"1. The public won’t be fooled by this trend for ‘vows’ and ‘locks’. Voters want honesty instead of bravado; 2. Voters know that the ugly, rough business of assembling a majority in the Commons is likely to see those pledges broken; 3. Politicians need a new vocabulary for these new times, one that does not commit them to action they may not be able to take in circumstances they cannot predict. A starting point would be simply to set out their goals, free of bravado – and to insist they need as many votes as possible if they are to turn those hopes into reality; 4. In all the debate about electoral reform that is surely coming after THE NEW GOVERNMENT COMING TO POWER IN 2019, this may be one overlooked advantage. Under a more proportional voting system, coalition horse-trading would become an established, inevitable fact of life. Politicians would have to come clean about it, rather than living a lie. And if that audience member was right, then voters will respect them for it in the morning."
OPINION
06/05/2019
1781.
DHARMA CHAKRAM ( WHEEL OF DHARMA ) : SANATANA DHARMAM
SUB : Our politicians are living a lie. Here's how they can regain our trust :
"1. The public won’t be fooled by this trend for ‘vows’ and ‘locks’. Voters want honesty instead of bravado; 2. Voters know that the ugly, rough business of assembling a majority in the Commons is likely to see those pledges broken; 3. Politicians need a new vocabulary for these new times, one that does not commit them to action they may not be able to take in circumstances they cannot predict. A starting point would be simply to set out their goals, free of bravado – and to insist they need as many votes as possible if they are to turn those hopes into reality; 4. In all the debate about electoral reform that is surely coming after THE NEW GOVERNMENT COMING TO POWER IN 2019, this may be one overlooked advantage. Under a more proportional voting system, coalition horse-trading would become an established, inevitable fact of life. Politicians would have to come clean about it, rather than living a lie. And if that audience member was right, then voters will respect them for it in the morning."
Ref : 1. What was the involvement of Rajiv Gandhi in Bofors case? - Arpan Srivastava - July 23, 2017- Republic TV
Over three decades after the scam was covered up, Republic TV’s editorial advisor Chitra Subramaniam, who first brought out the Bofors documents in public view, spoke to the person who was heading the National Investigation Department of Sweden, the country where Bofors was based.
Republic
✔ @republic
The truth has been revealed after 31 years. Stay tuned for part 3 of #RepublicExposesBofors
23 Jul 2017
Sten Lindstrom, now 71, who has never appeared on a TV interview is the chief investigator who knows all about the case. The chief investigating officer in the Bofors case makes a sensational disclosure, he reveals the alleged role of Rajiv Gandhi in the bofors scam.
NOTE :
The Bofors scandal was a major political scandal that occurred between India and Sweden during the 1980s and 1990s, initiated by Indian National Congress (Congress party) politicians and implicating the Indian prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, and several other members of the Indian and Swedish governments who were accused of receiving kickbacks from Bofors AB, a bank principally financed by the Wallenberg family's Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken,for winning a bid to supply India's 155 mm field howitzer.The scandal relates to illegal kickbacks paid in a US$1.4 billion deal between the Swedish arms manufacturer Bofors with the government of India for the sale of 410 field howitzer guns, and a supply contract almost twice that amount. It was the biggest arms deal ever in Sweden, and money marked for development projects was diverted to secure this contract at any cost. The investigations revealed flouting of rules and bypassing of institutions.
Now Michael Hershman, who first tracked the Bofors kickbacks, has spoken out in a TV interview. When asked if former Finance Minister VP Singh asked him to investigate the Bofors scam, Hershman said, “it had nothing to do with Bofors and I had not even heard of Bofors at that time. In fact, I think very few people have heard of Bofors. No, he was conducting with the agreement of the President Rajiv Gandhi, an investigation into the violation of currency control laws.” He said that when the BCCI scandal broke out, they found an “unusual transactions into bank accounts in Switzerland, large transactions that it looked us to be not currency control law violations but bribes for arms deals. I knew that wasn't our mandate but I felt it our responsibility to at least report it to V.P Singh and when we did, he said that he would want us to continue to look at this.”
During the interview, Hershman exposed Rajiv Gandhi and said that Gandhi was furious when he found the Swiss Bank secret account.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref : 2. Rafale may not prove to be 'BJP’s Bofors' – and the reason would be the Congress - Naghma Sahar - 07-01-2019 - dailyO
There’s a key difference between Bofors and Rafale. That may be the BJP's battle strength, despite it losing a war of words.
“Bofors was a scam, Rafale is not. Bofors sank Congress, Rafale will bring Modi back to power.”
While this comment by defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman is hyperbole, how much the Rafale issue resonates with voters in 2019 does remain open to question.
Will the Rafale deal cost PM Modi dear in the General Elections — or is it just much ado about nothing?
Parliament recently saw a dogfight over the Rafale controversy — which the government claims is no longer a ‘controversy’, since the Supreme Court has dismissed a plea for a probe into it.
But the Congress continues to sharpen the deal as a poll tool for 2019. Last week, Congress president Rahul Gandhi initiated a debate on the deal in the Lok Sabha. It was followed by an acrimonious discussion, with finance minister Arun Jaitley hitting out at the Congress for having a “legacy of scams”.
The defence minister too put up a valiant defence, rebutting the Congress charges with figures and facts.
But the slugfest continues on social media.
The Congress is now asking all its leaders to tweet questions to PM Modi, calling it “do sawaal, do jawaab”… “Who gave Anil Ambani the offset contract? Did the defence ministry object to the new deal?”
The video tweet shows Rahul asking two questions, labeling them ‘Q1’ and ‘Q2’, and each is followed by flashes of a solemn Sitharaman sitting silently and sipping water as “response”.
The Congress President has reportedly asked party leaders to scale up the campaign now and take the point to the common person on the street that the ‘government is not answering questions on pricing and procedure’ and there is apparently ‘something suspicious’ about the deal.
The Congress recently also dropped a bombshell when it released the audio of a purported telephonic conversation between an anonymous man and a Goa minister. The party, however, refused to get the authenticity of the tape tested.
All through last week, in political rallies and in Parliament, allegations of corruption and wrongdoings flew thick and fast. In the Supreme Court, a review petition over the issue was filed.
Amidst all the fuss, the common citizen remains as confused as ever. For now, the 'janta' seems to be choosing its position on the deal on the basis of their political ideologies.
There are few people who understand — or want to go into the technicalities of the deal — even though defence experts and defence journalists have been explaining the issue over and over.
Politically, this is a perception game.
When Sitharaman says that the Bofors scam brought down the Rajiv Gandhi government, she is right. In the Bofors scam, the money trail led to Ottavio Quattrocchi, considered close to Rajiv Gandhi, but not directly to Rajiv himself. Yet, it was the perception game that harmed his government in the election.
It’s election year again — and the Congress is using the Rafale issue to keep throwing mud at the government, hoping some of it will stick.
What was interesting last week in Parliament was that what started as a solo campaign by the Congress was soon joined by a host of political parties — from the BJP’s virulent opponent the Trinamool Congress to a fence-sitter like the BJD to a ruling ally, the Shiv Sena.
The Sena, in fact, has been virtually echoing whatever Rahul Gandhi is saying, including the demand for a JPC probe. Though, of course, it must be pointed out that all these parties are facing strong existential threats from the BJP — the Sena in Maharashtra, the TMC in Bengal, the BJD in Odisha.
But will the voters, too, make common cause with the Congress?
Rahul Gandhi has been persistently trying to tie the deal directly to PM Modi. The Prime Minister becomes vulnerable because he flew to Paris and announced the deal. The defence minister was not with him and the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) had reportedly not yet approved the deal.
The Congress campaign has made people suspicious of ‘some wrongdoing’ in the deal — but will it become an issue outside elite defence circles, drawing room conversations and the English language press?
There’s a key difference between the Bofors deal, or the way corruption was made an issue ahead of the 2014 polls, and Rafale.
The difference is that the Congress campaign lacks a clean face.
Bofors had VP Singh giving it its sharp political thrust. In 2014, the anti-corruption movement was first led socially by Anna Hazare, then politically by Modi himself, who had no corruption charges against him.
Unlike them, Rahul Gandhi comes bearing an old legacy of corruption charges — from Agustawestland to Bofors and the many other scandals associated with the Congress, including the National Herald case.
But has the BJP been able to put up its defence effectively?
Well, the BJP is getting into too many details of several defence deals, in the process, losing its audience. On the other hand, Rahul Gandhi, even though he may not have enough proof to back his claims, is coming up with catchy bullet points.
In my opinion, at least in Parliament, this gave Rahul an edge in the perception battle.
Having said that, the technicalities of the defence deal and the history of our jinxed purchases point to another crucial truth.
The Indian Air Force has been in dire need of aircraft. There are now facts available in the public domain to claim that the Rafale deal under the Modi government is actually cheaper by Rs 59 crore per aircraft than what was being negotiated under the UPA. Also, the jets procured under the Modi government come equipped with SCALP air-to-ground missiles, Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missiles and 13 other enhancements, which are not there in the Rafales operated by other countries.
Another fact available on dedicated defence websites is that the Congress government in the 80s had done exactly what it is now accusing the Modi government of doing — turned down an offer from the French company Dassault Aviation to build Mirage 2000 in India, and instead bought more aircraft of a different variety.
This had a snowball effect on India’s fighter jet strength and planning.
An article on the website Livefist says: “Air Marshal Padamjit Singh Ahluwalia (Retd.), who commanded the Gwalior Air Force Station during the Kargil war, and oversaw the use of the base’s Mirage 2000 squadrons in precision bombings of Pakistani positions, has long held that India’s decision not to grab the offer of a Mirage 2000 production line in the eighties has had a damaging and compounding effect on India’s fighter aircraft situation.”
Thus, even as the Congress tries to carpet-bomb voters with the Rafale ‘scam’ charges, there is much in the party’s own history that may not stand scrutiny.
It is after all a perception battle, where both the sides are claiming that the other is giving it a hallucinatory spin. But the government has now tightened its belt to fight the battle of perception, with the defence minister emerging as the new 'angry woman', as per media titles, in Parliament.
Is that enough is the question though — or will Rahul Gandhi's rant of "chowkidar chor hai" resonate with the people?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE : When Rahul Gandhi forgot the humiliation of his own Congress gurus - Kumar Shakti Shekhar - June 28, 2018 - INDIA TODAY
Rahul Gandhi's jibe at the BJP for forgetting their 'gurus' has backfired on him.
HIGHLIGHTS :
*Rahul Gandhi mocked the BJP for disrespecting their senior leaders
*Critics have hit back, asking him to remember when Congress did the same
*Congress has been accused of mistreating dissenting leaders in the past
By launching a personal attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi yesterday, Congress president Rahul Gandhi has exposed himself to criticism over the treatment meted out to senior leaders of his party in the past.
While addressing party booth workers in Mumbai, Gandhi mentioned the former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's ailing health condition and said he, as a soldier of the Congress, was the first one to visit him at AIIMS.
Rahul claimed what he did was the Congress culture and contrasted it by alleging that PM Modi did not respect senior leaders of the BJP. He said he felt sad for LK Advani and also claimed that the Congress gave the senior leader more respect than the BJP did.
Later, mocking PM Modi, he also tweeted and said: "Ekalavya cut off his right thumb because his guru demanded it. In the BJP, they cut down their own gurus. Humiliating Vajpayee Ji, Advaniji, Jaswant Singhji and their families is the Prime Minister's way of protecting Indian culture."
Rahul Gandhi was criticised by Congress rivals on the social media for "politicising" Vajpayee's ill health.
He was reminded that the Congress' record in according respect to senior leaders left much to be desired.
The Congress has been accused of ill-treating its dissenting leaders, including former prime minister Narasimha Rao, even in his death.
For instance, former Congress leader Margaret Alva has also disapproved of the party leadership not showing respect to Rao when he died on December 23, 2004, in New Delhi. "His body was even not let into the All India Congress Committee (AICC) compound. His carriage was parked on the pavement outside the gate.
"Whatever the differences were, he was the PM, he had been the Congress president, he was chief minister and he was party general secretary. When a man is dead you do not treat him that way." - Congress leader Margaret Alva was quoted as saying in the past. She added that was not the way to treat a dead leader.
The Congress allegedly disowned Narasimha Rao because of his government's decision to appeal against a Delhi High court order quashing the Bofors case linking Rajiv Gandhi. This had deepened the then Congress president Sonia Gandhi's suspicion over Rao.
Besides Rao, Congress leaders including former party president Sitaram Kesri, senior leaders Jitendra Prasada and Sharad Pawar have also been allegedly snubbed by the party.
The then Congress president Sitaram Kesri's unceremonious and 'unconstitutional' exit in March 1998 has always been a talking point in the party and among its rivals.
Kesri was removed as president allegedly by flouting the Congress' constitution. He has been quoted as saying that his removal in the Congress Working Committee (CWC) meet was "unconstitutional".
Kesri was replaced as Congress president on March 14, 1998.
He was axed as president in the CWC meet. But he was not willing to resign then and there. After the CWC meeting, some reports say he was roughed up by Congress supporters. He was allegedly also locked in his office bathroom when he went to his chamber at the 24, Akbar Road Congress headquarters.
When Kesri came out, he discovered that his nameplate was missing. It had been replaced by that of Sonia Gandhi.
The manner in which Congress treated its dissenters was also glaring in the case of Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) supremo Sharad Pawar (when he was still in the grand old party) and Jitendra Prasada.
Pawar, along with PA Sangma and Tariq Anwar - all members of the CWC - had revolted against the projection of Sonia Gandhi as the party's prime ministerial candidate in May 1999, apparently due to her foreign origin.
In protest, Sonia resigned from the presidentship. Pawar, Sangma and Anwar were expelled from the primary membership of the party for a period of six years to douse the fire.
At the AICC session on May 25, 1999, pressure was exerted on Sonia Gandhi to withdraw her resignation as party president. Hundreds of party workers had assembled outside her official residence at 10 Janpath, launching hunger strikes and dharnas.
Narasimha Rao, Sitaram Kesri and Jitendra Prasada were accused of being hands in glove with Pawar, Sangma and Anwar. Kesri and Prasada were allegedly assaulted by party supporters in front of the Congress headquarters.
These incidents of senior Congress leaders being ill-treated by the party have come to the fore with Rahul Gandhi attacking PM Modi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPINION :
Is Rahul Gandhi the best bet for Congress as party chief? - Raj Singh - February 27, 2015 9:11 IST - INDIA TV
The Congress, led by Sonia Gandhi as party president for the last 17 years, is right now at the cusp of a major tectonic shift. The doting mother is unwilling to carry on
The Congress, led by Sonia Gandhi as party president for the last 17 years, is right now at the cusp of a major tectonic shift. The doting mother is unwilling to carry on further because of health-related issues and wants to transfer the pivotal role to her son soon, but not without pre-conditions.
Sonia Gandhi, according to party sources, wants her son to take the old leadership along with him in bringing back the party into national reckoning, after being thrown in the dumps with a measly 44 MPs in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, in the face of Modi tsunami.
But, the son, according to party sources, wants to shed old baggage and start with his own set of advisers, and work on his US political concept of allowing new grassroots leaders to emerge through elected primaries, a la the GOP and US Democratic Party.
The experiment failed in the 2014 LS polls, when candidates chosen through Congress 'primaries' faced humiliating defeats at the hustings. But Rahul, adamant as he is, has decided to carry forward his experiment with vigour, sidelining old guards.
To put things in perspective, let's go through the long-winding history of India's oldest political party, which will be 130 years in December, 2015. The pomp will be missing this time due to a string of electoral debacles, but nevertheless a quick go-through is called for.
Congress, historically, has been a party that consisted of leaders from different hues of ideologies – leftist, rightist, left-of-centre, right-of-centre etc.
Owing to different ideologies, differences over issues of national significance were very much common with different leaders suggesting different solutions in tune with their personal ideologies.
Mahatma Gandhi had differences with Subhash Chandra Bose, Dr Rajendra Prasad had differences with Jawaharlal Nehru, Nehru had differences with Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and so on, but all these differences were based on sound ideological footings.
Today Congress is once again facing a big tussle between two of its top functionaries, party president Sonia Gandhi and vice-president Rahul Gandhi, who have reportedly developed serious differences over how to run the grand old party.
Unlike in the past, these differences are not based over ideological preferences, but over styles. The differences seem to be primarily because of personal preferences over who to trust and who to discard.
Since the President and vice-president are mother and son in relation, there is an emotional chord that binds them together. The mother wants to see the son taking up the mantle of the party that is basically a family fiefdom but she is yet to get the confidence that he can do justice to the responsibility that comes with the hot seat.
Unfortunately for Rahul Gandhi, her mother is not far away from reality. Today he is desperate to be anointed as the party president but he should seriously ponder over whether he has done justice to his present role of vice-president?
And interestingly, it's the same Rahul who had said that her mother once reminded him of how "power is nothing, but poison".
“Last night each one of you congratulated me. My mother came to my room and she sat with me and she cried... because she understands that power so many people seek is actually a poison,”Rahul Gandhi had informed party workers in Jaipur in his maiden address after taking over as Congress vice-president in 2013, amidst loud cheering and claps.
The son, obviously, is now desperate to taste the poison.
Rahul was anointed as Congress vice-president in January 2013 and since then, he has been the party's face in all elections that the party contested.
After Rahul was promoted to vice-president's position, Congress fought nine important state Assembly elections in 2013 - Tripura, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Karnataka, Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Mizoram.
Out of these nine, the Congress could win only three states – Nagaland, Mizoram and Karnataka. Except for Karnataka, the other two states do not count much in terms of size and representation in Lok Sabha. Even in Karnataka, Congress owed its victory more to anti-incumbency against the then BJP govt and not to the leadership or personal charisma of Rahul Gandhi.
In 2014, the Congress once again contested nine state Assembly elections under his leadership – Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, Sikkim, Maharashtra, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir and Jharkhand.
Once again, out of these nine, Congress could manage to win only 1 state – Arunachal Pradesh.
It means, that out of 18 Assembly elections that the Congress contested under Rahul Gandhi's leadership in 2013 and 2014, the party could win only four elections with Karnataka being the only big state.
In 2014 general elections, he was the undeclared PM candidate of the Congress and the 130-year-old party delivered its worst ever performance this time. The party, today, does not have the numbers to claim the Leader of Opposition status in Lok Sabha, for which a minimum of 54 members are required, and the party was ten short.
If this is the performance report, how can Rahul even aspire to be promoted to the top seat?
But since this is the Congress and Rahul is the scion and heir apparent of the Gandhi family, he appears to be dissatisfied over his own mother delaying his coronation.
An emotional mother has perhaps given up and, if the media reports are to be believed, Rahul, in all probability, will be handed over the leadership baton in March.
But the question is – can a person, who failed to deliver as vice-president, be able to change party's fortunes as the Party president?
Agreed, nothing can be predicted in politics, but leadership trait is something that gets noticed from day one.
And what is the track record of Rahul Gandhi? He complains of not being given a free hand in selecting leaders to lead his party in states but is it not a fact that whenever he was given this opportunity, he failed miserably in picking the right person?
Take the example of Delhi. Rahul picked Ajay Maken, head of Congress' campaign committee, to become the party's face in the recent Assembly elections and Maken was the most likely CM candidate.
Maken was selected to lead the party primarily because he was part of Rahul's inner circle but the decision overlooked the claims of state unit chief Arvinder Singh Lovely who was more articulate and exuded confidence to energise the moribund party workers and cadre. And what was the outcome? Not only the party failed to open its account, Maken himself lost the election badly from his Sadar Bazar constituency. He stood third and forfeited his security deposit.
Rahul had promised to introduce primaries in the party the way it is in the US. It was something which was truly revolutionary and had the potential to change the political discourse in India, had it been implemented in letter and spirit.
But Rahul killed his own baby when he asked the 'primary' Vadodara candidate to back out in favour of his trusted lieutenant Madhusudan Mistry to take on Narendra Modi in 2014 Lok Sabha elections. And Mistry would prefer to forget the humiliation he faced in Vadodara.
Clearly, Rahul wants complete control over the party but he is not willing to understand that the Congress today needs people who are truly connected to grassroots. He has created a coterie which largely consists of Harvard and Cambridge educated people like Kanishka Singh. The problem is that, these advisors are also deciding the grassroot level strategy of the party, which is not their territory. The question is - do they understand the ground realities of Indian electorate? Have they ever endured the heat and dust of rural India, that is the real Bharat?
Should Rahul not learn from Narendra Modi who has also got a large bunch of management gurus offering him advice on almost everything? Modi listens to these advisors on policy matters but still relies on RSS workers for managing things on the ground.
Rahul himself raised a question mark over his leadership ability when he publicly showed disrespect to his own Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by tearing off the ordinance that was drafted in consultation with his mother. The ordinance related to exempting politicians from the Supreme Court order barring convicts from contesting elections. The then PM, who was out of the country, returned, headed a Cabinet meeting, and the ordinance was quickly withdrawn.
Rahul wants to get rid of some 'old guards' who, according to him, have advised his mother not to give him a free hand in making the desired changes in the organization. And there is some truth in that. But If Sonia Gandhi has resisted his wish, then it's not without reason.
Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh, considered to be part of Rahul's own coterie, agrees that the mother and son are not always on the same page because of a generational difference. And he, like Rahul, blames the old guards for influencing the mother against the son.
“Both of them are from different generations. Obviously every generation has a mind set. Sonia is very democratic. She holds consultations with senior leaders. And they then have an opportunity to influence her,” said Digvijay.
"Some people believe they will lose the clout they enjoy today if party workers are empowered in local bodies, PCCs and elections (within) are held democratically. Leaders who are powerful in Delhi but not at the local level feel threatened," Singh added.
Then he has this tendency of indulging in the disappearing acts quite often. He was not there when Manmohan Singh was being given farewell by the UPA government. He was not there to defend the party after losses in various states.
The way he has taken leave during the Budget session of Parliament, in the name of 'self-introspection' over recent events, has baffled even his own coterie.
Even his hard core supporter Digvijay Singh has found the timing of Rahul's leave for self-introspection not right.
Sonia's coterie may consist of 50+ leaders who should rightly hand over the baton to the younger generation, given the fact that around 65 percent of population of India today consists of people below 35 years of age. But they are all battle-hardened politicians, who have delivered in the past, while Rahul's preferred ones are almost novices who are yet to prove themselves. This is the dilemma that Sonia is facing before handing over the crown to Rahul.
By seeking to be anointed as party president at the earliest, Rahul also wants to settle the leadership issue once and ever. Every time, the party loses an election, a section of Congress workers can be seen shouting slogans like “ Priyanka lao, Congress bachao”. This happened the day the Delhi assembly poll results were announced on February 10. Obviously, it's an open show of lack of confidence in Rahul's leadership.
It appears to be an open power struggle that is going within the Congress, with a section rooting for Rahul and another section opting for his sister, though the latter has clarified several times that she was more interested in looking after her family.
Fortunately for Rahul, Sonia, like any mother, has a soft corner for the son and therefore he faces no challenge from his sibling.
The Congress party today needs a leader who can fight back to regain foothold, by taking party workers and cadre in these difficult times. The track record of Rahul suggests that he loathes the idea of taking responsibility for failures although he does not mind taking the credit for victories which did not belong to him, like in Karnataka.
Today, for all his failures, Rahul has the excuse of not getting a free hand in organizational matters but what excuse will he offer if he is made the party president?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. GIVE RESPECT AND TAKE RESPECT, RAGA IS A NOVICE, EXCEPT NEHRU DYNASTY LABEL, HE HAS NO ELIGIBILITY IN POLITICAL FIELD;
2. HIS TAIL WAGS TOO MUCH, NEXT HIS TONGUE HAS NO CONTROL, HIS LANGUAGE IS VERY DEMONIC, THE WHOLE FAMILY IS ARROGANT OF THEIR DYNASTY LABEL;
3. LOOK WHAT THIS IDIOT PRIYANKA SPELLS OUT, ROTTEN TALKS, COURT CASES ARE NOT FOUGHT IN STREETS,
4. THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE TAUGHT A LESSON AS THEY ARE FULLY OUT OF CONTROL, CALLING NATION PRESIDENT AND PM IN VARIOUS NAMES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO NATION LOVING HONEST CITIZENS;
5. EVERYTHING IN OUR HANDS, 'THE VOTE' DEFEAT THE DEMONS; ALL REGIONAL PARTIES ARE EITHER CASTE BASED OR SEPARATISTS, FAMILY OWNED OR BREAKING INDIA FORCES, WE DO NOT NEED SUCH BUNCH OF THUGS, AS THESE REGIONAL PARTIES MAIN AIM AMASS OWN WEALTH, BY LOOTING THIS HOLY NATION; ALL ARE THUKRE, THUKRE GANGS.
JAY HIND
JAY BHARATHAM
VANDE MATARAM
BHARAT MATA KI JAY
 |
| NETAJI |
Comments
Post a Comment