Application Form: Fill & Download for Free

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..

Not wind and solar as the Alarmists believe. After more than 5 trillion wasted on subsidies these renewables have yet to reach 1 % of world wide energy consumption. Also Co2 continues to rise but this does not matter as there is no evidence our carbon footprint has any impact on the climate. This claim is pseudo science and a hoax.Think about what we learned in high school about the importance of photosynthesis the elixir of plant life.– CO2 is integral to the Carbon Cycle of Life, as such CO2 is a necessary requirement for Carbon Based Life Forms. CO2 feeds life and is the source of organic carbon whence it was extracted through photosynthesis by plants and phytoplankton. More atmospheric CO2 feeds more life.– Theory that atmospheric CO2 (0.04%) causes the Earth’s surface to warm by reflecting the energy emitted by the Earth’s surface. This Theory has no Laws, Axioms, Postulates, nor formulae because we are unable to measure this purported physical property of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the real world. We can’t even measure this property on Mars with an atmosphere of 95% CO2. This theory is used to promote the idea that less atmospheric CO2 helps life.Fortunately the public are increasingly put off by foolish unproven climate hysteria blaming industry for a warming climate and now for a cooling climate. Recent elections in Australia, Canada and Holland all reject the alarmist fear mongering. The public are not duped by fudged data and far fetched exaggerated predictions about sea levels, polar bears and glacier ice.No climate for change: How Scott Morrison used Labor's policies against them as Americans hail 'the Trump effect' after pollsters' catastrophic blunderScott Morrison’s ‘miracle’ election win has been cheered by US conservatives and compared to Donald Trump’s surprise 2016 presidential win.The Coalition won despite 55 Newspolls in a row predicting they would lose – echoing how the US president rose to power against pollsters’ predictions in 2016.The Liberal campaign had emphasized the cost of Labor’s climate change policies – which included reducing carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030.And while Labor campaigned against the controversial Adani mine, the Coalition focused on the jobs boost of the new development.On Saturday night, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Labor’s stance on climate had cost them the election.After Bill Shorten failed to secure votes in Queensland the Liberal Party elder said Labor did not reassure voters about job security.‘When they saw a Labor Party prepared to destroy jobs in the name of climate ideology in relation to the Adani mine, they said: “That’s not for Queensland”‘, he said.On Sunday morning American TV news channel Fox News labeled Mr. Morrison’s win as ‘a stunning victory’.American political activist Pamela Geller meanwhile trumpeted ‘the people are taking back their countries from the totalitarian left’.‘SHOCKING Australia Election Results: Australia’s Conservative Party Seizes Stunning Win: The Trump effect. Polls were wrong…. again,’ Ms. Geller, founder of The Geller Report and president of Stop Islamisation of America, wrote on Twitter.US news site Axios told readers the election result indicates ‘Australia will continue to closely resemble the Trump administration’s positioning on climate change’.‘Climate advocates had said this election would be a referendum on the current leadership’s positions on climate change,’ Ms. Harder wrote.‘The results suggest that either voter don’t care as much about the issue compared to others or they prefer less aggressive measures, as the current leadership is pursuing.’The New York Times described how ‘the conservative victory also adds Australia to a growing list of countries that have shifted rightward through the politics of grievance, including Brazil, Hungary, and Italy.‘Mr. Morrison’s pitch mixed smiles and scaremongering, warning older voters and rural voters in particular that a government of the left would leave them behind and favor condescending elites.’James Grant Matkin, vancouver, Canada,Great result showing the Australian public are not duped by the fake climate crisis advanced by media and lefty politicians. Temperatures are declining from low solar activity. Alarmist science demonizing coal and Co2 is wrong. CO2 increase lags, not leads warming, Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate change. This recent Bohr institute study confirms a 200 year lag, and aligns perfectly with natural warming since the end of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age.How Scott Morrison Used Labor's Climate Policies Against ThemHow ScoMo used Labor's policies against themCo2 LAGS TEMPERATURE CHANGE NOT PRECEDE ITEasterbrook, 2016“CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”In an El Nino year, Water vapour is 4% of the atmosphere can rise to 5% and CO2 from 0.39 to 0.42. Human made CO2 would remain about the same in that year. .Co2 is the air we breath out at 35,000 ppm with every breath. It is necessary for life on the planet through the process of photosynthesis converting radiant energy to chemical.Figure 2.3: Photosynthesis: In the process of photosynthesis, plants convert radiant energy from the sun into chemical energy in the form of glucose - or sugar.Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enters the plant leaf through stomata, i.e., minuteepidermal pores in the leaves and stem of plants which facilitate the transfer of various gases and water vapor.The entire process can be explained by a single chemical formula.6CO2+12H2O + Light → C6H12O6+ 6O2+ 6H2OWater (6H2O) + carbon dioxide (6 CO2) + sunlight (radiant energy) = glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (6O2).Credit: Energy Explained Penn State University.Photosynthesis is the transformation of radiant energy to chemical energy.Plants take in water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight and turn them into glucose and oxygen. Called photosynthesis, one of the results of this process is that carbon dioxide is removed from the air. It is nature's process for returning carbon from the atmosphere to the earth.The "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.Radiant to ChemicalFigure A. Graphs of the overall atmospheric concentration and the relative percentages of trace gases such as Co2.The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.The Role of Water VapourWater vapor is, by far, the most powerful natural greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, absorbing heat across many wavelengths in the infrared spectrum. However, the impact of a greenhouse gas must also consider how long that gas remains in the atmosphere and how much it varies from place to place.From a humid rainforest to an arid desert, the amount of water vapor varies wildly around the world, making up anywhere between zero and four percent of the atmosphere. It also varies over time through seasonal changes and with height. The higher you get in the atmosphere, the drier it can become.For Greenhouse gases water vapour at 95% is major not Co2 that is near zero.Anthropocentric CO2 is Only 0.117% !OUTLINEFossil fuels are the best energy source when compared with unreliable wind and solar due to indeterminacy.China is helping other developing nations expand coal power plants to bring the life saving electricity grid to the poor.Dream of wind and solar renewables saving the climate and ending polluting fossil fuels is becoming a deadly nightmare.Adding renewables to the grid causes major cost increase in electricity.Fuel poverty from increased electricity costs kills more than fatal road accidents in the UK alone.Freezing winters everywhere, not moderate without snow as alarmists predicted makes keeping warm a matter of life or death.The fears from predicted catastrophic global warming all fail as 90% of glacier ice expands, Pacific islands rising not sinking, SEA LEVELS STABLE OR FALLING mm of change (7″ in 130 years), fewer hurricanes, floods, tornadoes. wild fires and droughts.Coal is necessary for > 2 billion living without electricity in China, India etc.China opens new coal power every week wiping out all other Co2 cuts.Scientific consensus crumbles as more leading scientists discredit one trick pony hypothesis of weak amounts of CO2 in green house gases.Public opinion shifts against taking action on climate change.Fudging data by UN scientists brings climate science into disrepute.Earth’s climate is too chaotic, nonlinear and unpredictable to know the future more than a few weeks out.Compter models run too hot as researchers fail to mimic reality.US withdraws from Paris accords meaningless carbon targets.Australian political coalition rolls back energy targets and decides to build coal power plants for more cost efficient energy.CHINA BUILDING 300 NEW COAL POWER PLANTS AROUND THE WORLDDate: 30/04/19China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.The flow of Chinese financing for new coal-fired power plants throughout Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. GLOBAL COAL FINANCE TRACKER / COALSWARMChina, known as the world’s biggest polluter, has been taking dramatic steps to clean up and fight climate change.So why is it also building hundreds of coal-fired power plants in other countries?President Xi Jinping hosted the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing over the weekend, promoting his signature foreign policy of building massive infrastructureand trade links across several continents.The forum, attended by leaders and delegates of nearly 40 countries, came amid growing criticism of China’s projects, including their effect on the environment.China’s President Xi Jinping speaks at a press briefing at the end of the final day of the Belt and Road Forum on Saturday.Wang Zhao/AFP/Getty ImagesXi took the highly unusual step, for him, of meeting with international journalists, during which he repeated the slogan that he is committed to “open, clean and green development.”Yet China’s overseas ventures include hundreds of electric power plants that burn coal, which is a significant emitter of the carbon scientifically linked to climate change. Edward Cunningham, a specialist on China and its energy markets at Harvard University, tells NPR that China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.Days before the forum with its “clean and green” theme, the latest Chinese-built coal plant opened in Pakistan.The plants are significant investments at a time when most nations of the world, including China, have committed to fighting climate change. “When you put money down and put steel into the ground for a coal-fired power plant,” says Cunningham, “it’s a 40- or 50-year commitment.”Game Over: Europe’s Great Renewables Rush Faces ArmageddonMay 27, 2019 by stopthesethings 3 CommentsDeath and taxes are certainties, so is the fact that wind and solar investment disappears just as soon the subsidies are cut. Without massive (and seemingly endless) subsidies we wouldn’t be having this conversation: there would have been no such thing as wind and solar power, on any scale, or at all.Twelve countries in the European Union (EU) failed to install “a single wind turbine” last year.And, as a result, the manufacturers of turbines and solar panels are dropping like flies, as subsidies are rolled back across Europe.Dr John Constable tallies up the (inevitable) carnage below.Is the Long Renewables Honeymoon Over?The Global Warming Policy ForumJohn Constable11 May 2019The European renewables industry press, which is usually unequivocally upbeat in its assessments, is currently reporting a broad spectrum of substantial problems in the sector, ranging from bankruptcies and technical problems to tepid policy support and increasing public resistance.In a fundamentally viable energy generation sector such stories could be regarded as minor perturbations, but in one that has been for decades all but completely insulated from risk by subsidy and other non-market support, it suggests deep-seated structuro-physical weakness.The German wind turbine manufacturer Senvion S.A., formerly trading under the name of RePower, is currently in financial difficulties. This Hamburg-based firm, which has installed over 1,000 wind turbines in the UK alone, applied to commence self-administered insolvency proceedings in mid-April this year, and is at present sustained by a EUR 100m loan agreement with its lenders and main bond holders.Senvion has delayed both its AGM, which was due to take place on the 23 May, and also the publication of its recent financial results. At the time of writing the company had not yet announced a new timetable.For nearly eight years, from 2007 to 2015, Senvion was owned by the Indian wind turbine manufacturer, Suzlon, and is now the property of the private equity firm, Centerbridge Partners. It is currently rumoured in the industry press that Centerbridge may now be compelled to cut its losses by making a distressed sale to Asian, probably Chinese, companies seeking a cheap way of acquiring a wind power market toehold in Europe.Western companies are thought to be unlikely to have the appetite for such a purchase, and their reluctance is entirely understandable: as Ed Hoskyns shows in a recent note for GWPF using EurObservER data, the annual installation rates for wind and solar have halved in the EU28 since 2010.Senvion may be the first major company to feel the effects of this downturn, and is certainly large enough for its difficulties to have wide ramifications, with two of its suppliers, FrancEole, which makes towers, and the US company TPI Composites, which makes blades, both being hurt by reduced revenues. Indeed, FrancEole was already in a poor way, and is now reported as being on the verge of liquidation.Projects that were being supplied by Senvion are also affected, with the building of one, Borkum West 2.2, a 200 MW offshore wind farm, being suspended mid-construction since components due from Senvion have not been delivered on schedule.This delay, which has been front-page news in some circles, must be causing considerable headaches for Borkum West’s developer, Trianel GmbH, which is apparently now seeking to establish direct links with Senvion’s suppliers so that they can complete the project.Elsewhere in the offshore wind universe, two large and relatively new projects are in the midst of what must be costly repairs involving significant downtime. Having received regulatory approval, the Danish mega-developer Orsted is about to start removing and renovating all 324 blades on the 108-turbine, 389 MW, Duddon Sands wind farm in the UK part of the Irish Sea, a year after problems first became apparent.The machines used, the Siemens 3.6–120, have suffered leading edge erosion, a problem that affects perhaps some 500 turbines in Europe (See “Type Failure or Wear and Tear in European Offshore Wind?”), and requiring the application of a remedial covering to each blade.Less can be read in the public domain about the repairs about to restart at the gigantic, EU-funded Bard Offshore 1, which is owned by Ocean Breeze Energy GmbH & Co. KG. The project, which commissioned in 2013, has eighty 5 MW turbines, with a total capacity of 400 MW.Bard had already suffered a well-known series of cable failures, and it now transpires that both nacelles and rotors have been undergoing replacement for about two years, though Ocean Breeze is, according to industry press reports, apparently declining to confirm how many turbines are affected. The company’s website gives no information in either German or English that I could find.There would, then, appear to be a great deal of work in servicing offshore wind installations, but this has not been enough to prevent Offshore Marine Management Ltd (OMM), a UK-based offshore wind contractor, entering into voluntary liquidation after several years of losses. Interestingly, OMM, a relatively small company though prominent in the UK, cited the increasingly “competitive nature” of the sector as a factor underlying its failure, and it seems likely that it was unable to survive the efforts of developers determined to reduce both capital and operational and maintenance costs to the bone (and judging from the failures reported, perhaps into the bone itself).With margins pared thin, costly local suppliers may quite simply be forced out of the market, and regardless of their other merits. Related evidence of this phenomenon, which is clearly global, can be found in the fact that the Danish mega-developer Orsted is now grumbling that the Taiwanese government’s insistence of a high level of local content for its projected 900 MW Changua 1 & 2a offshore wind farms will double the capital cost from approximately £1.6m/MW to about £3m/MW.One wonders whether this underlying reality was discussed at the recent and apparently robust meeting between the Scottish Government and the offshore wind industry, convened because the Scottish metal manufacturing firm BiFab had not been commissioned to make equipment for the 950 MW Moray East wind farm, a wind farm that has one of the much over-hyped Contracts for Difference at £57.50/MWh. The supply deals had instead been awarded to Lamprell, which is based in the UAE.The Scottish Energy Minister, Paul Wheelhouse, MSP, used the meeting to express “significant frustration” that local firms had been involved to such a small degree hitherto, in spite of repeated promises. Did Benji Sykes of the Offshore Wind Industry Council, present at the meeting, cite the Taiwanese case and explain to Mr Wheelhouse that something very similar would apply in Scotland, and that if local content was insisted upon, then construction costs would increase substantially and subsidies would also have to be increased to pay for it? Did he explain that there is genuine doubt whether Moray East can be viable at £57.50/MWh, even with low-cost international suppliers, and that local content would certainly not improve that situation? It would seem not. However, he did promise to “work closely” with the Scottish government to “ensure that communities up and down the country reap the economic benefits offshore wind offers”. Mr Wheelhouse has probably heard that before. How much longer will he go on believing it?So much for the action in the foreground. The backdrop is also sombre. The Crown Estate, which in effect controls offshore wind development in UK territorial waters, has delayed pre-qualification for Round 4 projects until after the summer of 2019, and the German maritime agency, the BSH, has disappointed developers by not assigning new development zones as had been requested. In delay is danger, and the offshore wind industry in general will be deeply concerned at the loss of momentum that may result from these decisions.Onshore wind is doing no better. The most recent auction for wind contracts in Germany took place in February and was radically undersubscribed, with only 476 MW of a possible 700 MW being awarded, the underlying causes being, it is reported, less favourable planning consent regulations and less generous price support. Senvion itself is described in some reports as being one of the supply chain casualties, alongside the German tower and foundation maker, Ambau GmbH, which has already filed for bankruptcy.One wonders why these companies were not better prepared. Reductions in subsidy in Germany were inevitable, and the tightening of planning regulations is long overdue and unsurprising. Indeed, it is remarkable that the German public has tolerated for so long such intense development in close proximity to domestic housing.However, some German states are now considering an exclusion zone of 1 km from the nearest turbine, which is still extremely close for structures in excess of 100m, and now heading, believe it or not, to over 200m in overall height. The German people have been patient, but the mood is clearly changing; indeed, the premier manufacturer and developer Enercon has recently been compelled by court order to suspend construction of its 30 MW Wulfershausen wind farm because it had, apparently, breached the local authorities’ requirement that no dwelling should be within a distance ten times tip height.This less favourable atmosphere is contributing to a general sense that existing onshore wind farms in Germany will not be repowered in great numbers at the end of their lives. About 15 GW of Germany’s onshore wind is now over fifteen years old and the end of the economic lifetime is in sight. But industry sources quoted in the subscription only press suggest that less than a third of this will actually be repowered, much less than had been expected only a few years back. The reasons given for this sudden change in prospects include declining public acceptance, reflected in tougher planning conditions, and falling subsidies.Meanwhile, in Norway and in its home territory Sweden, Statkraft, Europe’s largest generator of renewable energy, has suspended further onshore wind construction because it would be “very challenging” to develop profitable projects in these areas. They are concentrating on other less resistant markets, such as the United Kingdom, where it has acquired a 250 MW portfolio of projects from Element Power.But as it happens, things in the UK may prove to be no more promising. It has just dawned on the wind industry that government is actually acting on Amber Rudd’s landmark energy reset speech when Secretary of State for the Department of Energy & Climate Change in November 2015.In that speech Rudd remarked that “we also want intermittent generators to be responsible for the pressures they add to the system”. That of course was only right, but perhaps the industry hoped the intention would never materialise. If that was their expectation they were gravely mistaken. Aurora Energy Research has now released analysis of the regulator, Ofgem’s proposal to reform network charges, the “Targeted Charging Review”, and believes that the proposed changes “could set back subsidy-free renewables by up to five years”.When “unspun” this actually means is that if the regulator removes the hidden subsidy of avoided system costs, imposed by renewables but socialised over all generators, then more of the true cost of renewables will be revealed to the market, making it much less likely that even the most greenwash-thirsty corporate, NGO, or governmental body will sign an extravagant long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a wind or solar farm. In other words, far from hindering the emergence of subsidy-free renewables, Ofgem’s reforms threaten to give the lie to the subsidy-free claim and show that it was never anything more than an empty PR gambit.In spite of all this, it is doubtless too soon to say that the game is up for renewables. The industries concerned will fight back, and beg further direct and indirect public assistance while threatening politicians and civil servants with missed climate targets if that support is not forthcoming. In all likelihood they will be to some degree successful. But this will only delay the inevitable. As the depressing news stories summarised above suggest, after decades of public support and de-risking there are still fundamental weaknesses in the renewables industry that go well beyond teething troubles and localised management failure. One explanation, the sole necessary one in my view, is that the physics is against this industry, and that the physics is beginning to tell. It remains only to say that this blog is not licensed to give investment or financial advice.GWPFYes, we have reached a tipping point about the unreasonable expectations that wind and solar renewables would make any difference to fossil fuel energy consumption and the earth's climate. The large subsidies to renewables in the past decades are failing to create cheap, reliable electricity and they are pushing up the cost of electricity to consumers with devastating consequences for poor consumers.The climate change debate has suffered too much politics and too little science with over the top fear mongering that unsettles the public’s common sense. My comment on Academia.edu - Share research is relevant.https://www.academia.edu/1910842...We are in an ice age geologically for the past 2.5 million years.https://slideplayer.com/slide/10...Reference: Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explainedDate: August 7, 2013Source: ETH ZurichSummary:Science has struggled to explain fully why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years. As researchers now demonstrate based on a computer simulation, not only do variations in insolation play a key role, but also the mutual influence of glaciated continents and climate.Ice ages and warm periods have alternated fairly regularly in Earth's history: Earth's climate cools roughly every 100,000 years, with vast areas of North America, Europe and Asia being buried under thick ice sheets. Eventually, the pendulum swings back: it gets warmer and the ice masses melt. While geologists and climate physicists found solid evidence of this 100,000-year cycle in glacial moraines, marine sediments and arctic ice, until now they were unable to find a plausible explanation for it.Using computer simulations, a Japanese, Swiss and American team including Heinz Blatter, an emeritus professor of physical climatology at ETH Zurich, has now managed to demonstrate that the ice-age/warm-period interchange depends heavily on the alternating influence of continental ice sheets and climate."If an entire continent is covered in a layer of ice that is 2,000 to 3,000 metres thick, the topography is completely different," says Blatter, explaining this feedback effect. "This and the different albedo of glacial ice compared to ice-free earth lead to considerable changes in the surface temperature and the air circulation in the atmosphere." Moreover, large-scale glaciation also alters the sea level and therefore the ocean currents, which also affects the climate.Weak effect with a strong impactAs the scientists from Tokyo University, ETH Zurich and Columbia University demonstrated in their paper published in the journal Nature, these feedback effects between Earth and the climate occur on top of other known mechanisms. It has long been clear that the climate is greatly influenced by insolation on long-term time scales. Because Earth's rotation and its orbit around the sun periodically change slightly, the insolation also varies. If you examine this variation in detail, different overlapping cycles of around 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years are recognisable.Given the fact that the 100,000-year insolation cycle is comparatively weak, scientists could not easily explain the prominent 100,000-year-cycle of the ice ages with this information alone. With the aid of the feedback effects, however, this is now possible.Simulating the ice and climateThe researchers obtained their results from a comprehensive computer model, where they combined an ice-sheet simulation with an existing climate model, which enabled them to calculate the glaciation of the northern hemisphere for the last 400,000 years. The model not only takes the astronomical parameter values, ground topography and the physical flow properties of glacial ice into account but also especially the climate and feedback effects. "It's the first time that the glaciation of the entire northern hemisphere has been simulated with a climate model that includes all the major aspects," says Blatter.Using the model, the researchers were also able to explain why ice ages always begin slowly and end relatively quickly. The ice-age ice masses accumulate over tens of thousands of years and recede within the space of a few thousand years. Now we know why: it is not only the surface temperature and precipitation that determine whether an ice sheet grows or shrinks. Due to the aforementioned feedback effects, its fate also depends on its size. "The larger the ice sheet, the colder the climate has to be to preserve it," says Blatter. In the case of smaller continental ice sheets that are still forming, periods with a warmer climate are less likely to melt them. It is a different story with a large ice sheet that stretches into lower geographic latitudes: a comparatively brief warm spell of a few thousand years can be enough to cause an ice sheet to melt and herald the end of an ice age.The Milankovitch cyclesThe explanation for the cyclical alternation of ice and warm periods stems from Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958), who calculated the changes in Earth's orbit and the resulting insolation on Earth, thus becoming the first to describe that the cyclical changes in insolation are the result of an overlapping of a whole series of cycles: the tilt of Earth's axis fluctuates by around two degrees in a 41,000-year cycle. Moreover, Earth's axis gyrates in a cycle of 26,000 years, much like a spinning top. Finally, Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun changes in a cycle of around 100,000 years in two respects: on the one hand, it changes from a weaker elliptical (circular) form into a stronger one. On the other hand, the axis of this ellipsis turns in the plane of Earth's orbit. The spinning of Earth's axis and the elliptical rotation of the axes cause the day on which Earth is closest to the sun (perihelion) to migrate through the calendar year in a cycle of around 20,000 years: currently, it is at the beginning of January; in around 10,000 years, however, it will be at the beginning of July.Based on his calculations, in 1941 Milankovitch postulated that insolation in the summer characterises the ice and warm periods at sixty-five degrees north, a theory that was rejected by the science community during his lifetime. From the 1970s, however, it gradually became clearer that it essentially coincides with the climate archives in marine sediments and ice cores. Nowadays, Milankovitch's theory is widely accepted. "Milankovitch's idea that insolation determines the ice ages was right in principle," says Blatter. "However, science soon recognised that additional feedback effects in the climate system were necessary to explain ice ages. We are now able to name and identify these effects accurately."Story Source:Materials provided by ETH Zurich. Original written by Fabio Bergamin. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.Journal Reference:Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Fuyuki Saito, Kenji Kawamura, Maureen E. Raymo, Jun’ichi Okuno, Kunio Takahashi, Heinz Blatter. Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume. Nature, 2013; 500 (7461): 190 DOI: 10.1038/nature12374Cite This Page:ETH Zurich. "Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 7 August 2013. <Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained>.The greatest climate change the world has seen in the last 100,000 years was the transition from the ice age to the warm interglacial period. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2follow each other closely in terms of time. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Climate of the Past.In the warmer climate the atmospheric content of CO2is naturally higher. The gas CO2(carbon dioxide) is a green-house gas that absorbs heat radiation from the Earth and thus keeps the Earth warm. In the shift between ice ages and interglacial periods the atmospheric content of CO2helps to intensify the natural climate http://variations.It had previously been thought that as the temperature began to rise at the end of the ice age approximately 19,000 years ago, an increase in the amount of CO2in the atmosphere followed with a delay of up to 1,000 years."Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.The research results show that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere followed the temperature in Antarctica closely throughout the shift from ice age to interglacial in the period 19-11,000 years before the present. The green curve shows the temperature from measurements from the 5 ice cores marked on the map. The red and blue curves show the atmospheric CO2 content in the air bubbles in the ice cores from the two bores at Siple Dome (red) and Byrd (blue). The analysis shows that the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years. That the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the Antarctic tempera- ture so closely suggests that processes in the ocean around Antarctica play an important role in the rise in CO2.The research, which was carried out in collaboration with researchers from the University of Tasmania in Australia, is based on measurements of ice cores from five boreholesthrough the ice sheet in Antarctica. The ice sheet is formed by snow that doesn't melt, but remains year after year and is gradually compressed into kilometers thick ice. During the compression, air is trapped between the snowflakes and as a result the ice contains tiny samples of ancient atmospheres. The composition of the ice also shows what the temperature was when the snow fell, so the ice is an archive of past climate and atmospheric composition.Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate changeLike night follows day glaciation (low temperatures) follows interglaciation (higher temperatures) and is so devastatingly cold it threatens human survival. The Little Ice Age was a glaciation bump in the Holocene of the last 12,000 years.Think about this just 12,000 years ago most of North America was covered with ice that was more than 1 mile thick. Will it happen again? Of course as the earth is in a long term temperature decline.Sadly the evidence is this temperature decline has not abated for the past 7000 years once there was a rapid recovery from the glaciation at 12,000 years ago.Holocene climatic optimum -WikipediaThis graph is taken from Wikipedia. It shows eight different reconstructions of Holocene temperature. The thick black line is the average of these. Time progresses from left to right.On this graph the Stone Age is shown only about one degree warmer than present day, but most sources mention that Scandinavian Stone Age was about 2-3 degrees warmer than the present; this need not to be mutually excluding statements, because the curve reconstructs the entire Earth's temperature, and on higher latitudes the temperature variations were greater than about equator.Some reconstructions show a vertical dramatic increase in temperature around the year 2000, but it seems not reasonable to the author, since that kind of graphs cannot possibly show temperature in specific years, it must necessarily be smoothed by a kind of mathematical rolling average, perhaps with periods of hundred years, and then a high temperature in a single year, for example, 2004 will be much less visible.The trend seems to be that Holocene's highest temperature was reached in the Hunter Stone Age about 8,000 years before present, thereafter the temperature has generally been steadily falling, however, superimposed by many cold and warm periods, including the modern warm period.However, generally speaking, the Holocene represents an amazing stable climate, where the cooling through the period has been limited to a few degrees.History of Earth's ClimateZero to Hero: Brand New Climate Skeptic Party Now the Largest Group in the Dutch SenateEric Worrall / March 22, 2019Thierry BaudetThierry Baudet, Leader of the Forum voor Democratie. By DWDD – DWDD, CC BY 3.0Guest essay by Eric WorrallA brand new Dutch climate skeptic party has swept the field in its first election.New Populist Party Goes from Zero Seats to Largest Party in Dutch ElectionOLIVER JJ LANE21 Mar 2019A new populist, Eurosceptic party has achieved the remarkable feat of going from zero seats to becoming the largest single party in the Dutch Senate in a single election, as a young politician likened to a “Dutch Donald Trump” beat seasoned professionals in Wednesday’s poll.Thierry Baudet’s Forum for Democracy party, which has gained attention for its Euroscepticism, campaigned against open borders politics and against what he calls “climate-change hysteria,” winning 86 seats across the Dutch regions. The victory put his party ahead of even the ruling mainstream conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which achieved 80 seats.Forum was founded in 2016, and this is the first regional election the party has contested. Remarkably, in some Dutch regions Forum was so unexpectedly successful it won the right to appoint more elected members than they actually have registered candidates living in those areas.The European Union is terrified of the upcoming EU Parliament election, because they are anticipating a parliament dominated by populists, climate skeptics and Euroskeptics who want to break up the union.If skeptics do win control of the European Parliament, under the democratically deficient EU system elected members probably won’t have the power to change EU climate policy or break up the EU. But the skeptics may rob the unelected soviet style bureaucrats who really run the EU of the facade of democratic legitimacy they have enjoyed to date, thanks to their rubber stamp parliament of tame elected Europhiles.Britain’s best hope of being ejected from the EU in the next few weeks is Eurocratic fear that Britain’s anticipated hardcore climate skeptic and Eurosceptic voting block might tip the balance in the next European parliament.Thomas HomerMarch 22, 2019 at 6:42 am– CO2 is integral to the Carbon Cycle of Life, as such CO2 is a necessary requirement for Carbon Based Life Forms. CO2 feeds life and is the source of organic carbon whence it was extracted through photosynthesis by plants and phytoplankton. More atmospheric CO2 feeds more life.– Theory that atmospheric CO2 (0.04%) causes the Earth’s surface to warm by reflecting the energy emitted by the Earth’s surface. This Theory has no Laws, Axioms, Postulates, nor formulae because we are unable to measure this purported physical property of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the real world. We can’t even measure this property on Mars with an atmosphere of 95% CO2. This theory is used to promote the idea that less atmospheric CO2 helps life.

Luxembourg or Grand Duchy of LuxembourgMotto: Too small for big egos!With an area of 2,586 square kilometres (998 sq mi), it is one of the smallest sovereign states in Europe. In 2016, Luxembourg had a population of 576,249, which makes it one of the least-populous countries in Europe, but by far the one with the highest population growth rate. It is the smallest country to border 3 countries.The history of Luxembourg is considered to begin in 963, when count Siegfried I acquired a rocky promontory and its Roman-era fortifications known as Lucilinburhuc, ′little castle′, and the surrounding area from the Imperial Abbey of St. Maximin in nearby Trier. Siegfried's descendants increased their territory through marriage, war and vassal relations. At the end of the 13th century, the Counts of Luxembourg reigned over a considerable territory. In 1308, Henry VII, Count of Luxembourgbecame King of the Germans and Holy Roman Emperor. The House of Luxembourg produced four Holy Roman Emperors at the high time of the Middle Ages. In 1354, Charles IV elevated the County to the Duchy of Luxembourg.In 1437, the House of Luxembourg suffered a succession crisis, precipitated by the lack of a male heir to assume the throne, which led to the territories being sold by Duchess Elisabeth to Philip the Good of Burgundy. In the following centuries, Luxembourg's fortress was steadily enlarged and strengthened by its successive occupants, the Bourbons, Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns and the French.The Duchy became part of the Burgundian Circle and then one of the Seventeen Provinces of the Habsburg Netherlands. Over the centuries, the City and Fortress of Luxembourg, of great strategic importance situated between the Kingdom of France and the Habsburg territories, was gradually built up to be one of the most reputed fortifications in Europe. After belonging to both the France of Louis XIV and the Austria of Maria Theresia, Luxembourg became part of the First French Republic and Empire under Napoleon.After the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, Luxembourg was disputed between Prussia and the Netherlands. The Congress of Vienna formed Luxembourg as a Grand Duchy within the German Confederation. The Dutch king became, in personal union, the grand duke.The Grand-Duchy, with its powerful fortress, became an independent state under the personal possession of William I of the Netherlands with a Prussian garrison to guard the city against another invasion from France. At the time of the Belgian Revolution of 1830–1839, and by the 1839 Treaty establishing full independence, Luxembourg's territory was reduced by more than half, as the predominantly francophone western part of the country was transferred to Belgium. In 1842 Luxembourg joined the German Customs Union (Zollverein). This resulted in the opening of the German market, the development of Luxembourg's steel industry, and expansion of Luxembourg's railway network from 1855 to 1875, particularly the construction of the Luxembourg-Thionville railway line, with connections from there to the European industrial regions.After the Luxembourg Crisis of 1866 nearly led to war between Prussia and France, the Grand Duchy's independence and neutrality were again affirmed by the 1867 Second Treaty of London, Prussia's troops were withdrawn from the Fortress of Luxembourg, and its Bock and surrounding fortifications were dismantled.The King of the Netherlands remained Head of State as Grand Duke of Luxembourg, maintaining a personal union between the two countries until 1890. At the death of William III, the throne of the Netherlands passed to his daughter Wilhelmina, while Luxembourg (then restricted to male heirs by the Nassau Family Pact) passed to Adolph of Nassau-Weilburg.At the time of the Franco-Prussian war in 1870, despite allegations about French use of the Luxembourg railways for passing soldiers from Metz (then part of France) through the Duchy, and for forwarding provisions to Thionville, Luxembourg's neutrality was respected by Germany, and neither France nor Germany invaded the country. But in 1871, as a result of Germany's victory over France, Luxembourg's boundary with Lorraine, containing Metz and Thionville, changed from being a frontier with a part of France to a frontier with territory annexed to the German Empire as Alsace-Lorraine under the Treaty of Frankfurt. This allowed Germany the military advantage of controlling and expanding the railways there.In August 1914, Imperial Germany violated Luxembourg's neutrality in the war by invading it in the war against France. This allowed Germany to use the railway lines, while at the same time denying them to France. Nevertheless, despite the German occupation, Luxembourg was allowed to maintain much of its independence and political mechanisms.In 1940, after the outbreak of World War II, Luxembourg's neutrality was again violated when the Wehrmacht of Nazi Germany entered the country, "entirely without justification". In contrast to the First World War, under the German occupation of Luxembourg during World War II, the country was treated as German territory and informally annexed to the adjacent province of the Third Reich. A government in exile based in London supported the Allies, sending a small group of volunteers who participated in the Normandy invasion. Luxembourg was liberated in September 1944, and became a founding member of the United Nations in 1945. Luxembourg's neutral status under the constitution formally ended in 1948, and in 1949 it became a founding member of NATO.In 1951, Luxembourg became one of the six founding countries of the European Coal and Steel Community, which in 1957 would become the European Economic Community and in 1993 the European Union. In 1999 Luxembourg joined the Eurozone. In 2005, a referendum on the EU treaty establishing a constitution for Europe was held.2. Switzerland or Swiss ConfederationMotto: Wise men have understood the necessity of a money's island in the middle of the nations' madness.The oldest traces of hominid existence in Switzerland date back about 150,000 years. The oldest known farming settlements in Switzerland, which were found at Gächlingen, have been dated to around 5300 BC.The earliest known cultural tribes of the area were members of the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures, named after the archaeological site of La Tène on the north side of Lake Neuchâtel. La Tène culture developed and flourished during the late Iron Age from around 450 BC, possibly under some influence from the Greek and Etruscan civilisations. One of the most important tribal groups in the Swiss region was the Helvetii. Steadily harassed by the Germanic tribes, in 58 BC the Helvetii decided to abandon the Swiss plateau and migrate to western Gallia, but Julius Caesar's armies pursued and defeated them at the Battle of Bibracte, in today's eastern France, forcing the tribe to move back to its original homeland. In 15 BC, Tiberius, who was destined to be the second Roman emperor and his brother, Drusus, conquered the Alps, integrating them into the Roman Empire. The area occupied by the Helvetii—the namesakes of the later Confoederatio Helvetica—first became part of Rome's Gallia Belgica province and then of its Germania Superiorprovince, while the eastern portion of modern Switzerland was integrated into the Roman province of Raetia. Sometime around the start of the Common Era, the Romans maintained a large legionary camp called Vindonissa, now a ruin at the confluence of the Aare and Reuss rivers, near the town of Windisch, an outskirt of Brugg.The first and second century AD was an age of prosperity for the population living on the Swiss plateau. Several towns, like Aventicum, Iulia Equestris and Augusta Raurica, reached a remarkable size, while hundreds of agricultural estates (Villae rusticae) were founded in the countryside.Around 260 AD, the fall of the Agri Decumates territory north of the Rhine transformed today's Switzerland into a frontier land of the Empire. Repeated raids by the Alamanni tribes provoked the ruin of the Roman towns and economy, forcing the population to find shelter near Roman fortresses, like the Castrum Rauracense near Augusta Raurica. The Empire built another line of defence at the north border (the so-called Donau-Iller-Rhine-Limes), but at the end of the fourth century the increased Germanic pressure forced the Romans to abandon the linear defence concept, and the Swiss plateau was finally open to the settlement of Germanic tribes.In the Early Middle Ages, from the end of the 4th century, the western extent of modern-day Switzerland was part of the territory of the Kings of the Burgundians. The Alemanni settled the Swiss plateau in the 5th century and the valleys of the Alps in the 8th century, forming Alemannia. Modern-day Switzerland was therefore then divided between the kingdoms of Alemannia and Burgundy. The entire region became part of the expanding Frankish Empire in the 6th century, following Clovis I's victory over the Alemanni at Tolbiac in 504 AD, and later Frankish domination of the Burgundians.Throughout the rest of the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries the Swiss regions continued under Frankish hegemony (Merovingianand Carolingian dynasties). But after its extension under Charlemagne, the Frankish Empire was divided by the Treaty of Verdun in 843. The territories of present-day Switzerland became divided into Middle Francia and East Francia until they were reunified under the Holy Roman Empire around 1000 AD.By 1200, the Swiss plateau comprised the dominions of the houses of Savoy, Zähringer, Habsburg, and Kyburg. Some regions (Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, later known as Waldstätten) were accorded the Imperial immediacy to grant the empire direct control over the mountain passes. With the extinction of its male line in 1263 the Kyburg dynasty fell in AD 1264; then the Habsburgs under King Rudolph I (Holy Roman Emperor in 1273) laid claim to the Kyburg lands and annexed them extending their territory to the eastern Swiss plateau.The Old Swiss Confederacy was an alliance among the valley communities of the central Alps. The Confederacy, governed by nobles and patricians of various cantons, facilitated management of common interests and ensured peace on the important mountain trade routes. The Federal Charter of 1291 agreed between the rural communes of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden is considered the confederacy's founding document, even though similar alliances are likely to have existed decades earlier.By 1353, the three original cantons had joined with the cantons of Glarus and Zug and the Lucerne, Zürich and Bern city states to form the "Old Confederacy" of eight states that existed until the end of the 15th century. The expansion led to increased power and wealth for the confederation. By 1460, the confederates controlled most of the territory south and west of the Rhine to the Alps and the Jura mountains, particularly after victories against the Habsburgs (Battle of Sempach, Battle of Näfels), over Charles the Bold of Burgundy during the 1470s, and the success of the Swiss mercenaries. The Swiss victory in the Swabian War against the Swabian League of Emperor Maximilian I in 1499 amounted to de factoindependence within the Holy Roman Empire.The Old Swiss Confederacy had acquired a reputation of invincibility during these earlier wars, but expansion of the confederation suffered a setback in 1515 with the Swiss defeat in the Battle of Marignano. This ended the so-called "heroic" epoch of Swiss history. The success of Zwingli's Reformation in some cantons led to inter-cantonal religious conflicts in 1529 and 1531 (Wars of Kappel). It was not until more than one hundred years after these internal wars that, in 1648, under the Peace of Westphalia, European countries recognised Switzerland's independence from the Holy Roman Empire and its neutrality.In 1798, the revolutionary French government conquered Switzerland and imposed a new unified constitution. This centralised the government of the country, effectively abolishing the cantons: moreover, Mülhausen joined France and the Valtellina valley became part of the Cisalpine Republic, separating from Switzerland. The new regime, known as the Helvetic Republic, was highly unpopular.In 1815 the Congress of Vienna fully re-established Swiss independence and the European powers agreed to permanently recognise Swiss neutrality. Swiss troops still served foreign governments until 1860 when they fought in the Siege of Gaeta. The treaty also allowed Switzerland to increase its territory, with the admission of the cantons of Valais, Neuchâteland Geneva. Switzerland's borders have not changed since, except for some minor adjustments.The restoration of power to the patriciate was only temporary. After a period of unrest with repeated violent clashes, such as the Züriputsch of 1839, civil war (the Sonderbundskrieg) broke out in 1847 when some Catholic cantons tried to set up a separate alliance (the Sonderbund). The war lasted for less than a month, causing fewer than 100 casualties, most of which were through friendly fire. Yet however minor the Sonderbundskrieg appears compared with other European riots and wars in the 19th century, it nevertheless had a major impact on both the psychology and the society of the Swiss and of Switzerland.Thus, while the rest of Europe saw revolutionary uprisings, the Swiss drew up a constitution which provided for a federal layout, much of it inspired by the American example. In 1891, the constitution was revised with unusually strong elements of direct democracy, which remain unique even today.Switzerland was not invaded during either of the world wars. In 1920, Switzerland joined the League of Nations, which was based in Geneva, on condition that it was exempt from any military requirements. During World War II, detailed invasion plans were drawn up by the Germans, but Switzerland was never attacked. Switzerland was able to remain independent through a combination of military deterrence, concessions to Germany, and good fortune as larger events during the war delayed an invasion.Switzerland's trade was blockaded by both the Allies and by the Axis. Economic cooperation and extension of credit to the Third Reich varied according to the perceived likelihood of invasion and the availability of other trading partners. Concessions reached a peak after a crucial rail link through Vichy France was severed in 1942, leaving Switzerland completely surrounded, with the exception of Liechtenstein, by the Axis. Over the course of the war, Switzerland interned over 300,000 refugees and the International Red Cross, based in Geneva, played an important part during the conflict. Strict immigration and asylum policies as well as the financial relationships with Nazi Germany raised controversy, but not until the end of the 20th century.During the war, the Swiss Air Force engaged aircraft of both sides, shooting down 11 intruding Luftwaffe planes in May and June 1940, then forcing down other intruders after a change of policy following threats from Germany. Over 100 Allied bombers and their crews were interned during the war. Between 1940 and 1945, Switzerland was bombed by the Alliescausing fatalities and property damage. Among the cities and towns bombed were Basel, Brusio, Chiasso, Cornol, Geneva, Koblenz, Niederweningen, Rafz, Renens, Samedan, Schaffhausen, Stein am Rhein, Tägerwilen, Thayngen, Vals, and Zürich. Allied forces explained the bombings, which violated the 96th Article of War, resulted from navigation errors, equipment failure, weather conditions, and errors made by bomber pilots. The Swiss expressed fear and concern that the bombings were intended to put pressure on Switzerland to end economic cooperation and neutrality with Nazi Germany.Court-martial proceedings took place in England and the U.S. Government paid 62,176,433.06 in Swiss francs for reparations of the bombings.After the war, the Swiss government exported credits through the charitable fund known as the Schweizerspende and also donated to the Marshall Plan to help Europe's recovery, efforts that ultimately benefited the Swiss economy.An application for membership in the European Union was sent in May 1992, but not advanced since the EEA was rejected in December 1992.Read more ideas “out of box” in Andriescuus LucianThanksSwitzerland - WikipediaLuxembourg - Wikipedia