Obama : A 100 days in Office - Focus on Pakistan.....

By Shaheen Sehbai

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obamas 100th day prime TV time press conference on Wednesday night has created a grossly uneven playing field for President Asif Ali Zardaris upcoming visit to Washington, as the candid and frank, almost brutal, observations of Obama have cut Zardari to a very small size besides giving the Pakistan Army much more importance than the Pakistani leadership would like to hear.

Likewise, the US president has also revealed some fundamental shifts in Pakistans India policy and the thinking of the Pakistan Army vis-a-vis India. Such a shift, willingly or unknowingly, has not yet been remotely reflected in the policies or statements of the civilian leadership of Pakistan. Obamas assertion that the Pakistani civilian government was very fragile, without any capacity to deliver almost anything of consequence, was made in the same breath when he made several statements showing a superb degree of confidence in the Pakistan Army. It dug deep into the credibility and future of the civilian set-up, specially the fate of Zardari himself, who everyone in Washington knows, has been running Pakistan as a one-man show. So the criticism hits the Pakistani president right where it hurts.

These statements, as the US political system works, were not off-the-cuff remarks by a man thinking on his legs. Although, he was answering a question on Pakistan, Obama had come fully prepared to answer any question about the US policy on Pakistan and his 10-point statement was the ultimate crux of the numerous official briefings and position papers, which the US president has been receiving from dozens of national security, Defence Department, Pentagon, US Army and State Department officials and experts, besides the very knowledgeable scholars in Washington and US think tanks.

The 10-points of Obamas statement were couched in these crisp and sharp words:

* I'm confident that we can make sure that Pakistans nuclear arsenal is secure. Primarily, initially, because the Pakistani Army recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands.

* I am gravely concerned about the situation in Pakistan, not because I think that they are immediately going to be overrun and the Taliban would take over in Pakistan.

* Im more concerned that the civilian government there right now is very fragile and dont seem to have the capacity to deliver basic services: schools, healthcare, rule of law, a judicial system that works for the majority of the people.

* As a consequence, it is very difficult for them (the government) to gain the support and the loyalty of their people.

* We need to help Pakistan, help Pakistanis.

* There is a recognition increasingly on the part of both the civilian government and the Army that this is their biggest weakness.

* On the military side, we are starting to see some recognition, just in the last few days, that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided and their biggest threat right now comes internally.

* Pakistani military is taking much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists.

* We want to continue to encourage Pakistan to move in that direction. And we will provide them all of the cooperation that we can. We want to respect their sovereignty, but we also recognise that we have huge strategic interests, huge national security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you dont end up having a nuclear-armed militant state.

* I feel confident that that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands.

Each of these points, when analysed, hits deep at the root of the legitimacy, competence and future of the civilian set-up in Pakistan and reflects the broader thinking in Washington that the Army probably is a better option, given the top priority Pakistan is now receiving.

For instance, he said, the nuclear arsenal was safe because the Pakistani Army recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands.

His ex-pression of total no confidence in the civilian ability to deliver almost anything, not even as basic things as education, health and justice, was in fact an indictment that would be very hard for President Zardari to explain when he meets him at the Oval Office next week.

But to add insult to injury, Obama went on to say that it was very difficult for the government to gain support and loyalty of their people. These words are shocking as they show that the US president was unwilling to accept the mandate which the PPP government claims to have on the basis of the Feb 18 elections.

He then went on to say the US needs to help Pakistan, and help Pakistanis, not the government, in other words.

It was also his view that even the civilian government and the Army have recognised that this perceived incompetence was their biggest weakness. By clubbing the Army and civilians on this point, Obama revealed what the Army leadership may have been privately saying to the US generals who have been visiting Pakistan feverishly in recent days.

Obamas biggest breaking news was his observation that in the last few days, the Pakistan military had started looking at India not as the enemy number one. He saw some recognition that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided and their biggest threat right now comes internally. Pakistani military is taking much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists.

These words mean that the Pakistani military leaders have been speaking up their mind much more openly with the Americans than the people or leaders of Pakistan. Within Pakistan, there is yet no word that the Army has been misguided in its thinking that India was not a mortal threat.

If there have been some secret understandings and assurances given by the US generals to their Pakistani counterparts, then the Pakistanis, their parliament, the prime minister or the president have either not been taken into confidence, or if the leaders are on board, someone is playing big games with the people behind their backs.

The people of Pakistan have not yet been told that India is no longer an enemy and the eastern borders are safe. If this is so, has there been any pullout of the Army away from that border, or will there be in the coming days. No one knows yet. But Obama certainly does because he has hinted at the basic shift in Pakistans foreign policy. Or may be there have been assurances given to him on that count.

And all that, according to the US president, has been done by the Pakistan military, not the government of President Asif Zardari. Lastly, the US president made it absolutely clear that stability in Pakistan was one of the biggest national security and strategic interests of America and this statement simply means that the US will protect this interest, come what may.

By implication, this also means that if Washington had to support a non-democratic, though stable government in Pakistan, it may be prepared to do so. This was not uttered by Obama in exactly these words, but reading into what he says means exactly the same. No one may, however, publicly admit this at this stage.

Diplomatic observers are unanimous in the view that just a few days before Obama meets Zardari for the first time, coming out with such brutally frank words about his administration is an ominous sign Obama would like to see the back of Zardari and would welcome a political change in Pakistan.

But one consequence of this tough talking could be that the Pakistan Army would come out of its self-imposed seclusion and would assert itself more dominantly in critical Pakistani decision-making processes.

Some analysts, however, believe that if Zardari assures the US president that he would allow this to happen and would stop his one-man rule, he may be given the chance to continue. But for Zardari to keep smiling like he always does will then be a great challenge.

And for all those on whom Zardari depends for his US policy, either in Washington or in Islamabad, it is time to pack up and go home. It is absolutely certain that they would never have told the president of Pakistan that the president of the United States was about to throw a ton of bricks on our presidents head, just days before meeting him. Maybe even they had no clue he would.

The Saudi-isation of Pakistan - by Pervez Hoodbhoy

The common belief in Pakistan is that Islamic radicalism is a problem only in FATA, and that madrassas are the only institutions serving as jihad factories. This is a serious misconception. Extremism is breeding at a ferocious rate in public and private schools within Pakistan 's towns and cities. Left unchallenged, this education will produce a generation incapable of co-existing with anyone except strictly their own kind. The mindset it creates may eventually lead to Pakistan 's demise as a nation state.

For 20 years or more, a few of us have been desperately sending out SOS messages, warning of terrible times to come. In fact, I am surprised at how rapidly these dire predictions have come true.

A full-scale war is being fought in FATA, Swat and other "wild" areas of Pakistan , resulting in thousands of deaths. It is only a matter of time before this fighting shifts to Peshawar and Islamabad (which has already been a witness to the Lal Masjid episode) and engulfs Lahore and Karachi as well. The suicide bomber and the masked abductor have crippled Pakistan 's urban life and shattered its national economy.

Soldiers, policemen, factory and hospital workers, mourners at funerals and ordinary people praying in mosques have all been reduced to globs of flesh and fragments of bones. But, perhaps paradoxically, in spite of the fact that the dead bodies and shattered lives are almost all Muslim ones, few Pakistanis speak out against these atrocities. Nor do they approve of the army operation against the cruel perpetrators of these acts because they believe that they are Islamic warriors fighting for Islam and against American occupation. Political leaders like Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan have no words of solace for those who have suffered at the hands of Islamic extremists. Their tears are reserved exclusively for the victims of Predator drones, even if they are those who committed grave crimes against their own people. Terrorism, by definition, is an act only the Americans can commit.

What explains Pakistan 's collective masochism? To understand this, one needs to study the drastic social and cultural transformations that have rendered this country so completely different from what it was in earlier times.

For three decades, deep tectonic forces have been silently tearing Pakistan away from the Indian subcontinent and driving it towards the Arabian peninsula . This continental drift is not physical but cultural, driven by a belief that Pakistan must exchange its South Asian identity for an Arab-Muslim one. Grain by grain, the desert sands of Saudi Arabia are replacing the rich soil that had nurtured a magnificent Muslim culture in India for a thousand years. This culture produced Mughul architecture, the Taj Mahal, the poetry of Asadullah Khan Ghalib, and much more. Now a stern, unyielding version of Islam (Wahhabism) is replacing the kinder, gentler Islam of the Sufis and saints who had walked on this land for hundreds of years.

This change is by design. Twenty-five years ago, the Pakistani state used Islam as an instrument of state policy. Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory, floggings were carried out publicly, punishments were meted out to those who did not fast in Ramadan, selection for academic posts in universities required that the candidate demonstrate a knowledge of Islamic teachings and jihad was declared essential for every Muslim. Today, government intervention is no longer needed because of a spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. The notion of an Islamic state – still in an amorphous and diffused form – is more popular now than ever before as people look desperately for miracles to rescue a failing state.

Villages have changed drastically; this transformation has been driven, in part, by Pakistani workers returning from Arab countries. Many village mosques are now giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers. They are bitterly opposed to Barelvis, Shias and other sects, who they do not regard as Muslims. The Punjabis, who were far more liberal towards women than the Pukhtuns, are now beginning to take a line resembling that of the Taliban. Hanafi law has begun to prevail over tradition and civil law, as is evident from the recent decisions of the Lahore High Court.

In Pakistan 's lower-middle and middle classes lurks a grim and humourless Saudi-inspired revivalist movement that frowns on any and every expression of joy and pleasure. Lacking any positive connection to culture and knowledge, it seeks to eliminate "corruption" by regulating cultural life and seizing control of the education system.

"Classical music is on its last legs in Pakistan ; the sarangi and vichitraveena are completely dead," laments Mohammad Shehzad, a music aficionado. Indeed, teaching music in public universities is violently opposed by students of the Islami Jamaat-e-Talaba at Punjab University . So the university has been forced to hold its music classes elsewhere. Religious fundamentalists consider music haram or un-Islamic. Kathak dancing, once popular with the Muslim elite of India , has few teachers left. Pakistan produces no feature films of any consequence. Nevertheless, the Pakistani elite, disconnected from the rest of the population, live their lives in comfort through their vicarious proximity to the West. Alcoholism is a chronic problem of the super rich of Lahore – a curious irony for this deeply religious country.

Islamisation of the state and the polity was supposed to have been in the interest of the ruling class – a classic strategy for preserving it from the wrath of the working class. But the amazing success of the state is turning out to be its own undoing. Today, it is under attack from religious militants, and rival Islamic groups battle each other with heavy weapons. Ironically, the same army – whose men were recruited under the banner of jihad, and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam – today stands accused of betrayal and is almost daily targeted by Islamist suicide bombers.

Pakistan 's self-inflicted suffering comes from an education system that, like Saudi Arabia 's system, provides an ideological foundation for violence and future jihadists. It demands that Islam be understood as a complete code of life, and creates in the mind of a school-going child a sense of siege and embattlement by stressing that Islam is under threat everywhere.

The world of the Pakistani schoolchild remained largely unchanged, even after September 11, 2001, the event that led to Pakistan 's timely desertion of the Taliban and the slackening of the Kashmir jihad. Indeed, for all his hypocritical talk of "enlightened moderation," General Musharraf's educational curriculum was far from enlightening. It was a slightly toned down version of the curriculum that existed under Nawaz Sharif which, in turn, was identical to that under Benazir Bhutto who had inherited it from General Zia-ul-Haq. Fearful of taking on the powerful religious forces, every incumbent government has refused to take a position on the curriculum and thus quietly allowed young minds to be moulded by fanatics. What may happen a generation later has always been a secondary issue for a government challenged on so many fronts.

The promotion of militarism in Pakistan 's so-called "secular" public schools, colleges and universities had a profound effect upon young minds. Militant jihad became part of the culture on college and university campuses. Armed groups flourished, they invited students for jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan , set up offices throughout the country, collected funds at Friday prayers and declared a war which knew no borders. Pre-9/11, my university was ablaze with posters inviting students to participate in the Kashmir jihad. Post-2001, this ceased to be done openly.

Still, the primary vehicle for Saudi-ising Pakistan 's education has been the madrassa. In earlier times, these had turned out the occasional Islamic scholar, using a curriculum that essentially dates back to the 11th century, with only minor subsequent revisions. But their principal function had been to produce imams and muezzins for mosques, and those who eked out an existence as 'maulvi sahibs' teaching children to read the Quran.

The Afghan jihad changed everything. During the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan , madrassas provided the US-Saudi-Pakistani alliance the cannon fodder they needed to fight a holy war. The Americans and Saudis, helped by a more-than-willing General Zia, funded new madrassas across the length and breadth of Pakistan . A detailed picture of the current situation is not available. But according to the national education census, which the ministry of education released in 2006, Punjab has 5,459 madrassas followed by the NWFP with 2,843; Sindh has 1,935; the Federally Administrated Northern Areas (FANA), 1,193; Balochistan, 769; Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), 586; the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA), 135; and the Islamabad capital territory, 77. The ministry estimates that 1..5 million students are acquiring religious education in the 13,000 madrassas.

These figures appear to be way off the mark. Commonly quoted figures range between 18,000 and 22,000 madrassas. The number of students could be correspondingly larger. The free boarding and lodging plus provision of books to the students, is a key part of their appeal. Additionally, parents across the country desire that their children be "disciplined" and given a thorough Islamic education. The madrassas serve this purpose, too, exceedingly well.

Madrassas have deeply impacted the urban environment. Until a few years ago, Islamabad was a quiet, orderly, modern city different from the rest of Pakistan . Also, it had largely been the abode of Pakistan 's elite and foreign diplomats. But the rapid transformation of its demography brought with it hundreds of mosques with multi-barrelled audio-cannons mounted on minarets, as well as scores of madrassas illegally constructed in what used to be public parks and green areas. Now, tens of thousands of their students, sporting little prayer caps, dutifully chant the Quran all day. In the evenings they swarm the city, making women minus the hijab increasingly nervous.

Total segregation of the sexes is a central goal of the Islamists, the consequences of which have been catastrophic. For example, on April 9, 2006, 21 women and eight children were crushed to death and scores injured in a stampede inside a three-storey madrassa in Karachi , where a large number of women were attending a weekly congregation. Male rescuers, who arrived in ambulances, were prevented from moving the injured women to hospitals.

One cannot dismiss this incident as being just one of a kind. In fact, soon after the October 2005 earthquake, as I walked through the destroyed city of Balakot , a student of the Frontier Medical College described to me how he and his male colleagues were stopped by religious elders from digging out injured girl students from under the rubble of their school building. This action was similar to that of Saudi Arabia's ubiquitous religious 'mutaween' (police) who, in March 2002, had stopped school girls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing their abayas – a long robe worn in Saudi Arabia. In a rare departure from the norm, Saudi newspapers had blamed and criticised the mutaween for letting 15 girls burn to death.

The Saudi-isation of a once-vibrant Pakistani culture continues at a relentless pace. The drive to segregate is now also being found among educated women. Vigorous proselytisers carrying this message, such as Mrs Farhat Hashmi, have been catapulted to the heights of fame and fortune. Their success is evident. Two decades back, the fully veiled student was a rarity on Pakistani university and college campuses. The abaya was an unknown word in Urdu. Today, some shops across the country specialise in abayas. At colleges and universities across Pakistan , the female student is seeking the anonymity of the burqa. And in some parts of the country she seems to outnumber her sisters who still "dare" to show their faces.

I have observed the veil profoundly affect habits and attitudes. Many of my veiled female students have largely become silent note-takers, are increasingly timid and seem less inclined to ask questions or take part in discussions. They lack the confidence of a young university student.

While social conservatism does not necessarily lead to violent extremism, it does shorten the distance. The socially conservative are more easily convinced that Muslims are being demonised by the rest of the world. The real problem, they say, is the plight of the Palestinians, the decadent and discriminatory West, the Jews, the Christians, the Hindus, the Kashmir issue, the Bush doctrine – the list runs on. They vehemently deny that those committing terrorist acts are Muslims, and if presented with incontrovertible evidence, say it is a mere reaction to oppression.

The immediate future does not appear hopeful: increasing numbers of mullahs are creating cults around themselves and seizing control of the minds of worshippers. . In the tribal areas, a string of new Islamist leaders have suddenly emerged: Baitullah Mehsud, Maulana Fazlullah and Mangal Bagh. Poverty, deprivation, lack of justice and extreme differences of wealth provide the perfect environment for these demagogues to recruit people to their cause. Their gruesome acts of terror are still being perceived by large numbers of Pakistanis merely as a war against imperialist America . This could not be further from the truth.

In the long term, we will have to see how the larger political battle works out between those Pakistanis who want an Islamic theocratic state and those who want a modern Islamic republic. It may yet be possible to roll back those Islamist laws and institutions that have corroded Pakistani society for over 30 years and to defeat its hate-driven holy warriors. There is no chance of instant success; perhaps things may have to get worse before they get better. But, in the long term, I am convinced that the forces of irrationality will cancel themselves out because they act at random whereas reason pulls only in one direction. History leads us to believe that reason will triumph over unreason, and the evolution of the humans into a higher and better species will continue. Using ways that we cannot currently anticipate, they will somehow overcome their primal impulses of territoriality, tribalism, religiosity and nationalism. But, for now, this must be just a matter of faith.

It ain't easy running for Presidency.....

NEHRU GANDHI FAMILY SECRETS.....

At the very beginning of his book, "The Nehru Dynasty", astrologer K.N. Rao mentions the names of Jawaharlal's father and grandfather. Jawahar Lal's father was believed to be Motilal Nehru and Motilal's father was one Gangadhar Nehru. And we all know that Jawaharlal's only daughter was Indira Priyadarshini Nehru; Kamala Nehru was her mother, who died in Switzerland of tuberculosis. Kamala Nehru was totally against Indira's proposed marriage with Feroze. Why? No one tells us that!

Now, who is this Feroze? We are told by many that he was the son of the family grocer. The grocer supplied wines,etc. to Anand Bhavan (previously known as Ishrat Manzil) What was the family grocer's name? One frequently hears that Rajiv Gandhi's grandfather was Pandit Nehru. But then we all know that everyone has two grandfathers, the paternal and the maternal grandfathers. In fact, the paternal grandfather is deemed to be the more important grandfather in most societies.

Why is it then, no where, we find Rajiv Gandhi's paternal grandfather's name? It appears that the reason is simply this. Rajiv Gandhi's paternal grandfather was a Muslim gentleman from the Junagadh area of Gujarat. This Muslim grocer by the name of Nawab Khan, had married a Parsi woman after converting her to Islam. This is the source where from the myth of Rajiv being a Parsi was derived. Rajiv's father Feroze, was Feroze Khan before he married Indira, against Kamala Nehru's wishes.

Feroze's mother's family name was Ghandy, often associated with Parsis and this was changed to Gandhi,sometime before his wedding with Indira, by an affidavit. The fact of the matter is that (and this fact can be found in many writings)

Indira was very lonely. Chased out of the Shantiniketan University by Guru Dev Rabindranath himself for misdemeanor, the lonely girl was all by herself, while father Jawahar was busy with politics, pretty women and illicit sex; the mother was in hospital. Feroze Khan, the grocer's son was then in England and he was quite sympathetic to Indira and soon enough she changed her religion, became a Muslim woman and married Feroze Khan in a London mosque.

Nehru was not happy; Kamala was dead already or dying. The news of this marriage eventually reached Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (better known as Mahatma Gandhi). Gandhi urgently called Nehru and practically ordered him to ask the young man to change his name from Khan to Gandhi. It had nothing to do with change of religion, from Islam to Hinduism for instance. It was just a case of a change of name by an affidavit. And so Feroze Khan became Feroze Gandhi.

The surprising thing is that the apostle of truth, the old man soon to be declared India's Mahatma and the 'Father of the Nation' didn't mention this game of his in the famous book, 'My Experiments with Truth'. Why? When they returned to India, amock 'Vedic marriage' was instituted for public consumption.

On this subject,writes M.O. Mathai (a longtime Private Secretary of Nehru) in his renowned (but now suppressed by the GOI! ) 'Reminiscences of the Nehru Age' on page94, second paragraph: "For some inexplicable reason, Nehru allowed the marriage to be performed according to Vedic rites in 1942. An inter-religious and inter-caste marriage under Vedic rites at that time was not valid in law. To be legal, it had to be a civil marriage."

It's a known fact that after Rajiv's birth Indira and Feroze lived separately, but they were not divorced. Feroze used to harass Nehru frequently for money and also interfere in Nehru's political activities. Nehru got fed up and left instructions not to allow him into the Prime Minister's residence Trimurthi Bhavan. Mathai writes that the death of Feroze came as a relief to Nehru and Indira. The death of Feroze in 1960 before he could consolidate his own political forces, is itself a mystery. Feroze had even planned to remarry.

Those who try to keep tabs on our leaders in spite of all the suppressions and deliberate misinformation, are aware of the fact that the second son of Indira (or Mrs.Feroze Khan) known as Sanjay Gandhi was not the son of Feroze. He was the son of another Muslim gentleman, Mohammad Yunus.

Here, in passing, we might mention that the second son was originally named Sanjiv. It rhymed with Rajiv, the elder brother's name. It was changed to Sanjay when he was arrested by the British police in England and his passport impounded, for having stolen a car. Krishna Menon was then India's High Commissioner in London. He offered to issue another passport to the felon who changed his name to Sanjay.

Incidentally, Sanjay's marriage with the Sikh girl Menaka (now they call her Maneka for Indira Gandhi found the name of mythological Lord Indra's Court dancer rather offensive !!) took place quite surprisingly in Mohammad Yunus's house in New Delhi. And the marriage with Menaka who was a model (She had modeled for Bombay Dyeing wearing just a towel) was not so ordinary either. Sanjay was notorious in getting unwed young women pregnant. Menaka too was rendered pregnant by Sanjay.

It was then that her father,Colonel Anand, threatened Sanjay with dire consequences if he did not marry her daughter. And that did the trick. Sanjay married Menaka. It was widely reported in Delhi at the time that Mohammad Yunus was unhappy at the marriage of Sanjay with Menaka. Apparently he had wanted to get him married with a Muslim girl of his choice. It was Mohammad Yunus who cried the most when Sanjay died in the plane accident.

In Yunus's book, 'Persons, Passions & Politics' one discovers that baby Sanjay had been circumcised following Islamic custom, although the reason stated was phimosis. It was always believed that Sanjay used to blackmail Indira Gandhi and due to this she used to turn a blind eye when Sanjay Gandhi started to run the country as though it were his personal freedom. Was he black mailing her with the secret of who his real father was? When the news of Sanjay's death reached Indira Gandhi, the first thing she wanted to know was about the bunch of keys which Sanjay had with him.

Nehru was no less a player in producing bastards. At least one case is very graphically described by M.O. Mathai in his "Reminiscences of the NehruAge", page 206. Mathai writes: "In the autumn of 1948 a young woman from Benares arrived in New Delhi as a sanyasini named Shraddha Mata (an assumed and not a real name). She was a Sanskrit scholar well versed in the ancient Indian scriptures and mythology. People, including MPs, thronged to her to hear her discourses. One day S.D. Upadhyaya, Nehru's old employee, brought a letter in Hindi from Shraddha Mata. Nehru gave her an interview in the PM's house. As she departed, I noticed (Mathai is speaking here) that she was young, shapely and beautiful. Meetings of Nehru with her became rather frequent, mostly after he finished his work at night. During one of Nehru's visits to Lucknow, Shraddha Mata turned up there and Upadhyaya brought a letter from her as usual. Nehru sent her the reply and she visited Nehru at midnight...“ Suddenly Shraddha Mata disappeared.

In November 1949 a convent in Bangalore sent a decent looking person to Delhi with a bundle of letters. He said that a young woman from northern India arrived at the convent a few months ago and gave birth to a baby boy. She refused to divulge her name or give any particulars about herself. She left the convent as soon as she was well enough to move out but left the child behind. She however forgot to take with her a small cloth bundle in which, among other things, several letters in Hindi were found. The Mother Superior, who was a foreigner, had the letters examined and was told they were from the Prime Minister. The person who brought the letters surrendered them..."I (Mathai) made discreet inquiries repeatedly about the boy but failed to get a clue about his hereabouts. Convents in such matters are extremely tightlipped and secretive. Had I succeeded in locating the boy, I would have adopted him. He must have grown up as a Catholic Christian blissfully ignorant of who his father was."

Coming back to Rajiv Gandhi, we all know now that he changed his so called Parsi religion to become a Catholic to marry Sania Maino of Turin, Italy. Rajiv became Roberto. His daughter's name is Bianca and son's name is Raul. Quite cleverly the same names are presented to the people of India as Priyanka and Rahul. The press conference that Rajiv Gandhi gave in London after taking over as Prime minister of India was very informative. In this press conference, Rajiv boasted that he was NOT a Hindu but a Parsi. Mind you, speaking of the Parsi religion, he had no Parsi ancestor at all. His grandmother (father's mother) had turned Muslim after having abandoned the Parsi religion to marry Nawab Khan.

It is the western press that waged a blitz of misinformation on behalf of Rajiv. From the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, the big guns raised Rajiv to heaven. The children's encyclopedias recorded that Rajiv was a qualified Mechanical Engineer from the revered University of Cambridge. No doubt US kids are among the most misinformed in the world today!

The reality is that in all three years of his tenure at that University Rajiv had not passed a single exam. He had therefore to leave Cambridge without a certificate. Sonia too had the same benevolent treatment. She was stated to be a student in Cambridge. Such a description is calculated to mislead Indians. She was a student in Cambridge all right, but not of the University of Cambridge , but of one of those fly by night language schools where foreign students come to learn English. Sonia was working as an 'au pair' girl in Cambridge and trying to learn English at the same time.

And surprise of surprises, Rajiv was even cremated as per Vedic rites in full view of India's public.

This is one of the many stories of the Nehru dynasty that India worships and now a foreigner leads a prestigious national party because of just one qualification being married into the Nehru family. Maneka Gandhi, though Indian, herself is being accepted by the non-Congress parties not because she was a former model or an animal lover, but for her links to the Nehru family.

India Needs A Leader Like This!!!!!

Australian Prime Minister John Howard

Australia Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.' 'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom' 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .

Learn the language!' 'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.' 'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.' 'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

RAJ THACKERAY - WHERE ARE YOU HIDING????

Where is Raj Thackeray and his "Brave" Sena over the last 3 days that Mumbai has been under turmoil??

Over 200 NSG commandoes from Delhi have been dispatched to take control of the situation in Mumbai (and have successfully done so) and all of them NORTH and SOUTH Indians.....no no..... INDIANS and where is Raj Thackeray??

Probably hiding behind his Mama's petticoat... eating Vadaa Pao....

JAI HIND!!!!

Views of a Demented Man !!!!!

Any offense is clearly intentional !!!!!

" We all should support Raj Thackeray and take his unique initiative ahead by doing more of what the heroic man does..terrorize the rich to give freebies to the poor..in other words..he empties a rich man's pocket to fill his own and give a few dimes out of that to the poor marathi manoos..who will praise anyone who gives them stuff for free. We all love it when we get things without working for them.

How dare someone be more smart, hardworking and intelligent than us. Very well..let's wait until they get rich and then beat them up and grab it for ourselves. That will teach them a lesson for being smart!! "

1. We should teach our kids that if he is second in class, don'tstudy harder.. just beat up the student coming first and throw him out ofthe school

2. Parliament should have only Delhiites as it is located in Delhi

3. Prime-minister, president and all other leaders should only befrom Delhi

4. No Hindi movie should be made in Bombay. Only Marathi.

5. At every state border, buses, trains, flights should be stopped and staff changed to local people.

6. All Maharashtrians working abroad or in other states should besent back as they are SNATCHING employment from Locals there.

7. Lord Shiv, Ganesha and Parvati should not be worshiped in our state as they belong to north (Himalayas)

8. Visits to Taj Mahal should be restricted to people from UP only.

9. Relief for farmers in Maharashtra should not come from centrebecause that is the money collected as Tax from whole of India, so whyshould it be given to someone in Maharashtra?

10. Let's support kashmiri Militants because they are right to killing andinjuring innocent people for benifit of there state and community......

11. Let's throw all MNCs out of Maharashtra, why should they earn from us?We will open our own Maharashtra Microsoft, MH Pepsi and MH Marutis of theworld .

12. Let's stop using cellphones, emails, TV, foreign Movies anddramas. James Bond should speak Marathi.

13. We should be ready to die hungry or buy food at 10 times higherprice but should not accept imports from other states

14. We should not allow any industry to be setup in Maharashtra because all machinery comes from outside.

15. We should STOP using local trains... Trains are not manufacturedby Marathi manoos and Railway Minister is a Bihari.

WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!