• stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Archives for : Sonia Gandhi

Secret diary of Sonia Gandhi: Why Rahul Gandhi finally took full responsibility

By SAUBHIK CHAKRABARTI, ET Bureau | 17 May, 2014, 06.24AM IST
I knew what my main job was today. So, I called Manmohan around 9.30 am. Mrs Singh said he's packing because all the staff were watching TV and cheering. I told her get him on the phone. 
I knew what my main job was today. So, I called Manmohan around 9.30 am. Mrs Singh said he’s packing because all the staff were watching TV and cheering. I told her get him on the phone. He took his time coming, which has never happened before…. I should have known what to expect. Anyway, I told him my plan. Manmohan, I am offering you the highest honour I can think of, I said. Bharat Ratna, he said.I was surprised, what’s happened to Manmohan?!So I explained — Manmohan, you have the honour of taking Rahul’s place and accepting responsibility for Congress’ defeat. In Congress, there’s no bigger honour than taking Rahul’s place, I said, and was convinced Manmohan would jump for it…. I mean, he always has.

Mamma mia! Manmohan said no! For the first time! He said when you have no power, you can’t take responsibility.

And he told me to read that fellow Baru. Some cheek!

So, I called Chidambaram. He picked up on first ring, well-spoken and intelligent-sounding as ever, and I thought this is my man! PC, I told him, you were our best minister and who but you can take Rahul’s place. To lead Congress, PC asked excitedly, to be our PM candidate for 2019? Oh dear, what’s wrong with these people…. No, no, PC, you take Rahul’s place and accept responsibility for our defeat.And PC started making excuses! Ma’am, I didn’t even contest, he said…then he said h .. to be with his son and cheer him up, then he said he has to finish a press release on how he was a better finance minister than Yashwant Sinha…. Who cares about that, I told him. PC said all edit page writers do…. I think most edit pages are with us, he said…. At that point, I ended the call.Sad, so sad…but there’s Digvijaya, always dependable, used to be always with Rahul…but not even Digvijaya was ready. He said he was sort of busy with that thing…. What thing, I asked him…he said, ma’am, you know, that thing. I told him I can’t understand what he’s talking about…and he said there are things bigger than politics… and then he rung off. And to think, we allowed him to go to UP with Rahul….

Who else? We have a press conference at around 4.30 pm, I don’t want to take Rahul…. I even thought of calling Pranab…in fact, PC said Pranab is the right candidate for taking responsibility, but he’s President now…can’t really ask him, can I? But in any case, when I called, his staff said he was learning a few words in Gujarati for a special occasion that’s coming up….

I would have called others…Kapil, Sushil, Kamal…but I made up my mind to take Rahul with me after all…because Robert came up to me and said, mom, I have been watching you … I feel bad, let me go with you and take full responsibility…. I was shocked, scared…really scared….

I called Rahul and said let’s go.

Where, mom, he asked in that sweet way of his. Just come with me, there will be some journalists, don’t worry… just say, you take full responsibility. for what, Rahul asked. How innocent he is. I will tell you later, I told Rahul. Now just come.

And Rahul said that line perfectly. Am really so proud of him.

Related posts

Sikh Group to Challenge Dismissal of 1984 Case against India’s Congress Party



New York (April 28, 2014)

While acknowledging that corporate entities like Congress party of India can be sued under Alien Torts Statute (ATS), Judge Robert W. Sweet of US District Court dismissed the 1984 rights violation lawsuit against Congress party for failure to show sufficient “touch and concern” to the United States.

The rights group “Sikhs for Justice” (SFJ) will challenge the dismissal of 1984 rights violation case against India’s Congress party before the US Court of Appeals on the grounds that this case sufficiently “touches and concerns” the United States and SFJ has “institutional standing” to seek “declaratory judgment” on November 1984 violence against the Sikh community.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal has to be filed with the US Circuit Court within 30 days from the date of District Court’s order. Sikh right group’s appeal against the order of Judge Sweet dismissing the 1984 rights violation case is due by May 23.

On the issue of corporate liability, Judge Sweet, citing the case of Balintulo v. Daimler AG ruled that “Daimler seems to concretely establish that a corporate defendant can be liable under the ATS, assuming that the statute’s “touch and concern” requirements are adequately alleged”.

“Accordingly, the fact that Defendants are incorporated does not, in and of itself, relieve them of liability under the statute or remove this Court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ allegations.” Stated April 24  ruling of the Judge Sweet.

“Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ combined facts, even if credited, are insufficient to establish that the conduct sufficiently “touched and concerned” the United States to establish jurisdiction under the ATS and dismissal is appropriate under 12(b)( 1)”

Mounting a legal challenge to the District Court’s ruling that claims of November 1984 victims do not “touch and concern” the US and are barred under Kiobel, the rights group will argue the appeal before US Court of appeals that the plaintiffs have already been granted refugee status by California Federal Court for being victims of violence committed by the Congress party in India which proves plaintiffs’ sufficient connection to the United States.

SFJ will also challenge the denial of its standing in this case, on the grounds that Federal Law grants “institutional standing” to human rights groups to seek “declaratory judgments” by the US Courts. In this case, SFJ is seeking judgment to declare November 1984 violence against the Sikh Community after the assassination of Indira Gandhi as “Genocide”. The monetary compensation in the case against Congress Party is being sought only by the individual plaintiffs who are survivors or legal heirs of the 1984 victims.

Terming the April 24 decision as beginning of the long legal uphill road for the victims to hold the “powerful and untouchables” accountable for their crimes against the Sikh community, attorney Gurpatwant Singh Pannun stated that rights group will give documentation, evidence and testimony before court of appeals that India’s Congress party commands, controls and directs the functioning of New York based entity INOC (Indian National Overseas Congress), thus, satisfying Kiobel’s requirement of “touch and concern”.

Related posts

US Court Orders Sonia Gandhi To Provide Copy Of Her Passport #1984riots

JALANDHAR: A US court has ordered Congress president Sonia Gandhi to provide a copy of her passport by April 7 to establish that she was not in US from September 2 to September 9, 2013 as claimed by her in a declaration in a rights violation case filed against her by rights group, Sikhs for Justice, for allegedly protecting the perpetrators of the 1984 Sikh massacre. The court held that her declaration of January 10 saying that she was in US was not sufficient to prove her absence during the corresponding period. 


US court orders Sonia Gandhi to provide copy of her passport in 1984 Sikh Genocide Case

US federal court for the Eastern District of New York said, “Defendant must provide some documentary evidence to corroborate her otherwise-unsupported declaration stating that defendant was not in the United States at the time of service.”

The court asked Sonia Gandhi to “provide a copy of her passport, showing her most recent entry and exit stamps into and out of the United States, thus demonstrating that she was not in the country between September 2 2013 to September 9, 2013.”

“This would appear to obviate both the need for any documents from the hospital-resolving defendant’s medical privacy concerns – and the need to rely upon a third party government agency like Customs and Border Protection,” the order by judge Brian M Cogan said.

1984 Sikh rights violation case before the Brooklyn federal court hinges on the issue whether Sonia Gandhi was served on September 9 as claimed by Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) or she was not present in the United States during that time as per her claim.

The rights violation case against Gandhi was filed by SFJ when she was reportedly in US for health reasons and then the SFJ had claimed that the summons were served on her through the staff of the hospital and security staff at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York where Sonia Gandhi was believed to be undergoing medical treatment. However in January, Sonia Gandhi submitted a declaration in support of her motion asking the court to dismiss the rights violation case for lack of jurisdiction as she was never personally served with the US court summons.

In its March 20 order, the judge noted that, “The court cannot find that a sufficient showing of non-presence has been made based on the affirmation without plaintiffs having received some discovery to confirm it.”

  Read more here —

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

US court grants Sikhs For Justice’s (SFJ) to investigate Sonia Gandhi

US court grants rights group to investigate Sonia Gandhi‘s presence in New York in September last year 


JALANDHAR: After Sonia Gandhi’s signed declaration – submitted on January 13 to a US Court – that she was not in New York or US from September 3 to September 9 last year, seeking to dismiss a rights violation case filed against her, a Brooklyn court has granted complainant Sikhs For Justice’s (SFJ) request for further investigation.

SFJ has been given till February 6 to investigate and file its opposition to Sonia Gandhi’s motion. SFJ had filed the case against her in September last year for allegedly protecting the perpetrators of 1984 Sikh riots case.

The new declaration purportedly signed by Sonia Gandhi on January 10 claims that she has “not been in New York or in the United States during the period of September 3, 2013 to September 09, 2013″. The previous declaration of Sonia Gandhi, which she signed on December 28, 2013 and which was submitted to the court in the beginning of this month claimed that she was not in US from September 2 to September 09, 2013.

Rights group SFJ in its January 23 request to Judge Brian M Cogan had stated “since the defendant’s claim of absence from the United States at the time when the plaintiffs served the defendant is critical and pivotal to maintaining this action, an extension of time is necessary to enable the plaintiffs to undertake investigation including filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request under 5 USC with the US Customs and Border Protection, a Bureau of the Department of Homeland Security which maintains records for entry and exit from the United States for all individuals”.

In her declaration Congress president has claimed “the summons and complaint in this matter were never delivered to her whether in person or by mail, by the plaintiffs, by any process server, by any personnel of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre or by any member of any security detail”.

However SFJ Legal Advisor Gurpatwant Singh Pannun said that the plaintiffs would request the US Federal Court to court to depose Congress President regarding her presence in the United States in September 2013.

Earlier SFJ had claimed that pursuant to US Court orders, on September 9, 2013, plaintiffs served the Summons and Complaint on the hospital and security staff at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York where Sonia Gandhi was believed to be undergoing medical treatment.

In the case against her SFJ and two survivors of massacre have sought a jury trial, compensatory and punitive damages against Congress party President for her role in shielding and protecting Kamal Nath, Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler Amitabh Bachchan and other Congress party leaders from being prosecuted for their role in leading death squads that killed thousands of Sikhs.

Newspapers Coverage:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

Sonia Gandhi Responds To US Court – “I Was Not In New York” – Challenges US Court Jurisdiction


JALANDHAR: Responding to summons issued by US court in first week of September 2013 in rights violation case filed by Sikhs For Justice against her for protecting perpetrators of massacre of Sikhs in Delhi in November 1984,Congress President Sonia Gandhi has held that she was not in New York during the relevant period (when summons were issued or claimed to be served on her) and no summons or complaint were served on her.

Sonia’s counsel Ravi Batra has challenged the US Court jurisdiction to hear the rights violation case. Batra also submitted a signed letter sent by Sonia Gandhi to him on letter head of “All India Congress Committee” in which she made these claims.

“I was not in New York during the relevant period, namely, from September 2, 2013 to September 9, 2013. I was not served the Summons and Complaint on September 9, 2013, as claimed, or on any other date in 13 Civ.4920,” said letter signed by Sonia Gandhi on December 28 last.

However SFJ legal advisor Gurpatwant Singh Pannun said that on September 9, upon information and belief that Congress President was undergoing medical checkup at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York the summons and complaint were served on hospital and security staff of the hospital as the court had allowed the service of summons through hospital staff or her security agents.

In response to US Court Summons, Sonia Gandhi also filed a motion with Court to dismiss the human rights violation lawsuit pursuant to: lack of personal jurisdiction; for insufficient service of process; for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Congress Presidents motion also urged the court for “Enjoining plaintiff Sikhs For Justice from filing any lawsuit or otherwise pursuing these claims or any other claims stemming from or related to allegations of conduct in India in 1984, post-assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her security personnel without first having secured the express written consent of the court.

Pannun stated that victims of November 1984 filed human rights violation complaint against Sonia Gandhi invoking the US Federal court jurisdiction over the case based on Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350; the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1992 (TVPA); 28 U.S.C. 1331 and Federal Common Law.

Federal Eastern District Court of New York (13 CV 4920) issued Summons against Congress President on the complaint filed by SFJ and victims of 1984 demanding a jury trial seeking compensatory and punitive damages against Congress party President for her role in shielding and protecting Kamal NathSajjan KumarJagdish Tytlerand other Congress party leaders from being prosecuted for their crimes against humanity.


Newspaper Coverage:

Related posts

Modi repairs mosques, Sonia saves Wakf land: Are Muslims amused?







As the 2014 Lok Sabha polls draw closer, the secular-communal debate gets louder. And  uglier. While the Congress scrambles to strengthen its grip on India’s minority votes, the general despondence over the economy could just be the Bharatiya Janata Party’s best chance to beat the Congress at its own game and snap up a poll victory by deftly reaching out to non-traditional BJP voters.

In an obvious attempt to somewhat dilute his hardliner image, 11 years after the Gujarat riots, the Narendra Modi-led Gujarat government has decided to pay for the repairs of mosques damaged during the riots. The Times of India reports:

The state government’s u-turn came after close to 10 years of legal battle, during which it refused to own up responsibility for restoring and repairing the shrines damaged by marauding Hindu mobs across the state.

It is understandable that the  party would want to join the appeasement model that even regional parties like the Trinamool Congress and Samajwadi Party have nurtured.

In the present political climate, the first step towards that end would naturally be to paint their poll campaign chief Narendra Modi as more pro-Muslim even though the Gujarat chief minister has made it evident in the past that he will  not bow so easily to populist gimmicks like Shivraj Chouhan wearing a skull cap on Eid.

Narendra Modi and Sonia Gandhi. Agencies.

Narendra Modi and Sonia Gandhi. Agencies.

The case of the mosques was based on a petition filed by the Islamic Relief Committee-Gujarat. In fact, the government, which had tittered and contested the Islamic body’s demands for ten long years, has assured the Supreme Court that it will come up with a credible scheme to pay for damage repairs by October this year, when the next hearing is scheduled to take place.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the reason behind the sudden softening of the Gujarat government’s stance on repairs to over 500 mosques and religious properties across the state.

The move serves two purposes: One, it sends out a clear message that if the Gujarat CM were to take up a bigger, national role, he would be more accommodating towards Muslims than he is currently made out to be. Secondly, it doesn’t really require a very apparent stepping down for Narendra Modi’s image in the form of directly canvassing for more votes.

On the other hand, with the Congress’ policy failures fast outrunning its pro-secular reputation, the party would seek ways to tighten its grip around Muslim votes soon. As several Congress leaders have already opined, the VHP-SP government showdown in Uttar Pradesh may havepolarized votes to such an extent that UP’s electorate could  might be starkly divided between the BJP and the SP.

With the Samajwadi Party giving Congress grief on several issues, the party would need to devise ways to promote its secular image and turn votes back towards itself. In fact, Sonia Gandhi has herself intervened in a case in which  several Muslim clerics  complained that land owned by the Wakf Board was  encroached upon by contractors and land mafia.The Times of India reports:

At the heart of the controversy are two plots of land, which a number of prominent Muslim clerics alleged have been encroached upon by the land mafia. One is an eight-acre plot in the tony Jor Bagh area, which also happens to be the constituency of Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit. The second is a two-acre plot in Mehrauli in South Delhi. The approximate value of both the land parcels is over Rs 3,000 crore

The report says that at Sonia’s behest, an expert committee headed by Delhi CM Sheila Dikshit and Minorities Affairs minister Rahman Khan has been set up. On behalf of Rahul Gandhi, Digvijaya Singh has written to the leaders assuring them that their issues will be resolved soon.

However, in their hurry to grab attention of the minority population with populist measures, the national parties might be missing the shift of focus in the Muslim community itself. The political players probably fail to realise that the Muslim voters are now wary of old tricks.

As writer Abdul Khaliq points out in article in The Indian Express aptly titled ‘The same old sop story’, the community can no more be appeased or waylaid by debates on religion. Flaying the BJP, Congress and the SP for their divisive and opportunistic policies, Khaliq notes that the Muslim community doesn’t seek cosmetic sympathy. He writes:

Muslims want to bridge the distance between communities, not exacerbate it. They are sick of the politics that uses secularism as a cloak of convenience. Rather than being given nominal group privileges, they want a level playing field in education and the job market, when looking for accommodation, or when an act of terrorism takes place. 

And if that is indeed the predominant feeling within the community across classes, the big political players have got their election math all wrong!



Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

#India- There is a credibility crisis at all levels of government- Aruna Roy

, TNN | Jun 2, 2013, 05.58 AM IST

This week activist Aruna Roy walked out of the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC), complaining about this government’s ideological bias and obsession with growth. She talks to Padmaparna Ghosh about the dilution of the social sector focus.This is the second time that you have resigned from the NAC. What brought you back in 2010?

My decisions to join or leave the NAC have been taken collectively by the organization I work with – the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS). I left in 2008 because at that time the NAC didn’t have a chairperson and was not playing the role it was supposed to. I returned in 2010 because there were many issues (such as the demand for a Right to Food bill) that needed a stronger policy framework and I felt it would be useful to channel the input that comes from many campaigns. The NAC has sent many important recommendations to the government. The recent NAC recommendations on the pre-legislative process if implemented immediately will provide all citizens an opportunity to participate in the making of laws. The need is to ensure that at least some of these recommendations are enacted and implemented.

How tough was it to find common ground between civil society and the government?

The agenda of the NAC is set by the government’s political commitments. Within that pre-deter mined agenda, the NAC has worked to incorporate civil society opinion to advise the government on how to take its agenda forward. NAC II has evolved detailed procedures such as the formation of working groups, which has allowed a broader consultative process. The NAC has maintained a focus on issues of significance to the poor and the social sector such as the MGNREGA and the Right to Food, and has taken up specific issues such as nomadic tribals and bonded labourers. One of the NAC’s important contributions has been to build the understanding that delivery systems and democratic governance are crucial to the effective implementation of any social sector initiative. Therefore, the RTI, and other transparency and accountability initiatives such as the social audit and recommendations for a pre-legislative process have been taken up.

How do you respond to those that call MGNREGA “demand-driven distress employment” and, therefore, ineligible for minimum wage?

The Minimum Wage Act came into effect in 1948 and has remained the bedrock for workers’ rights. Therefore the importance of payment of minimum wages to MGNREGA workers extends beyond the MGNREGA itself. If the Government refuses to pay minimum wages to workers on its own programme, it can never enforce the law for the millions of unorganised workers in the agricultural and industrial sectors. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that no one can even opt to work for less than the minimum wage, no employer can use a lack of resources as an excuse and any labour that is paid less should be considered forced.

The argument that the government does not have to pay minimum wages to people in distress only proves the SC’s point. In fact this issue goes straight to the core of the battle around MGNREGA. People who have been profiting from exploitation through payment of distress wages are now reacting because the MGNREGA has given workers the capacity to fight for minimum wages even outside the programme. By violating the Minimum Wages Act, the government is threatening to destroy the most significant labour protection measure in India.

How do you intend to press for its implementation from outside NAC?

The NAC is an advisory body. That is why I feel it necessary to concentrate on advocating in the public domain for the acceptance and implementation of these recommendations. I do not believe that a democratic government can keep refusing to respect the constitutional entitlement of a minimum wage. Public pressure needs to be built up around this issue, as we close in on elections.

What do you believe you have accomplished during your tenure at the NAC?

The NAC gave me an opportunity to raise multiple issues of concern to people’s movements and campaigns. It played a very important role in the passage of landmark legislations such as the RTI and MGNREGA. It was because of the NAC that experience from people’s campaigns was processed into powerful and effective draft laws. Even though this was often whittled down by the bureaucracy it served as a standard. My association with the NAC helped strengthen causes of the poor and marginalized I have been associated with over the last few years.

UPA-2’s credibility has been damaged in the recent past. Would you vote them back in 2014?

The crisis in credibility today is at all levels of government. Effective implementation is as important as the legislations themselves. Our solutions do not lie in thoughts between one election and another but in addressing the lack of transparency and accountability in governance structures. My politics has always been to enhance the participation of people within the democratic frameworks so that their voices are heard not just once in five years but every day


Related posts

Aruna Roy leaves National Advisory Council

May 29, 2013

New DelhiNoted social rights activist Aruna Roy has decided to leave the National Advisory Council (NAC). Her letter of resignation has been accepted by NAC chairperson Sonia Gandhi, who also heads the United Progressive Alliance (UPA).

The task of the NAC is to provide inputs in the formulation of policy by the government, and to provide support to the government in legislative business.

In her letter to Sonia Gandhi, Roy listed differences with the government, specially over the refusal to give minimum wages to beneficiaries under the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS).

The noted social activist said that despite its contribution to changing the lives of the rural poor, implementation of this crucial flagship programme remains a challenge.

“There is a huge group of MGNREGS beneficiaries who are critical, but supportive of the law. They are losing public and political space to a small, vocal, and powerful minority determined to undermine the basic objectives of the MGNREGS,” Roy said in her letter.

“This is in continuation of the conversation we had some time ago, when I had requested that I not be considered for another term in the NAC. I am grateful for your accepting my request, while assuring you continued support to campaigns for social sector causes being taken up outside the NAC,” Roy wrote.

She said that it was “extremely unfortunate” that the prime minister rejected the NAC recommendations on payment of minimum wages to MGNREGS workers and chose instead to appeal against the Karnataka High Court judgment ordering the payment of minimum wages to MGNREGS workers.

“Even more distressing is the government’s refusal to pay minimum wages even after the Supreme Court refused to stay the Karnataka High Court judgment. It is difficult to understand how a country like India can deny payment of minimum wages and still make claims of inclusive growth,” Roy said.

Listing the achievements of the NAC, Roy said: “It is a matter of great significance that the NAC has approved a pre-legislative consultative process and will send it to government for necessary action. In my opinion, the NAC is itself a kind of pre-legislative body that has benefited immensely from the public consultations it has held.”

The functioning of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee, and its celebrated report in the aftermath of the Dec 16 gang-rape in Delhi, were also an outcome of a pre-legislative consultative process, Roy noted, hoping that the process of public consultation would become more robust.

Favouring immediate passage of the food security bill, Roy said: “Given the hunger and malnutrition scenario in the country, a food security bill should have been debated and passed by parliament by now.”

In her letter accepting Roy’s resignation, Sonia Gandhi said: “I respect your decision to move on from the National Advisory Council. I hope that we will continue to have the benefit of your wisdom and thoughts as a friend and supporter of NAC.”




Related posts

Protest the arrest of Anti Posco Leader Abhay Sahoo


We strongly condemn the arrest of our leader and president of PPSS Mr. Abhay Sahoo this morning i.e.  on 11thMay 2013. As you are all aware 50 cases had been filed against him at different stages of the movement and all the cases are blatantly false and fabricated. The district administration and police were after him as the movement instead of withering away under severe repression has gathered more momentum. Abhayji has been taken to Kujang jail in Jagatsinghpur district of Odisha.

We understand that this is part of a larger game plan to destabilize the movement and  force the project on our unwilling people. Earlier also Abhaya Sahoo was arrested in 2008 and was kept in jail for 14 months. Mr. Sahoo was again implicated in another false case leading to his incarceration from 25th November 2011 to 14th march 2012.

Every time when Abhayji was arrested the movement got further strengthened and our people threw up more leaders with solidarity from you all.

We have been informing you that our life has been severely disrupted since the state government signed the said project with POSCO. The police force has been using coercive measures to suppress our constitutional right to dissent. We have been peacefully resisting all types of criminal forces for more than eight  years, but ironically hundreds of cases are being lodged by the police against us. Our protesters have been murdered by bomb attacks, assaulted by hired goons and beaten by police-all done by at the behest of administration. Local authorities ignored our demands for recognition of our right to the land. Instead, armed forced were engaged to silence our voices.  Till now more than 200  false cases have been registered against our villagers by the government, 1500 warrants have issued out of which 340 are women.

Our people are unable to go out and receive treatment because of the threat of arrests. None of the cases has any basis and all are fabricated by the police to keep our people inside jail for as many days as they think by doing this they could spoil our democratic movement. The government of Odisha has been clamping false cases against anyone trying to oppose POSCO, It is matter of regret that all the actions till date by the government of Odisha against us is totally unjustified as the entire projects stands on shaky ground.

We call for all the Jan Andolans, People’s organisations, Political parties, activists, intellectuals and people at large to condemn in strongest possible terms this cowardly and undemocratic act of the administration. We appeal you all to demonstrate and demand immediate release of Abahya Sahoo. Also please lodge your protest near the following authorities.

Let me assure that our people will put up a more determined resistance and what they all need is your continuous support and solidarity.




Kindly forward this mail widely.


Hoping for Solidarity.


Prashant Paikaray

Spokesperson, POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti.

Mobile no – 09437571547

E- mail- [email protected]


You can call and write to the following :

1. Mr. Naveen Patnaik

Chief Minister,  Odishas

Tel. No.(O) 011 91 674 2531100,011 91 674 2535100,

011 91 674 2531500, Epbax 2163

Tel. No.(R) 011 91 674 2590299, 011 91 674 2591099,

011 91 674 2590844, 011 91 674 2591100,

Fax No- (91)6742535100

E Mail: [email protected]

2.  Dr. S. C. Zameer, Governor of Odisha,  Fax No-

3. Shri B K Patnaik, Chief Secretary, E-mail: [email protected]<[email protected]>

Phone no – 0674 – 2536700

0674 – 2534300

0674 – 2322196

Fax No – 0674 – 2536660

3. S.K. Mallick , District  Collector, Jagatsinghpur, Contact number
09437038401,   Fax no – : (91)6724220299

4. Superintendent of Police, Satyabrata Bhoi, Mobile no-09437575759, 0624-
220115,  [email protected]

5. Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India

Tel no-+9111-23016857

e mail: [email protected]

6. Sonia Gandhi: Tel Phone no – (91)11-23014161, (91)11-23012656, Fax-
(91)112301865, [email protected],

*7.* Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission of India, Faridkot
House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi 110 001, Tel: +91 11 230 74448, Fax: +91
11 2334 0016, Email: [email protected]

8. Shri. V.Kishore Chandra Deo

Minister of Tribal Affairs

Ministry of Tribal Affairs,

Room No. 400  ‘B’ Wing, Shastri Bhawan,

New Delhi- 110001

[email protected]

9. Smt. Jayanthi Natarajan

Minister of Environment & Forests

Ministry of Environment & Forests

Paryavaran Bhawan,

CGO Complex, Lodhi Road

New Delhi-110003

[email protected]



Related posts

#India- MP minister justifies number of rapes to total population #WTFnews

, TNN | Apr 21, 2013,

MP minister justifies number of rapes to total population
Women activists of BJP remove police barricade outside UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi‘s residence during a protest against the rape of of the 5-year-old girl in New Delhi.
BHOPAL: At a time when the whole nation is outraged by the alleged rape of a 5-year-old girl child in New Delhi, a Madhya Pradesh minister went on record claiming the number of rapes as still less when compared to the total population.While Delhi‘s 5-year-old is under medical treatment in AIIMS, another little girl of her age from Madhya Pradesh is still fighting for her life in a hospital in Nagpur. The second child, also a victim of gang-rape, from Ghansor in Sheoni was flown out in a critical condition to Maharashtra for treatment. Her condition is critical.

But an insensitive minister of state for urban administration and development, Manohar Utwal, on Saturday said, “Evaluating the population of the Madhya Pradesh, the number of rapes is not that high.” Madhya Pradesh continues to be the rape capital of the country with the National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB) revealing the largest number of the heinous offence being reported in the state. In 2011-12, NCRB records showed a total 3,406 rapes in the state.

Speaking to reporters in Jaora town in Ratlam district, the minister justified, “In a state where total the population exceeds 7.5 crore, only 4,500 rapes have been reported this year.” He further defended that rape statistics is high in Madhya Pradesh because the police diligently records every complaint.

Manohar Utwal’s inconsiderate comment comes less than a week after an MP cabinet minister Vijay Shah was sacked for making sexist remarks against chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan‘s wife while addressing a students’ gathering in the tribal dominated Jhabua district. With such reckless anti-women observations coming from state ministers, the Congress opposition in Madhya Pradesh isfurious.

Congress’ leader of opposition Ajay Singh on Sunday said, “By the way the state ministers are speaking, it is clear that the BJP government has no respect for women and have no intention or desire to protect them. To compare the population of the state to the number of rapes and justify the crime just brings out the BJP’s anti-woman mentality.”


Related posts