Lehman/American Express and E.F. Hutton & Co. merged as Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc.From 1983 to 1990, Peter A. Cohen was CEO and chairman of Shearson Lehman Brothers, where he led the one billion dollar purchase of E.F. Hutton to form Shearson Lehman Hutton. During this period, Shearson Lehman was aggressive in building its leveraged finance business in the model of rival Drexel Burnham Lambert. In 1989, Shearson backed F. Ross Johnson's management team in its attempted management buyout of RJR Nabisco but were ultimately outbid by private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, who was backed by Drexel.Divestment and independence (1994–2008) - In 1993, under newly appointed CEO, Harvey Golub, American Express began to divest itself of its banking and brokerage operations. It sold its retail brokerage and asset management operations to Primerica and in 1994 it spun off Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb in an initial public offering, as Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.Despite rumors that it would be acquired again, Lehman performed quite well under chairman and CEO Richard S. Fuld, Jr.. By 2008, Fuld had been with the company for 30 years, and would be the longest-tenured CEO on Wall Street. Fuld had steered Lehman through the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, a period where the firm's share price dropped to $22 USD in 1998, but he was said to have underestimated the downturn in the US housing market and its effect on Lehman's mortgage bond underwriting business. Fuld kept his job as the subprime mortgage crisis took hold, while CEOs of rivals like Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup were forced to resign. In addition, Lehman's board of directors, which included retired CEOs like Vodafone's Christopher Gent and IBM's John Akers were reluctant to challenge Fuld as the firm's share price spiraled lower.Fuld had a succession of "number twos" under him, usually titled as president and chief operating officer. Chris Pettit was Fuld's second-in-command for two decades until November 26, 1996, when he resigned as president and board member. Pettit lost a power struggle with his deputies (Steve Lessing, Tom Tucker, and Joseph M. Gregory) back on March 15 that year that caused him to relinquish its COO title, likely brought about after the three men found out about Pettit's extramarital affairs, which violated Fuld's unwritten rules on marriage and social etiquette. Bradley Jack and Joseph M. Gregory were appointed co-COOs in 2002, but Jack was demoted to the office of the chairman in May 2004 and departed in June 2005 with a severance package of $80 million, making Gregory the sole COO. While Fuld was considered the "face" of Lehman brothers, Gregory was in charge of day-to-day operations and he influenced culture to drive the bottom line. Gregory was demoted on June 12, 2008 and replaced as president and COO by Bart McDade, who had been serving as head of Equities, and McDade would see Lehman through bankruptcy. McDade would later be one of a handful of Lehman executives offered a position with Barclays after their acquisition; he would step down after less than two months.In 2001, the firm acquired the private-client services, or "PCS", business of Cowen & Co.and later, in 2003, aggressively re-entered the asset-management business, which it had exited in 1989.[45] Beginning with $2 billion in assets under management, the firm acquired the Crossroads Group, the fixed-income division of Lincoln Capital Management and Neuberger Berman. These businesses, together with the PCS business and Lehman's private-equity business, comprised the Investment Management Division, which generated approximately $3.1 billion in net revenue and almost $800 million in pretax income in 2007. Prior to going bankrupt, the firm had in excess of $275 billion in assets under management. Altogether, since going public in 1994, the firm had increased net revenues over 600% from $2.73 billion to $19.2 billion and had increased employee headcount over 230% from 8,500 to almost 28,600.At the 2008 ALB China Law Awards, Lehman Brothers was crowned:• Deal of the Year – Debt Market Deal of the Year• Deal of the Year – Equity Market Deal of the YearResponse to September 11, 2001 attacks - On September 11, 2001, Lehman occupied three floors of World Trade Center where one of its employees was killed in the terrorist attacks of that day. Its global headquarters in Three World Financial Center were severely damaged and rendered unusable by falling debris, displacing over 6,500 employees. The bank recovered quickly and rebuilt its presence. Trading operations moved across the Hudson River to its Jersey City, New Jersey, facilities, where an impromptu trading floor was built in a hotel and brought online less than forty-eight hours after the attacks. When stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, Lehman's sales and trading capabilities were restored.In the ensuing months, the firm fanned out its operations across the New York City metropolitan area in over 40 temporary locations. The investment-banking division converted the first-floor lounges, restaurants, and all 665 guestrooms of the Sheraton Manhattan Hotel into office space.The bank also experimented with flextime (to share office space) and telecommuting via virtual private networking. In October 2001, Lehman purchased a 32-story, 1,050,000-square-foot (98,000 m2) office building for a reported sum of $700 million. The building, located at 745 Seventh Avenue, had recently been completed, and not yet occupied, by rival Morgan Stanley.With Morgan Stanley's world headquarters located only two blocks away at 1585 Broadway, in the wake of the attacks the firm was re-evaluating its office plans which would have put over 10,000 employees in the Times Square area of New York City. Lehman began moving into the new facility in January and finished in March 2002, a move that significantly boosted morale throughout the firm.The firm was criticized for not moving back to its former headquarters in lower Manhattan. Following the attacks, only Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, and Merrill Lynch, of the major firms, remained in the downtown area. Lehman, however, pointed to the facts that it was committed to stay in New York City, that the new headquarters represented an ideal circumstance where the firm was desperate to buy and Morgan Stanley was desperate to sell, that when the new building was purchased, the structural integrity of Three World Financial Center had not yet been given a clean bill of health, and that the company could not have waited until May 2002 for repairs to Three World Financial Center to conclude.After the attacks, Lehman's management placed increased emphasis on business continuity planning. Unlike its rivals, the company was unusually concentrated for a bulge-bracket investment bank. For example, Morgan Stanley maintains a 750,000-square-foot (70,000 m2) trading-and-banking facility in Westchester County, New York. The trading floor of UBS is located in Stamford, Connecticut. Merrill Lynch's asset-management division is located in Plainsboro Township, New Jersey. Aside from its headquarters in Three World Financial Center, Lehman maintained operations-and-backoffice facilities in Jersey City, space that the firm considered leaving prior to 9/11. The space was not only retained, but expanded, including the construction of a backup-trading facility. In addition, telecommuting technology first rolled out in the days following the attacks to allow employees to work from home was expanded and enhanced for general use throughout the firmJune 2003 SEC litigation - In June 2003, the company was one of ten firms which simultaneously entered into a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Office of the New York State Attorney General and various other securities regulators, regarding undue influence over each firm's research analysts by its investment-banking divisions. Specifically, regulators alleged that the firms had improperly associated analyst compensation with the firms' investment-banking revenues, and promised favorable, market-moving research coverage, in exchange for underwriting opportunities. The settlement, known as the "global settlement", provided for total financial penalties of $1.4 billion, including $80 million against Lehman, and structural reforms, including a complete separation of investment banking departments from research departments, no analyst compensation, directly or indirectly, from investment-banking revenues, and the provision of free, independent, third-party, research to the firms' clients.Rise of mortgage origination (1997-2006) - Lehman was one of the first Wall Street firms to move into the business of mortgage origination. In 1997, Lehman bought Colorado-based lender, Aurora Loan Services, an Alt-A lender. In 2000, to expand their mortgage origination pipeline, Lehman purchased West Coast subprime mortgage lender BNC Mortgage LLC. Lehman quickly became a force in the subprime market. By 2003 Lehman made $18.2 billion in loans and ranked third in lending. By 2004, this number topped $40 billion. By 2006, Aurora and BNC were lending almost $50 billion per month. Lehman had morphed into a real estate hedge fund disguised as an investment bank. By 2008, Lehman had assets of $680 billion supported by only $22.5 billion of firm capital. From an equity position, its risky commercial real estate holdings were three times greater than capital. In such a highly leveraged structure, a 3 to 5 percent decline in real estate values would wipeout all capital.Collapse - A March 2010 report by the court-appointed examiner indicated that Lehman executives regularly used cosmetic accounting gimmicks at the end of each quarter to make its finances appear less shaky than they really were. This practice was a type of repurchase agreement that temporarily removed securities from the company's balance sheet. However, unlike typical repurchase agreements, these deals were described by Lehman as the outright sale of securities and created "a materially misleading picture of the firm’s financial condition in late 2007 and 2008."Subprime Mortgage Crisis - In August 2007 the firm closed its subprime lender, BNC Mortgage, eliminating 1,200 positions in 23 locations, and took an after-tax charge of $25 million and a $27 million reduction in goodwill. Lehman said that poor market conditions in the mortgage space "necessitated a substantial reduction in its resources and capacity in the subprime space".In 2008, Lehman faced an unprecedented loss to the continuing subprime mortgage crisis. Lehman's loss was a result of having held on to large positions in subprime and other lower-rated mortgage tranches when securitizing the underlying mortgages; whether Lehman did this because it was simply unable to sell the lower-rated bonds, or made a conscious decision to hold them, is unclear. In any event, huge losses accrued in lower-rated mortgage-backed securities throughout 2008. In the second fiscal quarter, Lehman reported losses of $2.8 billion and was forced to sell off $6 billion in assets. In the first half of 2008 alone, Lehman stock lost 73% of its value as the credit market continued to tighten. In August 2008, Lehman reported that it intended to release 6% of its work force, 1,500 people, just ahead of its third-quarter-reporting deadline in September.In September 2007, Joe Gregory appointed Erin Callan as CFO. On March 16, 2008, after rival Bear Stearns was taken over by JP Morgan Chase in a fire sale, market analysts suggested that Lehman would be the next major investment bank to fall. Callan fielded Lehman's first quarter conference call, where the firm posted a profit of $489 million, compared to Citigroup's $5.1 billion and Merrill Lynch's $1.97 billion losses which was Lehman’s 55th consecutive profitable quarter. The firm's stock price leapt 46 percent after that announcement.On June 9, 2008, Lehman Brothers announced US$2.8 billion second-quarter loss, its first since being spun off from American Express, as market volatility rendered many of its hedges ineffective during that time. Lehman also reported that it had raised a further $6 billion in capital. As a result, there was major management shakeup, in which Hugh "Skip" McGee III (head of investment banking) held a meeting with senior staff to strip Fuld and his lieutenants of their authority. Consequently, Joe Gregory agreed to resign as president and COO, and afterward he told Erin Callan that she had to resign as CFO. Callan was appointed CFO of Lehman in 2008 but served only for six months, before departing after her mentor Joe Gregory was demoted. Bart McDade was named to succeed Gregory as president and COO, when several senior executives threatened to leave if he was not promoted. McDade took charge and brought back Michael Gelband and Alex Kirk, who had previously been pushed out of the firm by Gregory for not taking risks. Although Fuld remained CEO, he soon became isolated from McDade's team.On August 22, 2008, shares in Lehman closed up 5% (16% for the week) on reports that the state-controlled Korea Development Bank was considering buying the bank. Most of those gains were quickly eroded as news came in that Korea Development Bank was "facing difficulties pleasing regulators and attracting partners for the deal." It culminated on September 9, when Lehman's shares plunged 45% to $7.79, after it was reported that the state-run South Korean firm had put talks on hold.Investor confidence continued to erode as Lehman's stock lost roughly half its value and pushed the S&P 500 down 3.4% on September 9. The Dow Jones lost 300 points the same day on investors' concerns about the security of the bank. The U.S. government did not announce any plans to assist with any possible financial crisis that emerged at Lehman.The next day, Lehman announced a loss of $3.9 billion and its intent to sell off a majority stake in its investment-management business, which includes Neuberger Berman. The stock slid seven percent that day. Lehman, after earlier rejecting questions on the sale of the company, was reportedly searching for a buyer as its stock price dropped another 40 percent on September 11, 2008.Just before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, executives at Neuberger Berman sent e-mail memos suggesting, among other things, that the Lehman Brothers' top people forgo multimillion-dollar bonuses to "send a strong message to both employees and investors that management is not shirking accountability for recent performance."Lehman Brothers Investment Management Director George Herbert Walker IV dismissed the proposal, going so far as to actually apologize to other members of the Lehman Brothers executive committee for the idea of bonus reduction having been suggested. He wrote, "Sorry team. I am not sure what's in the water at Neuberger Berman. I'm embarrassed and I apologize."Short-selling allegations - During hearings on the bankruptcy filing by Lehman Brothers and bailout of AIG before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, former Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld said a host of factors including a crisis of confidence and naked short-selling attacks followed by false rumors contributed to both the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. House committee Chairman Henry Waxman said the committee received thousands of pages of internal documents from Lehman and these documents portray a company in which there was "no accountability for failure".An article by journalist Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone contended that naked short selling contributed to the demise of both Lehman and Bear Stearns. A study by finance researchers at the University of Oklahoma Price College of Business studied trading in financial stocks, including Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, and found "no evidence that stock price declines were caused by naked short selling".Bankruptcy - On Saturday, September 13, 2008, Timothy F. Geithner, then the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, called a meeting on the future of Lehman, which included the possibility of an emergency liquidation of its assets. Lehman reported that it had been in talks with Bank of America and Barclays for the company's possible sale; however, both Barclays and Bank of America ultimately declined to purchase the entire company, in the former case because the British government (in particular, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Alastair Darling and the CEO of the Financial Services Authority Hector Sants) refused to allow the transaction at the last minute, quoting stockholder regulations in the UK, despite a deal having apparently been completed.The next day, Sunday, September 14, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) offered an exceptional trading session to allow market participants to offset positions in various derivatives on the condition of a Lehman bankruptcy later that day. Although the bankruptcy filing missed the deadline, many dealers honored the trades they made in the special session.Shortly before 1 am Monday morning (UTC−5), Lehman Brothers Holdings announced it would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection citing bank debt of $613 billion, $155 billion in bond debt, and assets worth $639 billion. It further announced that its subsidiaries would continue to operate as normal. A group of Wall Street firms agreed to provide capital and financial assistance for the bank's orderly liquidation and the Federal Reserve, in turn, agreed to a swap of lower-quality assets in exchange for loans and other assistance from the government. The morning witnessed scenes of Lehman employees removing files, items with the company logo, and other belongings from the world headquarters at 745 Seventh Avenue. The spectacle continued throughout the day and into the following day.Later that day, the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) suspended Lehman's Australian subsidiary as a market participant after clearing-houses terminated contracts with the firm. Lehman shares tumbled over 90% on September 15, 2008. The Dow Jones closed down just over 500 points on September 15, 2008, which was at the time the largest drop in a single day since the days following the attacks on September 11, 2001.In the United Kingdom, the investment bank went into administration with PricewaterhouseCoopers appointed as administrators. In Japan, the Japanese branch, Lehman Brothers Japan Inc., and its holding company filed for civil reorganization on September 16, 2008, in Tokyo District Court. On September 17, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange delisted Lehman Brothers.On March 16, 2011 some three years after filing for bankruptcy and following a filing in a Manhattan U.S. bankruptcy court, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc announced it would seek creditor approval of its reorganization plan by October 14 followed by a confirmation hearing to follow on November 17.LiquidationBarclays acquisition - On September 16, 2008, Barclays PLC announced that they would acquire a "stripped clean" portion of Lehman for $1.75 billion, including most of Lehman's North America operations. On September 20, 2008, a revised version of the deal, a $1.35 billion (£700 million) plan for Barclays to acquire the core business of Lehman (mainly its $960-million headquarters, a 38-story office building in Midtown Manhattan, with responsibility for 9,000 former employees), was approved. Manhattan court bankruptcy Judge James Peck, after a 7-hour hearing, ruled: "I have to approve this transaction because it is the only available transaction. Lehman Brothers became a victim, in effect the only true icon to fall in a tsunami that has befallen the credit markets. This is the most momentous bankruptcy hearing I've ever sat through. It can never be deemed precedent for future cases. It's hard for me to imagine a similar emergency."Luc Despins, then a partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, the creditors committee counsel, said: "The reason we're not objecting is really based on the lack of a viable alternative. We did not support the transaction because there had not been enough time to properly review it."[citation needed] In the amended agreement, Barclays would absorb $47.4 billion in securities and assume $45.5 billion in trading liabilities. Lehman's attorney Harvey R. Miller of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, said "the purchase price for the real estate components of the deal would be $1.29 billion, including $960 million for Lehman's New York headquarters and $330 million for two New Jersey data centers. Lehman's original estimate valued its headquarters at $1.02 billion but an appraisal from CB Richard Ellis this week valued it at $900 million." Further, Barclays will not acquire Lehman's Eagle Energy unit, but will have entities known as Lehman Brothers Canada Inc, Lehman Brothers Sudamerica, Lehman Brothers Uruguay and its Private Investment Management business for high-net-worth individuals. Finally, Lehman will retain $20 billion of securities assets in Lehman Brothers Inc that are not being transferred to Barclays. Barclays acquired a potential liability of $2.5 billion to be paid as severance, if it chooses not to retain some Lehman employees beyond the guaranteed 90 days.Nomura acquisition - Nomura Holdings, Japan's top brokerage firm, agreed to buy the Asian division of Lehman Brothers for $225 million and parts of the European division for a nominal fee of $2. It would not take on any trading assets or liabilities in the European units. Nomura negotiated such a low price because it acquired only Lehman's employees in the regions, and not its stocks, bonds or other assets. The last Lehman Brothers Annual Report identified that these non-US subsidiaries of Lehman Brothers were responsible for over 50% of global revenue produced.Sale of asset management businesses - On September 29, 2008, Lehman agreed to sell Neuberger Berman, part of its investment management business, to a pair of private-equity firms, Bain Capital Partners and Hellman & Friedman, for $2.15 billion. The transaction was expected to close in early 2009, subject to approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, but a competing bid was entered by the firm's management, who ultimately prevailed in a bankruptcy auction on December 3, 2008. Creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. retain a 49% common equity interest in the firm, now known as Neuberger Berman Group LLC. In Europe, the Quantitative Asset Management Business has been acquired back by its employees on November 13, 2008 and has been renamed back to TOBAM.Financial fallout - Lehman's bankruptcy was the largest failure of an investment bank since Drexel Burnham Lambert collapsed amid fraud allegations 18 years prior. Immediately following the bankruptcy filing, an already distressed financial market began a period of extreme volatility, during which the Dow experienced its largest one day point loss, largest intra-day range (more than 1,000 points) and largest daily point gain. What followed was what many have called the "perfect storm" of economic distress factors and eventually a $700bn bailout package (Troubled Asset Relief Program) prepared by Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by Congress. The Dow eventually closed at a new six-year low of 7,552.29 on November 20, followed by a further drop to 6626 by March of the next year. Durvexity spiked, due to funding issues at the major investment banks.The fall of Lehman also had a strong effect on small private investors such as bond holders and holders of so-called Minibonds. In Germany structured products, often based on an index, were sold mostly to private investors, elderly, retired persons, students and families. Most of those now worthless derivatives were sold by the German arm of Citigroup, the German Citibank now owned by Crédit Mutuel.Ongoing litigation - On March 11, 2010, Anton R. Valukas, a court-appointed examiner, published the results of its year-long investigation into the finances of Lehman Brothers. This report revealed that Lehman Brothers used an accounting procedure termed repo 105 to temporarily exchange $50 billion of assets into cash just before publishing its financial statements. The action could be seen to implicate both Ernst & Young, the bank's accountancy firm and Richard S. Fuld, Jr, the former CEO. This could potentially lead to Ernst & Young being found guilty of financial malpractice and Fuld facing time in prison.According to The Wall Street Journal, in March 2011, the SEC announced that they weren't confident that they could prove that Lehman Brothers violated US laws in its accounting practices.[In October 2011 the administrators of Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. lost their appeal to overturn a court order forcing them to pay £148 million into their underfunded pensions plan.As of January 2016, Lehman has already paid more than $105 billion to its unsecured creditors. In addition, JPMorgan will pay $1.42 billion in cash to settle a lawsuit accusing JPMorgan of draining Lehman Brothers liquidity right before the crash. The settlement would permit another $1.496 billion to be paid to creditors and a separate $76 million deposit.Source: Lehman Brothers - Wikipedia

Antonia is Sonia’s real name in her birth certificate. Sonia is the name given to her subsequently by her father, Stefano Maino [now deceased] following his return from Russia where he had been a prisoner of war. Stefano had joined the Nazi army as a volunteer. Sonia is a Russian not Italian name. While spending two years in a Russian jail, Sonia’s father had become quite pro-Soviet; especially after the liberating US army in Italy had confiscated all fascists’ properties including his.Second, she was not born in Orbassano as she claims in her bio data submitted to Parliament on becoming MP, but in Luciana as stated in her birth certificate. She perhaps would like to hide the place of her birth because of her father’s connection with the Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists, and her family’s continuing connections with the Nazi-Fascists underground that is still surviving since 1945 in Italy. Luciana is where Nazi-Fascist network is headquartered, and is on the Italian-Swiss border. There can be no other explanation for this otherwise meaningless lie.Third, Sonia Gandhi has not studied beyond Primary School. She has falsely claimed in her affidavit filed as a contesting candidate before the Rae Bareli Returning Officer in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections that she is qualified and got a diploma in English from the prestigious University of Cambridge, UK.The truth is that Ms. Gandhi has never studied in any college anywhere. She did go to a Catholic run seminary-school called Maria Ausiliatrice in Giaveno [15 kms from adopted home town of Orbassabo]. Poverty those days forced young Italian girls to go to such missionaries and then in their teens go to UK to get jobs as cleaning maids, waitresses and au pair. The Mainos were poor those days. Her father was a mason and mother a share cropper..Paola Maino Antonia Sonia Gandhi MotherSonia thus went to the town of Cambridge and first learnt some English in a teaching shop called Lennox School [which has since 1970 been wound up]. That is all her “education” which is enough English language to get domestic help jobs. But in Indian society education is highly valued. Thus, to fool the Indian public, Sonia Gandhi willfully fibbed about her qualifications in Parliamentary records [which is a Breach of Ethics Rules] and in a sworn affidavit [which is criminal offence under IPC, severe enough to disqualify her from being MP].This is just a beginning. As this booklet unfolds Sonia’s story, it reveals shocking details on the corruption and fraud, disrespect for Indian laws, alarming threat to democracy of India, religious intolerance towards Hinduism, pro-terrorist policies, dividing country to perpetuate dynasty rule.Sonia lied from President of India to a common man. She lied to the President about the number of MPs supporting her and to a common man on a trivial issue such as her educational qualification. She says that she is outside Government but controls every move Government makes and there is no record of her ever admitting or apologizing for any lies and mistakes.Non- Violence.Sonia is violent and her violence spans Political, Spiritual and Physical spheres. The way she installed herself to become congress president, the way she treats congressmen and opponents speaks volumes in Political Sphere. Her crusade against Hinduism such as Rama Sethu (historic bridge built by Lord Ram, as per Hindu Holy Book, “Ramayana”) speaks of spiritual violence. In the Physical sphere, Sonia was sympathetic in Congress party and in Government to the killers of 3000 Sikhs, where innocent Sikhs on streets of New Delhi were lynched to death. Jagdish Tytler who was one of the instigators of the lynching was rewarded with a Government ministry. Central Government provided a weak defense in courts and no congressmen was ever punished for the anti-Sikh pogrom. Rajiv Gandhi whose wife is Sonia even justified the killings by saying “When a big tree falls, the earth is bound to shake”. She is pursuing pro-terrorist policies for vote banks that resulted in number of killings in last three years she was in power just next to Iraq.Opinion on Hinduism and Ram SetuSonia, in her opinion and according to the affidavit submitted in Supreme Court, Ram is a fictional character and Ramayana never happened. Under her rule ‘Rama Sethu’ is being blown up just like Taliban blew up Buddha Statues. Her protégé Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister have attempted to take over 5 out of 7 Tirumala Hills for building Churches and Tourism. This is akin to non-Christians taking over Vatican for building their worship places. Her reasons for not taking firm action against terrorism are two fold. One is the sense that investigation would hurt vote bank and another is that the overwhelming number of those who were killed in the terrorism are Hindus who are not from the vote bank. As recently as few weeks she visited Andhra Pradesh that witnessed the brutal terrorist attack that killed more than 50 people and she did not go visit the city where attack occurred (Hyderabad) because those affected are not her vote banks.Truth Alone Triumphs (Satyameva Jayathe)Sonia, under her rule ‘Satyameva jayathe’ has been replaced by a Christian cross used by Louis the Pious (778-840) on currency coins. indian two rupees coin,compare it with french coinchristian cross on coins of french denier_louis_le_pieuxForeign Missionaries & conversionMahatma Gandhi: Gandhi, had a clear foresight about missionaries. On numerous occasions he condemned missionary activity. He said “If I had the power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytizing.” He further said “The effect of Christianity upon India in general…has been disastrous.” Regarding conversion Gandhi said “The idea of conversion, I assure you is the deadliest poison that ever sapped the fountain of truth.” He also said “Conversion is like a drop of poison which fouls the whole food” and that “poverty does not justify conversion”.Sonia is known for her sympathy and support to deceitful proselytization. Her party granted the high-security Air Force field to Benny Hinn to hold his healing charade that even Christian Trinity Foundation declared as a fraud. A leader of seventh day Adventist church, Ron Watts was ordered deportation by courts for his illegal activities. He seems to have been blessed by Sonia and continues to live in India. The state Governors she appointed have been consistently rejecting State laws to enact anti-conversion laws to prevent conversion of poor people by allurement.HYPOCRISY OF MOTHER & SONSONIA is a staunch roman catholic and she is be fooling the HINDU masses by putting tilak on forehead and by performing pooja in HINDU temples and bowing the head before pujari etc.She pretend to be Hindu,which she is not.We are quoting a report published on 24th march 2011,which is self explanatory.Indian envoy refers to Sonia as ‘Christian,’ reference is deletedFor the Congress, the subject of Sonia Gandhi’s religion is a touchy one and generally off-limits when it comes to official communications.Just how sensitive an issue it is was revealed last month when the official representative of the UPA Government in Washington, Ambassador Meera Shankar, delivered a speech at a US university referring to Sonia Gandhi being a Christian as a testament to India’s pluralism and diversity. However, that reference was later quickly deleted.In her keynote speech on the subject “Why India Matters” at Emory University on February 24, Shankar said: “India is a land of incredible diversity. Like the United States it celebrates pluralism. It not only tolerates diversity but has embraced it and has allowed people from all walks of life to flourish and realize their full potential. This is a tradition that is rooted in our civilization. Throughout our history peoples from other parts of the world have come to India and made it a home, resulting in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society, one where individual faith and belief is not only respected but adds to the overall sense of nationhood. Today the fact that we have a woman Head of State, a Sikh Head of Government and a Muslim Vice President and a Christian as the leader of the largest national political party is perhaps the best statement of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious nature of our state.”Sonia,according to the respected Swiss magazine (published in 1991), Schweitzer Illustrate, Rajiv Gandhi, her late husband had secret Swiss accounts worth $ 2 billion. Sonia is known for her close association with Italian fugitive Quattrocchi. Sonia and her family are believed to have looted country wealth worth billions of dollars.Secret unaccounted wealth in Swiss accountsSwiss magazine Schweizer Illustrierte published an explosive story in its issue dated Nov. 11, 1991 which disclosed that fourteen rules or ex-rulers of the third world countries have a deposit of foreign currencies equivalent to Rs. 5 lakh 50 thousand crores in Swiss banks. The magazine printed the names, photographs and the amount deposited by each of them. They included Idi Amin of Uganda, Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, Jean Claude Duvalier of Haiti, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Seke Moboto of Zaire, Nicolai Chausescue of Rumania, Haile Selassie of Thiopia, Abu Nida of Palestine, Jaafar Numeiri of Sudan, Suharto of Indonesia, Saddam Hussain of Iraq, Jaa B. Bokassa of Zontralafrika, Rajiv Gandhi of India and Reza Pahlevi of Iran, in that order. The amount said to be deposited by Rajiv Gandhi in various Swiss Banks was 2 billion US dollars. Most of them, who figure in the list, are infamous for being corrupt, nationally and internationally. The magazine which published this story is supposed to be a very serious publicationCPI(M) MP Amal dutta raised the matter in parliament, and he did mention the name of Rajiv Gandhi and the amount, but nothing could go on record for there was pandemonium from treasury benches which happened to be occupied by the Congress at that time. There upon, Sunday Mail carried this story and reproduced the photographs and money mentioned under their names which in turn was published in the Hindi daily Amar Ujala, too. The point to note was that Congress Government neither confirmed the story nor denied it. No defamation suit was filed by any of the fourteen leaders or by their relatives. This speaks volume about the Rajiv-Sonia couple. India can get her money back, according to the Swiss laws, if prosecution proceedings are finally launched against the heirs of Rajiv GandhiTHE ROYAL SON IN LAW ROBERT VADRA DUKE OF MORADABAD IS EXEMPTED FROM PRE-EMBARKATION SECURITY CHECKS.THE ROYAL FAMILY OF ITALIAN QUEEN VICTORIAFeelings towards enemies/detractorsSonia is known for her vindictive nature. She is known not to spare even her party men and routinely humiliates them. She even humiliated the dead body by denying a respectful funeral, of former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao who did not encourage Sonia’s political growth.Nationalism and confidence in IndiaSonia abandoned India during 1971 war and in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost elections she hid herself in Italian embassy. She did not even apply for Indian citizenship for 16 years though living in Prime Minister’s house.Moral principles vs. political GainsSonia,in 1997, Sonia pulled down United Front Government at centre because a political party DMK, a constituent of United Front Government was found to be close to her husband’s killers i.e., LTTE. Every election costs Indian tax payer billions of rupees. But in 2004, she joined hands with same DMK to gain power.Scams & Scandals.Sonia was almost and always in news due to some scandal or scam. Maruti Scam, Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, Indian Artifacts smuggling, Bofors kickbacks, Indira/Rajiv Trusts and Indira Arts Center usurpation, political manipulations are some of the widely published notorious scandals she was involved in.Contribution towards IndiaSonia: Except for scandals, scams and intolerance primarily towards Hindu institutions, she has no positive contribution to lay claim to.QUEEN WITH KING,PRINCESS AND CROWN PRINCESonia –Rajiv’s relationship(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)Ms. Sonia Gandhi upon learning enough English became a waitress in Varsity Restaurant in Cambridge town. She first met Rajiv when he came to the restaurant in 1965. Rajiv was a student in the University, but could not cope with the academic rigor for long. So he had to depart in 1966 for London where he was briefly in Imperial College of Engineering as a student. Sonia too moved to London, and according my information, got a job with an outfit run by Salman Thassir, a debonair Pakistani based in Lahore, and who has an export-import company headquartered in Dubai but who spends most of his time in London. This fits the profile of an ISI functionary.Obviously, Sonia made enough money in this job to loan Rajiv funds in London, who was obviously living beyond his allowances [Indira herself expressed anguish to me on this score in late 1965 when she invited me to a private tea at the Guest House in Brandeis University]. Rajiv’s letters to Sanjay, who was also in London then, clearly indicate that he was in financial debt to Sonia because he requested Sanjay who obviously had more access to money, to pay off the debt.However, Rajiv was not the only friend Sonia was seeing those days. Madhavrao Scindia and a German by name Stiegler are worth mentioning as other good friends of Sonia. Madhavrao’s friendship continued even after Sonia’s marriage to Rajiv. Scindia in 1982 was involved in a traffic accident near IIT, Delhi main gate while driving a car at 2 AM. Sonia was the only other passenger. Both were badly injured. A student of IIT who was burning midnight oil was out for a cup of coffee. He picked them up from the car, hailed an auto rickshaw and sent an injured Sonia to Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s house since she insisted in not going to a hospital. Madhavrao had broken a leg and in too much pain to make any demand. He was taken to hospital by the Delhi Police who had arrived a little after Sonia had left the scene. In later years, Madhavrao had become privately critical of Sonia, and told some close friends about his apprehensions about Sonia. It is a pity that he died in mysterious circumstances in an air crash.Sonia’s India connectionSonia’s connection with India is always found with all wrong reasons. A rational analysis of what India gained vs. what India lost reveals a shocking picture.Foreign Agency initiated marriage to RajivThe circumstance under which Rajiv hastily married Sonia in a Church in Orbassano is controversial but that was his personal matter that has no public significance. But what is of public significance is that Indira Gandhi who was initially dead set against the marriage for reasons known to her, relented to hold a registry marriage with Hindu ceremonial trappings in New Delhi only after the pro-Soviet T.N. Kaul prevailed upon her to accept the marriage in “the larger interest of cementing Indo-Soviet Friendship”. Kaul would not have intervened unless the Soviet Union had asked him to.Such has been the extensive patronage from the beginning extended to Sonia Gandhi from the Soviets. When a Prime Minister of India’s son dates a girl in London, the KGB which valued Indo-Soviet relations, obviously would investigate her and find out that she was the daughter of Stefano, their old reliable Italian contact. Thus, Sonia with Rajiv meant deeper access to the household of the Indian Prime Minister. Hence cementing the Rajiv-Sonia relations was in the Soviet national interest and they went to work on it. And they did through their then existing moles in the Indira Gandhi camp.After her marriage to Rajiv, the Soviet connection with the Mainos was fortified and nurtured by generous financial help through commissions and kickbacks on every Indo, Soviet trade deal and defense purchases. According to the respected Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate [November 1991 issue], Rajiv Gandhi had about $ 2 billion in numbered Swiss bank accounts, which Sonia inherited upon his assassination. Dr. Yevgenia Albats, PhD [Harvard], is a noted Russian scholar and journalist, and was a member of the KGB Commission set up by President Yeltsin in August 1991. She was privy to the Soviet intelligence files that documented these deals and KGB facilitation of the same. In her book, The State within a State, The KGB in Soviet Union, she even gives the file numbers of such intelligence files, which can now be accessed by any Indian government through a formal request to the Kremlin.The Russian Government in 1992 was confronted by the Albats’ disclosure; they confirmed it through their official spokesperson to the press [which was published in Hindu in 1992], defending such financial payments as necessary in “Soviet ideological interest”.When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, things changed for Ms. Sonia Gandhi. Her patrons evaporated. The rump that became Russia was in a financial mess and disorder. So Ms. Sonia Gandhi became a supporter of another communist country to the annoyance of the Russians.The national security ramification of this ‘annoyance’ is now significant: The President of Russia today is Putin, a former dyed-in-the-wool KGB officer. Upon Dr. Manmohan Singh’s government taking office, Russia called back it’s career diplomat Ambassador in New Delhi and immediately posted as the new Ambassador a person who was the KGB station chief in New Delhi during the 1970s. In view of Dr. Albats confirmed revelation, it stands to reason that the new Ambassador would have known first hand about Sonia’s connections with the KGB. He may have in fact been her “controller”. The new Indian government which is defacto Sonia’s, cannot afford to annoy him or even disregard Russian demands coming from him? They will obviously placate him so as not to risk exposure. Is this not a major national security risk and a delicate matter for the nation?Of course, all Indians would like good normal and healthy relations with Russia. Who can forget their assistance to us in times of need? Today’s Russia is the residual legatee of that Soviet Union which helped India. But just because of that, should we tolerate those in our government set up having clandestine links with a foreign spy agency? In the United States, the government did not tolerate an American spying for Israel even though the two countries are as close as any two countries can be. National security and friendship are as different as chalk and cheese.Illegal registration as a voterIn January 1980, Indira Gandhi returned as Prime Minister. The first thing Sonia did was to enroll herself as a voter. This was a gross violation of the law, enough to cause cancellation of her visa [since she was admittedly an Italian citizen then]. There was some hullabaloo in the press about it, so the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer got her name deleted in 1982. But in January 1983, she again enrolled herself as a voter! Such is her revealed disdain for Indian laws and that is her mindset even today.How and when she became an Indian citizenShe did not apply for Indian citizenship in 1968 when she married Rajiv and came to India, which is what good Indian wives would have done. She filled in an application in 1968 for permission to stay as a foreigner in India for five years. She said I am married, I am married into the family of the Indian Prime Minister but I would still like to remain a foreigner. So she was given a certificate in 1968 to reside in India as a foreigner for five years. Okay, this may have been due to some adjustment problems.In 1973, after the first five year period expired, she again applied for the permit to stay on India for another five years as a foreigner and this is the person who is going to live and die for us. I will now come to what Cho, my friend told me, never believe what she says. There is not only complete divorce between what she says and what she does there is also a clue that she will do precisely the opposite of what she says. I will come to it later, there are instances and instances. So, she again applied for a foreigner’s permit. You know why? Between 1968 and 1973, the indications were all there of the imminent war with Pakistan over East Pakistan. And sure enough, there was the Bangladesh war. During the Bangladesh war, when all commercial pilots were asked to forego their leave and come into service, she asked Rajeev to go on a long leave and he was given special permission and they left India. And throughout the period of the war, they were in Rome. Why, because the American seventh fleet was moving towards India and Sonia Gandhi probably had serious doubts about India’s survival! So she ran away from the country with her husband; to that extent faithful. And she returned only after peace was restored, after India had won the war, when because of Indira Gandhi, that family acquired stature and became invincible.So, we have to read between the lines, you have to look at the persons behind the skin. So, in 1973, she again applied for a permit to remain a foreigner in India. Now let us come to the period between 1973 and 1978. In the year 1977 when Mrs. Gandhi was defeated after she lifted the Emergency and called for elections, Sonia Gandhi learnt the mood of the nation and she went into the Italian embassy and refused to come out of it. She said she was going back to Italy. Sanjay Gandhi had to go and plead with her to return. This is the person who is going to live and die for India, please http://understand.To live in India is very different from living for India. And to live in India in such glory, with such protection, with such resources, is very different from dying for India. No one will die for something which one does not own up to. Owning up to India is different from thinking you own India.Abandoning India at the time of crisisThe bottom line observed in Sonia’s mindset is that she can always run back to Italy if she becomes vulnerable at anytime. In Peru, President Fujimori who all along claimed to be “born Peruvian”, faced with a corruption charge fled to Japan with his loot and reclaimed his Japanese citizenship.In 1977, when the Janata Party defeated the Congress at the polls, and formed the government, Sonia with her two children, abandoned Indira Gandhi and ran to the Italian Embassy in New Delhi and hid there. Rajiv Gandhi was a government servant then [as an Indian Airlines pilot], but he too tagged along and hid in that foreign embassy! Such was her baneful influence on him. Rajiv did snap out Sonia’s influence after 1989, but alas he was assassinated before he could rectify it. Those close to Rajiv knew that he was planning set things right about Sonia after the 1991 elections. She did too know of it because he had told her. Ever wonder why Sonia’s closest advisers are those whom Rajiv literally hated? Ambika Soni is one such name. Ever wonder why she asked the President of India to set aside, on a mercy petition, the Supreme Court judgment directing that Rajiv Gandhi’s LTTE killers be hanged to death, when she was not similarly moved for Satwant Singh who killed Indira Gandhi or recently for Dhanajoy Chattopadhyaya? The explanation for this special consideration for the LTTE lies in what Rajiv had told her in 1990.Sonia’s greed for power: How did she become party presidentSonia said that she was not interested in politics, she would not enter politics. She said she would not become a Congress member. She will only help the party as a person belonging to the Congress family. She said I am just a four penny member; I will not occupy any position.And then she goes and physically throws out poor Sitaram Kesari (then president of Congress party) from the office. Physically, poor fellow. He has gone to the toilet. His chair was empty, and you know what happened? These congress goons, they went and locked up the toilet and made Sonia occupy that place. And the elderly man cried. This is how she became the Congress President. In the same way as the western armies in the past, would invade other civilizations. Seize power, she seized power in a ‘coup d’toilet’.This is how every word that she has spoken so far had nothing to do with what she did. Her conduct was the very reverse of her professions.First confrontation with Indian law(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)After Sonia married Rajiv, she went about minting money with scant regard for Indian laws and treasures. Within a few years the Mainos went from utter poverty to billionaires. There was no area that was left out for the rip-off. On November 19, 1974, as fresh entrant to Parliament, I asked the then Prime Minister Ms. Indira Gandhi on the floor of the House if her daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi was acting as an insurance agent of a public sector insurance company [Oriental Fire & Insurance], giving the Prime Minister’s official residence as her business address, and using undue influence to insure all the officers of the PMO while remaining an Italian citizen [thus violating FERA]? There was uproar in Parliament, but Mrs. Indira Gandhi had no alternative but to cut her losses. She made a rare admission that it was so, and that it was by mistake, but that Sonia had resigned from her insurance agent status [after my question]. But Sonia was incorrigible. Her contempt for Indian law continued to manifest.The truth about Quottrochi(By Arun Shourie)Responding to a question regarding her family friend Ottavio Quattrocchi, at her singular press conference Mrs. Sonia Gandhi said, ”The CBI has said he is a suspect. But we have never seen the papers naming him in the deal. They should show the papers establishing that he is guilty.”The fact that he received money from Bofors, as well as particulars of his accounts into which the money was paid, transferred and re-transferred are available in the public domain, in judgments which the Courts have already delivered on appeals by her family friend..The relevant judgments are as follows:1. Judgment of the Chamber of Accusation, Switzerland, dated 6 September, 1996, in regard to Colbar Investments Ltd, Inc, and Ottavio Quattrocchi v. The decision taken by the Examining Magistrate on 12 July, 1995. THIS JUDGMENT WAS FURNISHED TO THE DELHI HIGH COURT INADVERTANTLY, PERHAPS! BY THE COUNSEL OF OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI HIMSELF.2. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 5 August, 1998, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. Central Bureau of Investigation.3. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India dated 23, February, 1999, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. CBI.4. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India dated 26, March, 1999, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. CBI.These judgments together establish the following facts about the money received by Ottavio Quattrocchi from Bofors.In his sworn affidavit, Myles Tweedale Stott revealed that he was contacted by Ottavio Quattrocchi. In accordance with their discussions, M/s AB Bofors entered into an agreement with AE Services on 15 November, 1985, and agreed to pay the latter THREE PER CENT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT if the contract was awarded to Bofors on or before 31 March, 1986.2. From 7 June, 1984 to early February, 1986, the Negotiating Committee met seventeen times. The Army consistently ranked the SOFMA gun as its number one preference. On 17 February, 1986, it switched its preference to Bofors. After a note from a Joint Secretary, mini signatures of ELEVEN OFFICERS AND MINISTERS headed by those of Rajiv Gandhi, the then Defense Minister and Prime Minister-were obtained IN LESS THAN 48 HOURS.3. Rajiv Gandhi visited Sweden on 14/15 March, 1986, and told the Swedish Prime Minister that the contract would indeed be given to Bofors. The deadline agreed to by Quattrocchi was thus met.4. On 2 May, 1986, the Government of India released 20 per cent of the contract money-that is, SEK 1,682,132,196.80- as the first advance payment to Bofors.5. On 20 August, 1986, Myles Tweedale Stott opened an account in the name of AE Services c/o Mayo Associates SA, Geneva. The account was NUMBER 18051-53 in the NORDFINANZ BANK, ZURICH.6. On 3 September, 1986, Bofors remitted SEK 50,463,966 into this account- then US $ equivalent being $ SEVEN MILLION THREE HUNDRED FORTY THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FORTY ONE, AND 98 CENTS- $ 7,343, 941.98. This amount was credited into the account on 5 September, 1986.7. THIS AMOUNT PAID BY BOFORS- SEK 50,463,966- WAS EXACTLY THREE PER CENT OF THE ADVANCE PAID BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT AS HAD BEEN STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT OF 15 NOVEMBER, 1985 BETWEEN BOFORS AND AE SERVICES.8. On 16 September, 1986- that is, within 11 days of the money being received into the account which had just been opened by AE Services- it was transferred to ACCOUNT NUMBER 254.561.60 W held by COLBAR INVESTMENTS Ltd in the Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva. The amount was transferred in two installments. $ SEVEN MILLION WERE PUT INTO THIS ACCOUNT ON 16 SEPTEMBER, 1986, AND ANOTHER $ 123,900 WAS PUT INTO IT ON 29 SEPTEMBER, 1986.9. IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI IS THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY. COLBAR INVESTMENTS. DOCUMENTS REVEAL THAT ONLY TWO PERSONS COULD OPERATE THE ACCOUNT OF THIS COMPANY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI AND HIS WIFE, MARIA. TO CONCEAL MATTERS, QUATTROCCHI GAVE A NON-EXISTENT ADDRESS IN DELHI FOR THIS ACCOUNT.10. On 6 August, 1987 a new company was floated in Panama, M/s WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI IS THE OWNER OF THIS COMPANY.11. An account-NUMBER 488.320.60 X- was opened within the same bank, the Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva, on the name of M/s WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA, THE NEW COMPANY QUATTROCCHI HAD OPENED. THIS ACCOUNT ALSO COULD BE OPERATED ONLY BY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI OR HIS WIFE, MARIA.12. On 25 July, 1988, ON THE INSTRUCTION OF OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI $ SEVEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND FORTHY THREE THOUSAND [that is, the amount received plus the interest which had accumulated] WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF HIS COMPANY, COLBAR INVESTMENTS TO THAT OF HIS OTHER COMPANY WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA.13. IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT, LIKE COLBAR INVESTMENTS, WETELSEN OVERSEAS WAS OWNED BY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI.14. In yet another round of laundering, on 21 May, 1990, another $200,000 were transferred from the account of M/s Wetelsen Overseas SA in the Union Bank of Switzerland into the account of INTER INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION with ANNSBACHER Ltd, St PETER PORT, GUERNSEY.15. The Swiss Court noted that Quattrocchi had denied receiving any commission directly or indirectly from Bofors. It noted on the other hand (a) the statement of Myles T Stott that the amount Bofors had paid AE Services was related to the agreement of sale of guns to India; (b) and the trail of subsequent transfers of the money to companies owned by Quattrocchi-from AE Services to Colbar Investments to Wetelsen Overseas. At page 7 of its judgment, the Swiss Court then noted,”This decision [ of the Examining Magistrate] was in particular imparted to Ottavio Quattrocchi, economical owner of Colbar Investments Ltd and Wetelsen Overseas SA, who in view of the documents transferred appeared to have received commissions through the channel of these companies, who had given no explanations and who had not obeyed the judge’s injunction of June 20th, 1994”.16. After setting out further facts, after rejecting roundly the assertions of Quattrocchi that he would not get justice in India and therefore the bank documents should not be allowed to be transferred at page 14 of its judgment, the Swiss Court pronounced,”The Requesting Authority can therefore neglect no track and insofar as the appellants seem to have been used as transfer channels for commissions paid out by Bofors, it is of the first importance that it have at its disposal elements as complete as possible enabling it to reconstruct the network susceptible of having been used and ending, in this case, at a firm in Guernsey..”Rejecting the contentions of Quattrocchi decisively, at page 15 of its judgment, the Swiss Court further concluded,”Now, Colbar Investments Ltd Inc and Ottavio Quattrocchi seem to have received an amount issuing from commissions paid by Bofors and one cannot therefore say that their appearance in the case, was the proceed of pure chance, especially that on the own confession of the appellants it appears that Ottavio Quattrocchi had relationships in India at the highest level and that he had very close relationships with this country.””In conclusion”, the Swiss Court said after rejecting further contentions, ”the recourse [in our terms, the appeal of Quattrocchi against the decision of the lower court that the relevant bank documents be transferred to India] IS ABSOLUTELY UNFOUNDED.”17. On 3 July, 1993, Interpol, Switzerland, informed India that appeals filed by Quattrocchi and others had been dismissed by the Swiss Supreme Court.18. For the next week, though he was in India, no action was taken to restrain Quattrocchi. On the contrary, as had happened in the case of Win Chaddha, Quattrocchi was allowed to escape from India on 29 July, 1993.19. The investigating agency raided the house and offices of Ottavio Quattrocchi. Diaries, family photographs, telephone records nailed his extreme proximity and of his wife to Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi.20. The Special Judge examining the case concluded that there was prima facie evidence to the effect that Ottavio Quattrocchi had received SEVEN MILLION ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS in the Bofors deal. Accordingly, he issued a non-bailable warrant for his arrest.21. Interpol issued a Red Corner Alert for his arrest on 17 February, 1997.22. Quattrocchi appealed against this Red Corner Alert on 7 April, 1997.23. The Interpol Supervisory Board rejected his appeal on 20 September, 1997.24. Quattrocchi then filed an appeal against the Special Judge’s order in the Delhi High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court roundly rejected the appeal. It held that it found no merit in the appeal. It held that the non-bailable warrant for his arrest was fully justified. The Court said,”We have in extensor quoted the averments which the respondent [the CBI] made in the application seeking the issuance of the warrants. The same on the face of it do constitute making of sufficient allegation pointing out that the evidence so far collected prima facie reveals that the petitioner was recipient of fraud committed in the Bofors gun deal, which he received for himself and on behalf of certain public servants and, therefore, he was required to be arrested and interrogated for expeditions investigation of the case and to reveal the truth.”25. Quattrocchi then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. On his behalf his counsel told that Supreme Court that Quattrocchi would indeed appear before the Special Court, that he would cooperate with the investigating authorities who want to interrogate him, and that for this purpose the would remain in India for two weeks. The Supreme Court recorded these assurances in its order on 22 February, 1999, and directed him to appear before the Special Judge on 15 March, 1999, and remain present in India for two weeks thereafter so as to enable the investigating authorities to interrogate him. The date came and went, Quattrocchi did not appear.26. The matter was taken again to the Supreme Court. It recorded, ‘we strongly disapprove the manner in which the petitioner [Quattrocchi] has conducted himself in the proceedings before this Court”. That was on 26 March, 1999.Each of these facts is a matter of public record. Each is available in judgments of the highest courts of India and Switzerland.And yet Mrs. Sonia Gandhi says,”We have never seen the papers naming him in the deal. They should show the papers establishing that he is guilty”!There is a second striking feature. A comparison of dates will show that with each failure of Quattrocchi’s efforts to escape the law, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s efforts to bring down governments in India accelerated.Who is Quottrochi?(Dina Nath Mishra)Five years ago, India was at the crossroads. An ordinary, Italy-born woman had all but grabbed the prime ministerial chair, claiming the support of the majority of Lok Sabha members. The 120-year-old Congress willingly surrendered to the Italian bahu (daughter-in-law) of the dynasty. The oldest party in the country could not find a single individual other than her to lead it and the nation of over a billion people.On her part, the widow of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi made bold to strangle inner-party democracy. Five years ago, the nation was saved by the bell. For, finally, the nationalist in Mulayam Singh Yadav surfaced, and he quietly put paid to Sonia’s dreams. There may be a whole lot of reasons why she should not be the Prime Minister of India. But just one is enough: She is not of Indian origin.Today, when the nation is once again witnessing the battle of the ballot, every nationalist of every party should ponder whom is he voting? He may be voting for the CPI (M), which ultimately translates into support for Sonia Gandhi, whether directly or indirectly. They may be voting for Laloo Prasad Yadav’s party, which would ultimately strengthen the hands of Sonia Gandhi. They may be voting for the DMK-Ied front whose prime ministerial candidate is Sonia and Sonia alone. They may be electing PDF candidates in J&K but with the same result. The duty of all true nationalists then is to ensure that power does not slip into the hands of someone of foreign origin.The ramifications of her entry into Prime Minister’s Office are numerous. One of them is the Quattrocchi angle. Ottavio Quattrocchi, the representative of the powerful Milan-based Italian company Snamprogetti, originally came to India as a chartered accountant based in a Chennai- based Italian MNC. Gradually, he made his way into the corridors of power especially after Rajiv Gandhi burst on the political scene in the wake of Sanjay Gandhi’s death in a mysterious air crash. It is essential to understand the Quattrocchi phenomenon, particularly in relation to Sonia Gandhi.He worked for a firm which provided services like designing, engineering, management of construction and training of personnel in the sectors such as oil refineries, gas processing, petrochemicals, fertilizers and pipelines. He had no experience of any guns, gun-systems or related equipment. However, he was a close friend of Rajiv Gandhi’s family.Investigation has shown that the families of Rajiv Gandhi and Ottavio Quattrocchi were on very intimate terms and they used to meet frequently. Quattrocchi and his family had free access to the Prime Minister’s house. As a result, Quattrocchi was able to project himself as a person of great influence.Even during the 1980s, when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, Quattrocchi had direct frisk-free entry to Prime Minister’s residence, courtesy the Italian ‘bahu’ of Indira Gandhi. Senior journalist Mahendra Ved had this to say in The Times of India (Delhi Edition; February 3, 1998): “Throughout the 1980s, Ottavio Quattrocchi, the affable Italian, was the man about town who moved in high circles and wielded influence in the corridors of power. His word, spoken in smooth Italian-accented English, was the law.“Ministers would rise in their chairs whenever he would walk in unscheduled and see him off, apparently due to his proximity to the then ruling Gandhi family. One minister, Ramachandra Rath, who did not oblige, was dropped in the next round of cabinet reshuffle, recalls a former Member of Parliament. Rath was at the moment talking to veteran Gandhian, BN Pande, and took exception to Quattrocchi simply walking in.“This was also the era of ‘four powerful women’ in New Delhi. They held kitty parties and went on picnics, recalls a Delhi socialite. They were Sonia Gandhi, Maria Quattrocchi, Nina Singh, wife of Arun Singh and Sterre, the Dutch wife of Satish Sharma.“If Rath paid a ‘price’, so did two Fertilizer secretaries, senior enough to become Cabinet Secretaries. Mr. KV Ramanathan had sought a ‘correct’ approach in the awarding of the Thal- Vaishet fertilizer project to Messrs Kellogg and CF Braun. Snam Progetti, the Italian public sector multinational that Quattrocchi represented in India, did not have the appropriate technology.”The decision by the late HN Bahuguna was reversed by Indira Gandhi in 1980. Snam was conversant only with the technology for urea-based fertilizer, while Thal-Vaishet was to run on ammonia. Snam hired the technology from a Dane, Haldor Topsoe, who was essentially an individual consultant. That matter came up in Parliament in a big way.Even while releasing the 1999 election manifesto of the Congress, Sonia Gandhi dodged the question of Quattrochi connections. But her connection with ‘Q’ is too well known to be forgotten. Here I reproduce the news story written by AB Mahapatra in Free Press Journal dated February 20, 1998.“Ottavio Quattrocchi, whose extradition is demanded by many political parties in connection with the Bofors case, had access to sensitive files in the Prime Minister’s Office when Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister and he was able to appoint ministers and top bureaucrats. Authentic sources told the Free Press Journal that he used to get information about cabinet meetings and its agenda much in advance. When he was visiting offices, ministers and bureaucrats used to get up from the chair to receive him. He was a frequent visitor to the official residence of India’s so-called royal family without security check, a privilege very few enjoyed.”Though officially Quattrocchi was the representative of the powerful Milan-based Italian company Snamprogetti, he worked as a conduit for some in receiving kickbacks and transferring them to safe havens in many deals for over a decade. “In every deal there was a cut. At least there, he was loyal to the royal family,” remarked a retired bureaucrat.He used to appoint ministers, bureaucrats, PSU executives and finalized deals which came his way, even if those were beyond his areas of expertise. The word ‘no’ perhaps did not figure in his dictionary. Soft-spoken Quattrocchi, also worked as an extra-constitutional power centre since 1980s.He got ministers and bureaucrats sacked and snubbed the most influential people of his time who challenged his authority. For Quattrocchi, it was a meteoric rise and an ignominious fall as well, as he has been disowned by the Italian company, Snamprogetti, which he represented in India and elsewhere for more than 16 years. He was known to almost all the top ranking people who mattered and his proximity to Gandhi family was the talk of the town.While the AB Bofors executive, Martin Ardbo, who negotiated the Rs 1,700 crore Bofors gun deal, mentioned him in his diary as the mysterious ‘Q’, his victims in India call him as a ‘pushing man’.He was a good PR man for Snam which won as many as 60 projects worth Rs 30,000 crore in its favor during his tenure. Today, there is nobody to save ‘Q’ in Milan, the headquarters of Snam’s holding company, “ENI.Moreover, ENI’s chief executive committed suicide in 1993 and many of its senior officers are facing police cases on charges of corruption. Snam” ‘a state-owned company of Italy, is not involved in the Bofors deal as such. But Quattrocchi’s activities as a middleman in international deals has raised many an eyebrow as far as the company’s credibility is concerned.While it is widely believed that Quattrocchi is at present a consultant to Snam in Kuala Lumpur, the company has diplomatically denied it. However, it was believed that he was operating from Snam’s India regional office when the Bofors deal was finalized in 1986.The company has clarified that it was not aware of Quattrocchi’s other alleged activities in India and maintained that he was a full time representative of the company. Even the company has said that it has no idea of Quattrocchi being wanted by the CBI which has already sought his extradition from Kuala Lumpur to prosecute him in the Bofors case.This was first noticed in 1980 when Indira Gandhi returned to power. The government had decided to award the contract for ammonia technology for RCF’s Thal plant to CFBraun of the US. But he wanted the World Bank-aided project to be awarded to Haldor Topsoe of Denmark, a sister concern of Snam. Quattrocchi played a crucial role in the appointment of PC Sethi as Petroleum Minister and tilted the deal in favor of Holder Topsoe -against the World Bank’s decision. Later, the World Bank withdrew from the project.That was his first showdown where he proved he could get what he wanted. That virtually gave a clear message to policy-makers and bureaucrats to follow Q’s line of action.He also had an encounter with Vasant Sathe, then Fertilizer Minister, over a project in Guna which till the last moment was very much in favour of Kellogg. But ‘Q’ got the decision reversed in favour of Snam. Those who toed his line were rewarded; those who did not were punished. Ti1l 1985, ‘Q’ used to resort to pressure tactic to get his work done but the real showdown took place when Snam did not get the 1,700 km long HBJ pipeline contract which went to Spie Capag of France. That perhaps was his first defeat; He wanted to punish those who stood in his way.The first to go was former Petroleum Secretary AS Gill who was very much in favor of piecemeal tenders instead of turnkey contracts to make the country self-reliant in terms of technology. That did suit ‘Q’ because India’s self-reliance in this field was bound to harm his interests.There was a standing order for implementation of Snam technology in every petroleum and fertilizer project which had been issued by the Rajiv Gandhi Government. But Gill had contested that order by showing another official order issued by Indira Gandhi where she reportedly said that there should be technology transfer in case of any foreign participation. But that did not happen in practice.Interestingly, ‘Q’ used to clarify his position a day after Gill had written to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on the official file regarding technical difficulty of a particular project for clearance. “That means files were going to him accordingly:’ said a former official.Gill, who had a bright career and was all set to become the next Cabinet Secretary on the basis of seniority, told the FPJ that “there is nothing left for comment after 14 years of my retirement.”Naval Kishore Sharma, Minister of State for Petroleum, was shunted out to the All India Congress Committee as general secretary. VP Singh, who did not change evaluation norms in favor of Snam, and Arun Nehru who allegedly backed the French consortium to win a contract from Snam, had to leave both the government and the party.HS Cheema, former chairman of Gas Authority of India Limited, was removed in similar fashion. It was Quattrocchi who played a major role in removing him as chairman. “Yes, my career was a bright one all along but there was some unseen hand behind all this,” Cheema said in a telephonic interview from Solan, Himachal Pradesh to the newspaper.Former Indian Oil Corporation Chairman Venkatsubramanian, who refused to call Quattrocchi for talks, had to go even though the government was at a loss to explain the specific reason for his removal. A senior official whom Quattrocchi once offered money indirectly to get a project done, recalled, “He (‘Q’) said he can arrange Rs. two crore for the one who you like the most.” But the official got angry and asked Quattrocchi to get out of his room and never try to contact again. “That was the last time I met him. I have not received any new year greeting since then,” according to the senior official.I shall now list out all the major projects backed by Quattrocchi’s company, thanks to his proximity to Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi.Projects won by Snam/TopseProjects Location Client YearTwo Ammonia Plants ThaI Vaishet RCF 1981Three Urea Plants ThaI Vaishet RCF 1981Four Urea Plants Hazira Kribhco 1981One Gas Pipeline Hazira ONGC 1981One Ammonia Plant Una NFL 1983Two Urea Plants Guna NFL 1983One Ammonia Plant Aonla IFFCO 1984Two Urea Plants Aonla IFFCO 1984One Ammonia’plant Jagdishpur Indo Gulf 1985Two Urea Plants Jagdishpur Indo Gulf 1985One Offshore Complex ONGC 1986One Ammonia Plant Kakinada NFCL 1987One Urea Plant Kakinada NFCL 1987One Ammonia Plant Gadepan Chambal Fer 1988Two Urea Plants Gadepan Chambal Fer 1988One Ammonia Plant Babrala Tata Chem. 1988Two Urea Plants Babrala Tata Chem 1988One Gas Pipeline Network ONGC 1988One Ammonia Plant Shahjahanpur Bindl Agro 1988Two Urea Plants Shahjahanpur Bindl Agro 1988One TPA MTBE Plant Mahul BPCL 1990H-P Isobutene Plant Taloja Lubrizol 1991One Ammonia Plant Guna NFL 1994Two Urea Plants Guna NFL 1994One Ammonia Plant Aonla IFFCO 1994Two Urea Plants Aonla IFFCO 1994One Ammonia Plant Kakinada NFCL 1994Two Urea Plants Kakinada NFCL 1994One Ammonia Plant Phulpur IFFCO 1994Two Urea Plants Phulpur IFFCO 1994Let us now move from fertilizers and chemicals to armaments that became the new grazing ground for Ottavio Quattrocchi,A First Information Report was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation on January 22, 1990, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act against Martin Ardbo, President of AB Bofors of Sweden, WN Chadha and GP Hinduja of London and others including beneficiaries of M/s AB Services Ltd of UK, alleging that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy during 1982-87 and in pursuance thereof committed offences of cheating, forgery, bribery, etc., to the extent of Swedish Kroners 319.40 million (approximately Rs 64 crore) in the matter of contract regarding supply of 410 FH- 77 guns, etc., at a total cost of SEK 8410.66 million (approximately Rs 1437.72 crore).Investigation of the case included several countries including Switzerland. During Narasimha Rao’s prime ministership, these investigations were placed on the bargaining counter. Rao bought peace with Sonia to continue in power. In an atmosphere of lull, one of the chief offenders slipped to Malaysia and has not returned till date.The governments of HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral used the same Bofors case for counter-bargaining. First, Deve Gowda was ousted from power by the then president of the Congress, the late Sitaram Kesri to install IK Gujral as Prime Minister.But CBI investigators moved fast and secured some important documents from the Swiss Government. For a decade the most important missing link has been Ottavio Quattrotchi. Ottavio Quattrocchi remained in India from February 28, 1964, to July 29, 1993, except for a brief interval between March 4, 1966, and June 12, 1968. Ottavio Quattrocchi, thereafter suddenly left India on July 29/30, 1993, in order to escape the process of law and has not returned to India since then.Ottavio Quattrocchi was the beneficiary of the amount of commission for himself or others received by M/s AB Services from M/s AB Bofors, as practically the entire amount, i.e. PS$ 7,123,900 (approximately 97 per cent of the total) was transferred from the account of M/s AB Services to the account of M/s Colbar Investment Limited Inc. Further, he has been transferring the funds received from M/s AB Bofors frequently from one account to another and from one jurisdiction to another to avoid detection and evade the due process of law.During the proceedings before the Chamber D: Acquisition, Geneva in relation to the appeal filed by him against the execution of Letters Rogatory issued by the Court of Special Judge, Delhi (India), at the request of Central Bureau of Investigation, Ottavio Quattrocchi reportedly had even admitted to his relationship at the highest level in India.This is to be seen in the light of the fact that Bofors had paid SEK 50,463,966.00 in the name of commission to M/s AE Services on September 3, 1986, and virtually all this amount was transferred by AE Services to Quattrocchi’s Colbar Investment Ltd; Inc. in Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva on September 16 and 29, 1986.The proximity of Ottavio Quattrocchi with the then Prime Minister of India, the contractual promise of AE Services to M/s AB Bofors to swing the deal) in their favour in a short span of time, the transfer of virtually all the commission amount (received by AE Services) to Quattrocchi’s Colbar Investments Ltd.Soon after the receipt, further transfer of funds from one account to another and from one jurisdiction to another soon after the disclosure of offences, his giving a non-existing address in the relevant bank, his contesting the execution of Letters Rogatory in Switzerland, his sudden disappearance from India after disclosure of his name by an appellant, all are the factors which prima facie show the involvement of Quattrocchi in the offence of criminal conspiracy for cheating and criminal misconduct by public servants.On receipt of crucial documents from Switzerland in January 1997, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Delhi on October 22, 1999, against SK Bhatnagar, WN Chadha, Ottavio Quattrocchi, Martin Ardbo and M/s AB Bofors for trial for offences, under sections 120-H Indian Penal Code r/w section 420 Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and substantive offences thereof.Further investigation under Section 173 (8) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 continued. At the time of filing of charge sheet, accused Ottavi of Quattrocchi was based in Malaysia and as such, proceedings for his extradition were initiated there. After the lower court did not accede to the request of his extradition on certain preliminary technical grounds, the matter was taken up in higher courts and at present, it is pending before the Court of Appeals in Kuala Lumpur.CBI is in touch with the authorities in Italy and efforts for ascertaining the present whereabouts of Quattrocchi through Interpol and diplomatic channels are continuing.The CBI was informed by Interpol, London, on June 25, 2003, that Quattrocchi, against whom charge sheet was also filed along with others in CBI case No RC 1(A)/90- ACU-IV/SIG (Bofors case) has an amount of three million pounds (approximately ) in a UK bank account and the same was likely to be moved out very shortly. The CBI requested IP, London, to freeze the said account pending a formal Letters Rogatory. A Letters Rogatory dated July 21, 2003, was issued by the Court of Special Judge, New Delhi. The Letters Rogatory was further supplemented on certain points on July 24, 2003, by the Court.An amount of US$ 1 million and Euro 3 million held in two bank accounts i.e. Account No. 5A51516L & 5A51516M of accused Ottavio Quattrocchi held with BSI AG, 39 King Street, London EC2V 8QD were frozen by the authorities in the UK on the strength of a restraint order issued by the London High Court, Queen’s Bench Division on July 25, 2003 pursuant to Letters Rogatory issued by the Court of the Special Judge, New Delhi.The aforesaid restraint order was challenged by Ottavio Quattrocchi and the London High Court has dismissed his application for discharge of restraint order with cost of UK £ 30,000.00 vide its judgment delivered on November 24, 2003.Subsequently, an appeal was filed by Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Supreme Court of Judicature, London, against the judgment of London High Court. The Supreme Court of Judicature, London, has dismissed the said application on January 20, 2004, again with cost of UK £ 38,000.00.The authorities in the United Kingdom have also been requested by the CBI to conduct investigation into the source of aforesaid restrained funds. While the funds held in the aforesaid accounts have been restrained, the request for execution of Letters Rogatory is still pending.A request had been conveyed to the concerned authorities in UK through Interpol Division of CBI on Decmber 3, 2003, and reminder dated January 30, 2004, for execution of the aforesaid Letters Rogatory on priority and intimating the present status in the matter. But so far, no response has been received from the UK authorities in the above matter.Where did all this money come from? Why did Bofors pay such huge sums to Quattrocchi when India purchased field guns for its army? Since Sonia Gandhi has been the dearest friend of the Quattrocchi’s for over three decades and since she provided them unprecedented access to the prime minister’s office and residence for long years, she owes the country an explanation.Maruti Scandal and FERA violationsThe second and equally disturbing event is the impunity with which Sonia Gandhi violated the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 30 years ago. This happened with the launch of a company called Maruti Technical Services Private Limited (MS’FPL) on November 16, 1970. This company was set up by her along with her brother-in-law Sanjay Gandhi to provide technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly of a ‘wholly indigenous motor car’.It is in the context of this company, of which she was half-owner and managing director while being an Italian national that the question of FERA violation arises.The company’s story provides valuable insights into the mind of Sonia Gandhi, who is often credited with much innocence and gullibility by those around her. The birth of MTSPL, preceded that of another company, Maruti Limited, which was to avail of the former’s ‘know-how’ to produce the cars.The Articles of Association of MTSPL named Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi as the first and permanent directors of the company, who between them held 20 shares of Rs 10 each. In other words, its paid-up capital was Rs 200 at the time of its launch. On November 21, 1970, just days after its incorporation, MTSPL entered into an agreement with Sanjay Gandhi, who owned 50 per cent of it.Under this agreement, Sanjay agreed to render ‘technical know-how’ to the company for a consideration of Rs 3 lakh. In June 1971, Maruti Limited was incorporated under the Companies Act and Sanjay Gandhi became its Managing Director. On December 15, 1971, MTSPL allotted 1500 equity shares of Rs 10 each to Sanjay Gandhi. On June 2, 1972, MTSPL entered into an agreement with Maruti Ltd, according to which MTSPL was to be paid Rs 5 Lakh in lump sum by the latter for providing the technical know-how.This document describes MTSPL, of which Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi were the only directors, as a technical company ‘which has the capability of imparting technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly in India of a wholly indigenous motor car’. It was also entitled to an annual technical fee of two per cent of the net sales of motor cars.Six weeks after this agreement, Maruti Ltd paid the promised Rs 5 lakh to MTSPL. Later, MTSPL kept its word and paid Sanjay Gandhi, its half owner, Rs 3 lakh in order to purchase ‘technical know-how’ from him!The next move came about a year later. MTSPL appointed the owner of its other half, Sonia Gandhi as its managing director. This happened at an ‘extraordinary general meeting of share holders’ held on January 25, 1973.Suffice it to say that Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi, the two directors, were also the only share-holders of the company at that time. Soon thereafter, MTSPL signed an agreement with Sonia Gandhi as per which she was to remain the managing director of the company for five years. She was to get a salary of Rs 2000 per month and one per cent commission on the net profits of the company, subject to a limit of 50 per cent of her annual salary plus perquisites.Sometime later, the company allotted 2000 shares to Sonia Gandhi. For some reason, this was later sub-divided into two share certificates of 1900 and 1000 shares respectively and 1900 shares were allotted to her on February 4, 1974. On the same day, 4000 shares each were allotted to Priyanka and Rahul, the two minor children of Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi.Even more fascinating was the decision of the Nehru-Gandhi family to launch yet another company, to make among other things, road rollers, and to appoint Sonia Gandhi as managing director of this firm as well. This company, called Maruti Heavy Vehicles Private Limited, had 13 shareholders but the Nehru-Gandhis had the controlling shares.This was incorporated on February 22, 1974, and Sonia Gandhi acquired 5000 shares in it. She entered into an agreement with this company on September 28, 1974, in regard to her appointment as its MD. But this agreement was not implemented and she did not draw any salary.In 1975, this road roller company too sought out Maruti Technical Services Company, in search of know-how to make road rollers. An agreement was signed on April 1, 1975, between the two companies, according to which the road roller company was to pay the know-how company two per cent of net sales of road rollers and spare parts.Did Sonia Gandhi, who was then a citizen of Italy, violate any Indian laws by becoming the managing director of an Indian company and by acquiring shares in Indian companies?Was MTSPL, which was floated by Sanjay and Sonia, competent to provide technical know-how to make ‘a wholly indigenous motor car’ and road rollers? Was Sonia Gandhi technically qualified and competent to be the managing director of such companies?A Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice AC Gupta, which probed the Maruti Scandal and submitted its report in 1978, provides the answers to all these questions. The commission’s report said SM Rege, who was Secretary of Maruti Ltd, told the commission it was known to all concerned that Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national and not a citizen of India.S Kumar, Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana, said the allotment of shares of MTSPL and MHVPL to Sonia Gandhi in 1974 was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and therefore `ab initio void’. After listening to the testimony of several such witnesses, the commission concluded:“It was a fact known to all concerned that Ms Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national. In view of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, which came into force on January 1, 1974, she could neither hold shares of any Indian company nor hold any office of profit in such company from the date the Act came into force without the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India,”The commission further noted, “She tendered her resignation on January 21, 1975. It is surprising that Ms Sonia Gandhi who did not have any technical qualification should be appointed managing director of a technical company. Quite a large sum of money was paid to her on account of her salary and perquisites during the period she remained the managing director of the company.”The Gupta Commission also recorded the fact that A Banerjee, Income- Tax Officer, disallowed part of the remuneration to Sonia Gandhi as excessive “because she had no qualifications to be able to render any technical service to the company”.Among other issues, the commission went into the question of the competence of MTSPL to provide know-how to make cars and road rollers. WHF Muller, a German technician on the staff of MTSPL, told the commission that all that Maruti Ltd produced were 10 to 12 prototypes which were ‘hand-made’ and ‘fabricated/purchased in parts’ and not of the same design. They were different from one another.Yet another witness said MTSPL had no qualified graduate engineer for design on its rolls. There was no fixed and finalized design for the vehicles and no research and development facility. Yet, dealers were recruited and asked to set up show rooms “to create an impression that the appearance of the Maruti car in the market was imminent”.Two such dealers, who were given cars to exhibit in their show rooms, narrated their experience to the commission. “One had to push the car to his show room, and the other who returned the car to the Maruti garage for repairs following a brake failure while he was driving, did not get back either the car or the money (Rs 22,000 // $1 = Rs.40) he had paid for it.”The commission also spoke about the rough and ready methods used by Maruti Ltd against the dealers who wanted to back out. “One of the dealers, Mr. SC Agarwal, who terminated his agency was threatened by Sanjay Gandhi that he would be sent to jail. Mr. Agarwal had to apologize by touching Sanjay’s feet. Mr. Om Prakash Gupta of Hapur who had asked for payment of interest due to him on his security deposit was arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act.”Witnesses also told the commission that MTSPL did not have any technically qualified person or specialist on road rollers. The commission, therefore, concluded: “Maruti Technical Services was not competent to render technical know-how in respect of Maruti cars. There is no evidence that it had the know-how in respect of road rollers.”The Maruti cars that are now on Indian roads came to be produced after the Central Government took over the company and brought genuine “know-how” from Japan and dispensed’ with the bogus “Italian” know-how that the company was saddled with in its formative years.In any case, the bottom line is that the contents of the Gupta Commission Report and the Voters’ List Episode provide sufficient evidence of Sonia Gandhi’s disdain for Indian laws. Regrettably, it would appear the Nehru-Gandhi family was party to these fraudulent declarations.Although an Italian citizen, she was appointed Managing Director of Maruti Technical Services Private Limited on January 25, 1973. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), which was debated and passed by Parliament that year, came into force on January 1, 1974.Among other things, it prohibited foreigners from owning shares or accepting appointment in Indian companies without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Yet, Sonia continued as Managing Director and resigned only on January 21, 1975. She had thus violated FERA for over a year. Section 56 of the Act, which listed the punishment for contravention of FERA, says that violations of this nature can attract imprisonment for periods ranging from six months to seven years.Smuggling of Indian artifacts(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)Those who have no love for India will not hesitate to plunder her treasures. Mohammed Ghori, Nadir Shah, and the British scum in the East India Company made no secret of it. But Sonia Gandhi has been more discreet, but as greedy, in her looting of Indian treasures. When Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were Prime Ministers, not a day passed when the PM’s security did not go to the New Delhi, or Chennai international airport to send crates and crates unchecked by customs to Rome. Air India and Alitalia were the carriers. Mr. Arjun Singh first as CM, later as Union Minister in charge of Culture was her hatchet man. Indian temple sculpture of gods and goddesses, antiques, pichwai paintings, shatoosh shawls, coins, and you name it, were transported to Italy to be first displayed in two shops owned by her sister [i.e., Anuskha alias Alessandra]. These shops located in blue-collar areas of Rivolta [shop name: Etnica] and Orbassano [shop name: Ganpati] did little business because which blue collar Italian wants Indian antiques? The shops were to make false bills, and thereafter these treasures were taken to London for auction by Sotheby’s and Christies. Some of this ill-gotten money from auction went into Rahul Gandhi’s National way into the Gandhi family account in the Bank of America in Cayman Islands.Rahul’s expenses and tuition fees for the one-year he was at Harvard, was paid from the Cayman Island account. What kind of people are these Gandhi-Mainos that bite the very hand of Bharat Mata that fed them and gave them a good life? How can the nation trust such greedy thieves?Terrorist connections(By Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)Sonia has had long connection with the Habash group of Palestinian, and has funded Palestinian families that lost their kith and kin in a suicide bombing or hijacking episode. This, Rajiv Gandhi himself told me and was confirmed to me [the funding] by Yassir Arafat when I met him in Tunis on October 17, 1990 at the request of Rajiv Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi and I were good friends from 1978, but became very close buddies after V.P. Singh had betrayed him in 1987. We met practically every day, mostly in the early hours from 1AM to 4AM. It was at my suggestion that he made Chandrashekhar the PM. And contrary to public impression, he was not mainly responsible for the fall of Chandrashekar government in which I was a Minister.Besides the Palestinian extremists, the Maino family have had extensive business dealings with Saddam Hussein, and surprisingly with the LTTE [”the Tamil Tigers”] since 1984. Sonia’s mother Paola Predebon Maino, and businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi were the main contacts with the Tigers. The mother used the LTTE for money laundering and Quattrocchi for selling weapons to earn commissions.Sonia’s conduit to the LTTE has been and is through Arjun Singh who uses Bangalore as the nodal point for contact. There is a string of circumstantial evidence pointing to the prima facie possibility that the Maino family may have contracted the LTTE to kill Rajiv Gandhi. The family may have assured the LTTE that nothing would happen to them because they would ensure it is blamed on the Sikhs or the evidence so much fudged that no court would convict them. But D.R. Karthikeyan of the CBI who led the SIT investigation got the support of Narasimha Rao and cracked the case, and got the LTTE convicted in the trial court, and which conviction was upheld in the Supreme Court.Although on the involvement of Congress Party in the assassination, DRK soft peddled on a number of leads perhaps because he did not want political controversy to put roadblocks on his investigation as a whole. The Justice J. S. Verma Commission, which was set up as the last official act of the Chandrashekhar government before demitting office on June 21, 1991, did find that the Congress leaders had disrupted the security arrangements for the Sriperumbudur meeting. The Commission wanted further probe into it but the Rao government rejected that demand. In the meantime under Sonia’s pressure, the Jain Commission was set up by the Rao government, which tried to muddy the waters and thus exonerate the LTTE. But the trial court judgment convicting the LTTE came earlier, and that sinister effort too failed.The Maruti scam (by Arun Shourie)Maruti was one of the most odious scandals connected with Mrs Indira Gandhi and her family. The Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice A C Gupta recorded that, though she was at the time a foreigner, Sonia Gandhi secured shares in two of their family concerns: Maruti Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. (in 1970 and again in 1974), and Maruti Heavy Vehicles (in 1974). The acquisition of these shares was in contravention of the very Act that Mrs Gandhi used to such diabolic effect in persecuting her political opponents, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Just another technicality!But the Mother of Technicalities, so to say, is to be found in the way Sonia Gandhi, without having any known sources of income, has become the controller of one of the largest empires of property and patronage in Delhi. The Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Library and Museum is one of the principal institutions for research on contemporary Indian history. It is situated in and controls real estate which, because of its historical importance, cannot even be valued. The institution runs entirely on grants from the Government of India. Sonia Gandhi has absolutely no qualification that could by any stretch of imagination entitle her to head the institution: has she secured even an elementary university degree, to say nothing of having done anything that would even suggest some specialization in subjects which the institution has been set up to study. But by mysterious technicalities she is today the head of this institution. So much so that she even decides which scholar may have access to papers — even official papers — of Pandit Nehru and others of that family, including, if I may stretch the term, Lady Mountbatten.Donation of public money to Sonia controlled foundations to promote her interestsReal estate, only slightly less valuable, has been acquired on Raisina Road. The land was meant to house offices of the Congress. A large, ultra-modern building was built — the finance being provided by another bunch of technical devices which remain a mystery. The building had but to get completed, and Sonia appropriated it for the other Foundation she completely controls — the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. The Congress(I) did not just oblige by keeping silent about the takeover of its building, in the very first budget its Government presented upon returning to power, it provided Rs 100 crores to this Foundation. The furore that give-away caused was so great that the largesse had to be canceled. No problem. Business house after business house, even public sector enterprises incurring huge losses, coughed up crores. The Foundation has performed two principal functions. The projection of Sonia Gandhi and enticing an array of leaders, intellectuals, journalists etc. into nets of patronage and pelf.But the audacity with which the land and building were usurped and funds raised for this Foundation falls into the second order of smalls when they are set alongside what has been done in regard to the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts.This Centre was set up as a trust in 1987 by a resolution of the Cabinet. The Government of India gave Rs. 50 crores out of the Consolidated Fund of India as a corpus fund to this Centre. It transferred 23 acres of land along what is surely one of the costliest sites in the world — Central Vista, the stretch that runs between Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate — to this Trust. Furthermore, it granted another Rs. 84 crores for the Trust to construct its building.The land was government land. The funds were government funds. Accordingly, care was taken to ensure that the Trust would remain under the overall control of the Government of India. Therefore, the Deed of the Trust provided, inter alia, every ten years two-thirds of the trustees would retire. One half of the vacancies caused would be filled by the Government. One half would be filled by nominations made by the retiring trustees.The Member Secretary of the Trust would be nominated by the Government on such terms and conditions as the Government may decide. The President of India would appoint a committee from time to time to review the working of the Trust, and the recommendations of the committee would be binding on the Trust.No changes would be made in the deed of the Trust except by prior written sanction of the Government, and even then the changes may be adopted only by three-quarters of the Trustees agreeing to them at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. Now, just see what technical wonders were performed one fine afternoon.A meeting like any other meeting of the trustees was convened on18 May, 1995. The minutes of this meeting which I have before me list all the subjects which were discussed — the minutes were circulated officially by Dr Kapila Vatsyayan in her capacity as the Director of the Centre with the observation, “The Minutes of this meeting have been approved by Smt Sonia Gandhi, President of the IGNCA Trust.”What did the assembled personages discuss and approve? Even if the topics seem mundane, do read them carefully — for they contain a vital clue, the Sherlock Holmes clue so to say, about what did not happen.The minutes report that the following subjects were discussed:1: Indira Gandhi Memorial Fellowship Scheme and the Research Grant Scheme.2: Commemoration volume in the memory of Stella Kramrisch.3: Sale of publications of the IGNCA.4: Manuscripts on music and dance belonging to the former ruling house of Raigarh in M P5: Report on the 10th and 11th meetings of the Executive Committee.6: Approval and adoption of the Annual Report and Annual Accounts, 1993-94.7: Bilateral and multilateral programs of IGNCA, and aid from U N agencies, Ford Foundation, Japan Foundation, etc.8: Brief report on implementation of programs from April 1994 to March 1995.9: Brief of initiatives taken by IGNCA to strengthen dialogue between Indian and Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, China.10: Documentation of cultural heritage of Indo-Christian, Indo-Islamic and Indo-Zoroastrian communities.11: Gita Govinda project.12: IGNCA newsletter.13: Annual Action Plan, 1995-96.14: Calendar of events. 15: Publications of IGNCA.15: Matters relating to building project.16: Allocations/release of funds for the IGNCA building project.There is not one word in the minutes that the deed of the Trust was even mentioned.This meeting took place on 18 May, 1995. On 30 May, 1995 Sonia Gandhi performed one of technical miracles. She wrote a letter to the Minister of Human Resources informing him of what she said were alterations in the Trust Deed which the trustees had unanimously approved. Pronto, the Minister wrote back, on 2 June, 1995: “I have great pleasure in communicating to you the Government of India’s approval to the alterations.”The Minister? The ever-helpful, Madhav Rao Scindia. And wonder of wonders, in his other capacity he had attended the meeting on 18 May as a trustee of the IGNCA, the meeting which had not, according to the minutes approved by Sonia Gandhi, even discussed, far less “unanimously approved” changes in the Trust Deed. And what were the changes that Sonia Gandhi managed to get through by this collusive exchange of two letters?She became President for life. The other trustees — two-thirds of whom were to retire every ten years — became trustees for life. The power of the Government to fill half the vacancies was snuffed out. The power of the Government to appoint the Member Secretary of the Trust was snuffed out; henceforth the Trust would appoint its own Member Secretary.The power of the President of India to appoint a committee to periodically review the functioning of the Trust was snuffed out; neither he nor Government would have any power to inquire into the working of the Trust.A Government Trust, a Trust which had received over Rs. 134 crores of the tax-payers’ money, a Trust which had received twenty three acres of invaluable land was, by a simple collusive exchange of a letter each between Sonia Gandhi and one of her gilded attendants became property within her total control.The usurpation was an absolute fraud. The Trust Deed itself provided that no amendment to it could come into force — on any reasonable reading could not even be initiated and adopted — without prior written permission of the Government. Far from any permission being taken, even information to the effect that changes were being contemplated was not sent to Government. An ex post “approval” was obtained from an obliging trustee. That “approval” was in itself wholly without warrant. Such sanctions are governed by Rule 4 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. This Rule prescribes that when a subject concerns more than one department, “no order be issued until all such departments have concurred, or failing such concurrence, a decision thereon has been taken by or under the authority of the Cabinet.” Other departments were manifestly concerned; concurrence from them was not even sought. The Cabinet was never apprised.The rule proceeds to provide, “Unless the case is fully covered by powers to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds, conferred by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance, no department shall, without the previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, issue any orders which may… (b) Involve any grant of land or assignment of revenue or concession, grant… (d) Otherwise have a financial bearing whether involving expenditure or not…”And yet, just as concurrence of other departments had been dispensed with, no approval was taken from the Finance Ministry.The Indian Express and other papers published details about the fraud by which what was a Government Trust had been converted into a private fief. Two members of Parliament — Justice Ghuman Mal Lodha and Mr. E. Balanandan — began seeking details, and raising objections.For a full two and a half years, governments — of the Congress (I), and the two that were kept alive by the Congress (I), those of Mr. Deve Gowda and of Mr. I. K. Gujral — made sure that full facts would not be disclosed to the MPs, and that the concerned file would keep shuttling between the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Ministry of Law.As a result, Sonia Gandhi continues to have complete control over Governmental assets of incalculable value — through technicalities collusively arranged.Here is an overview of Sonia’s EmpireName of the trust Year founded Budget Function1 Rajiv Gandhi Trust 1991 Rs. 24 Crore The Trust Helps the women and the children. Also active in the field of literacy, health, aviation and science.2 Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Contemporary Studies 1992 Rs. 3 crore Study of the public policy from Rajiv Gandhi’s viewpoint3 Jawahar Bhawan Trust 1989 Unknown Registered for maintaining Jawahar Bhawan4 Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust 1985 Rs. 3 crore Organizes lecture on the occasion of the distribution of Indira Gandhi Peace Prize given once in every two years5 Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Museum and Library 1985 Unknown This a Government committee which besides maintaining Nehru memorials organizes seminars and exhibitions6 Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund 1965 Rs. 7 crore It maintains Anand Bhawan and Swaraj Bhavan in additions to providing Nehru fellowship7 Veer Bhoomi and Sriperumbdur Memorial committee 1991 by the Ministry of the Rural Development This committee which is solely handled by Sonia, manages the two memorial places associated with Rajiv GandhiRGF list of donorsOne another dimension of Sonia Gandhi’s greed for real estate and money [power has been amply exhibited in the way she acquired six trusts bearing the name of Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. It is a well-known fact that Jawahar Bhawan was built to house the Congress party headquarters, but the building worth hundred crores was manipulated to be the property of Rajiv Gandhi Trust of which she is a chairperson trustee for the life. It may be recalled that scores of public and private sector, undertakings were advised to pay handsome donations to RG foundation. The sample of the donors’ list along with the money is given below: (As per the list of donors published in daily Jansatta on December 14, 1992)Name AmountJ.N.M fund 1,00000.00Hindustan Times Ltd. 20,00000.00Satlaj Cotton Mills Ltd. 6,00000.00M/s J&K Industries Ltd 5,00000.00M/s Straw Products Ltd. 5,00000.00Smt. Sonia Gandhi 1,00000.00Shri G D Parthasarathi 5,00000.00Shri Bharat H. Barai 1,00000.00Dunlop India 20,00000.00Mathair & Plant India Ltd. 5,00000.00Orissa Cement Ltd. 2,00000.00Hindustan Door Oliver Ltd. 5,00000.00Shri M. R. Chabariya Charity Trust 1,00000.00ITC Ltd. 50,00000.00ANZ Grindlays Bank 6,00000.00M/s Indian Petro Chemicals Cor. Ltd. 5,00000.00Ravi’s Sant Pvt. Ltd. 1,51,000.00Click Nicson Ltd. 7,50000.00Niryat Pvt. Ltd. 10,00000.00Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (I) 2,00000.00Snow Chem India Ltd. 7,50000.00Bajaj Auto Ltd. 25,00000.00M. N. Dastoor & Company 5,00000.00M/s JCT Ltd. 12,50000.00M/S Fera Alloys Corpo Ltd 2,50000.00M/S APJ Ltd 2,50000.00M/s Simplo (E) Tea Company Ltd 2,50000.00M/s Surendra Overseas Ltd. 2,50000.00M/s Assam Frontier Tea Ltd. 2,50000.00M/s Empire Plantation (E) Ltd. 2,50000.00M/s Usha Rectifire Corp (E) Ltd. 10,00000.00M/s Prajakta Finance and Trading Pvt. Ltd. 7,50000.00M/s Kausar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 7,50000.00M/s S G Chemical and Dyes Trading Ltd 10,00000.00Mahalakshmi Charitable Society 12,50000.00M/s Godfray Philips (E) Ltd 12,50000.00Shri SS Surjewala 1,11000.00M/s Batliboi & Company Ltd. 1,00000.00M/s Carner Sone Brands Ltd. 1,50000.00Shri Natthu Bhai Patel 1,00000.00M/s Associated Beverage & Distilleries 1,00000.00U N Mehta Charitable Trust 1,50000.00All India Congress Committee 50,00000.00M/s Indian Polaseze Comp Ltd. 5,00000.00M/s Deepak Fertilizers and Petro 3,00000.00M/s Indian Acritize Ltd. 1,00000.00Central Bank of India 2,00000.00M M Joshi Trust 5,00000.00C D Vajpayee Trust 5,00000.00K N Singh Trust 5,00000.00R Gupta Trust 5,00000.00Shri B. N. srivastava 5,00000.00Treasurer, AICC 50,00000.00Sethi Trust 15,00000.00Indo-soviet Pharmacy 1,00000.00M/s Jury Agro Chemicals Ltd. 25,00000.00M/s Vinayaka Enterprises 2,000000.00M/s Vinayaka Enterprises (Rawgandha Mint) 1,00000.00M/s Adarsh Enterprises 2,00000.00M/s Mejestic Acriviter 2,00000.00Ravi Kumar Traders 2,00000.00Shri Ram Krishna Lodge 2,00000.00Rangnath Enterprises 2,00000.00M/s Shri Ram liquor 2,00000.00Mahamahim Srhi Li pand 5,15771.00Mahanager Telephone Nigam Ltd. 10,00000.00Treasurer, AICC(I) 50,00000.00M/s Premium Exports Ltd. 2,50000.00Responsible Builders Pvt. Ltd. 10,00000.00Jyotsna Holding Pvt. Ltd., 15,00000.00Warden Armenion Church 10,00000.00Rohan Motors Pvt. Ltd., 7,50000.00Meravnazi Security 1,00000.00ONGC 1,00000.00UniPatch Ruber Ltd., 1,00000.00Shri Harshad S Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00Promor Race Asset Manage Ltd- Ascro Khata 6,25000.00Shri J H Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00Shri Ashwin Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00RPG enterprises (According to 4,18900.00(According to RGF foundation 1,83100.00M/s Borosil Glass Works Ltd 1,00000.00M/s M P Dist Ltd. 1,00000.00M/s Asian Capital Consolidated Fund 1,00000.00Shri P V Huglar 5,16000.00Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00Shri Lalit Suri 50,00000.00M/s Wahwan Automotive Centre 1,23396.59Peerless General Finance & Investment 50,00000.00Setia Trust 5,00000.00Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00Shri Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00Smt Meena Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00Shri Vishal Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00Bindal Agro Chemical Ltd., 25,00000.00Fund Raising sub committee for RGF 12,33370.00All India Congress Committee (I) 25,00000.00M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., 25,00000.00M/s Bindal Agro Chemical Ltd. 25,00000.00M/s Mysore Cements Ltd., 20,00000.00M/s Simco Ltd., 5,00000.00M/s coloride Ind Ltd., 15,00000.00M/s VXL Indian Ltd., 10,00000.00CESC Ltd., 37,50000.00Miscellaneous 1,15000.00Soka Glai International 5,74268.00Firozeshah Godrej Foundation 4,00000.00Treasurer, AICC (I) 25,00000.00Larsen and Toubro Ltd., 10,00000.00Dena Bank 1,00000.00Finish Development Agency (Phinida) 3,44827.59Vijayshri Liquor Company Pvt. Ltd., 5,00000.00H. Themmegowda 7,50000.00J P Narayan Swamy 5,00000.00Ravi Kumar Traders 7,50000.00The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company 25,00000.00Nobody pays any money for nothing. Most of the money has been paid by repeated reminders (read coercion)IGNCAIndia Today published a report about Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts in its issue dated July 5, 1999. The write up exposed her manipulation, some portions are given below.“… with Congress having ruled the country the longest, it is not surprising that its president Sonia Gandhi has not only gained her family’s political inheritance but also control over its vast assets in the form of public trusts, institutions and funds. The IGNCA was set up in 1987 with a corpus fund of Rs. 50 crore, a grant of Rs. 100 crore for its grandiose yet-to-come-up edifice, 21 acres of prime land in Delhi (worth of Rs. 5,000 crore), a battery of Government officers on deputation and 15 duplex flats in the capitals Asian Games complex (worth over Rs. 1 crore each).The IGNCA’s original trust deed provided for the trustees to hold office for a period of 10 years, the Member-Secretary to be appointed by the Government and for the President of India in his capacity as the visitor to periodically review the functioning of the IGNCA. However, in May 1995 the trustees without seeking the permission of the Government made crucial changes to the trust deed. According to a document circulated by the IGNCA Workers Union, “During 1994-95, when the Congress party was facing an uncertain elections, Vatsyayan, the then Member-Secretary, got certain major changes carried out in the basic structure of the IGNCA so as to remove the role of the Government of India in the affairs of the IGNCA altogether”.The new trust deed made Sonia life president of the IGNCA and bestowed life membership on R. Venkataraman, P.V.Narasimha Rao, Pupul Jayakar, H.Y.Sharada Prasad and Vatsyayan. When Jayakar declined to accept life membership saying “Indira would be shuddering in her grave if she knew what was happening in her name”. Mahmohan Singh was drawn into the charmed coterie in her place. More significantly, the role of the President of India as visitor was done away with as was the power of the Government to appoint the member-Secretary. Kapila Vatsayayan, who till then held the post with the rank of a Secretary n the Union Government and had reached the age of superannuation, was given the rank equivalent to that of a Minister of State and re-designated Academic Director. Madhavrao Scindia, then HRD Minister, gave post facto approval to the changes without consulting either his department or others like finance, urban affairs of parliamentary affairs.Nor was the matter ever discussed by the Cabinet, then. With the IGNCA clearly violating its own original constitution, the Attorney-General believes that the so-called life president and all the life trustees were not legally exercising their authority over the institution. Moreover, despite receiving huge amounts of public money, the IGNCA does not submit itself to scrutiny of the CAG and instead has hired private Chartered Accountants to do the job. The Government insists that the IGNCA open its book for the CAG and is all set to see this matter to its logical conclusion. “We may even take over its assets if they don’t restore the original trust deed”, says a high official in the DoC. Meanwhile, notices are being issued to the IGNCA officials to vacate the Asiad Village flats where they have been overstaying without even paying the nominal Rs. 685 monthly rent. However, in a country where occupation is two-thirds of the title and political exigencies more powerful than the niceties of law, Joshi’s audacious bid to restore status quo ante in the IGNCA may prove to be difficult, if not more, than throwing out the Pakistani intruders in Kargil”.BoforsFinally the mega corruption issue – the Bofors investigation – which Sonia Gandhi never allowed to be completed. During the Narasimha Rao years, he bought peace with Sonia Gandhi on the bargaining counter in Bofors inquiry itself. The tenure of V P Singh was too short, and Chandra Shepherd was not too enthusiastic, for the probe to be completed. When Deve Gowda pushed the inquiry and then CBI chief Joginder singh was about to start the proceedings further, Sonia Gandhi saw to it that Gowda was toppled. It was again for the furtherance of the proceedings by Prime Minister I K Gujral, that the government led by him was toppled. When Vajpayee gave clearance and the papers went to the President, within a fortnight his Government was too voted out on the specific instructions of Sonia Gandhi.The CBI has enough documents to prove close linkage of ‘Q’ with Sonia and her family. The joint photographs showing Sonia Gandhi, Rajiv’s family members, and ‘Q, several travel documents which prove beyond doubt that Mr. Q’ and Sonia’s family were more closer than knowledgeable people can think of. Quattrocchi’s name is there in kick-back accounts; the remaining last leg of the inquiry is bound to catch Mr. ‘Q’ red-handed, which would in turn show the real greedy Sonia.Sonia vs. Gandhi: The controversy, the Full Page Ad in New York Times in Oct 2007 that triggered multi million dollar lawsuits against activists in US.US activists requested Sonia proxy in US, INOC (India National Overseas Congress) that Sonia is not the right person to represent Gandhi’s principles at UN on Oct 2, 2007 and not to use his name for political purposes. They requested to bring in a freedom fighter from Congress party itself. But INOC started calling activists fundamentalists and other names. About 500 NRIs gathered in front of UN when Sonia spoke on Oct 2nd, 2007 and they took out a full page Ad in New York Times Ad. In Apr 2008, INOC sued with multi 100 million dollar lawsuits which were challenged in US courts and defeated. READ THE WHOLE STORY AT Gandhi Heritage -It is an accepted fact that almost every Indian politician is corrupt if measured against Gandhian principles every Indian politician will fail on some points or other but Sonia would fail on every point. Sonia is a symbol of what Gandhi advocated against. She is trying to wear Gandhi’s cloak to cash on Gandhi’s fame and gain legitimacy. Gandhi stood for:I. Sat — which implies openness, honesty, and fairness: TruthSonia repeatedly proved her untruthfulness and dishonesty. Even in a trivial issue such as her educational qualifications she lied. Furthermore there is no public record of her ever apologizing for her mistakes.II. “Ahimsa” — refusal to inflict injury on others.Sonia is known for vengeance actions. She is known for intolerance towards party members who rejoined her party.III. “Tapasya” — willingness for self-sacrifice.There is no incidence of Sonia’s sacrifice. She sacrificed India, congress party and national icons such as Gandhi to promote herself and her children.Anybody who respects Gandhi will be against misusing his name and fame. This protest is an attempt to save Gandhi’s name and legacy from misuse..