What did they discuss?

Reacting to the media report (read my blog "Whose inner voice") the office of President of India issue a press release, which I quote:

It has been reported in a section of the press that the President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam had discussed the citizenship issue with Smt. Sonia Gandhi when she met him yesterday at Rashtrapati Bhavan. This is contrary to facts. It did not figure in the discussions at all.

19-05-2004 : Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi

It's clear now, irrespective what ever the President may have discussed, the congress party and Ms. Sonia Gandhi has to clarify the issues raised in the media report - if not today but tomorrow when this case comes up on SC. The information given in the report will definitely give a boost the anti-Sonia campaign.

But what is interesting to me is the careful coding of words in the press release, from the office of President of India. Though the report say the President asked for clarification regarding the exact status of Ms. Sonia's Indian citizenship, the articles referred to in that report mainly raises the issue of Ms. Sonia Gandhi's acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state - namely Italy - and the reciprocity of citizenship rights toward an Indian born in Italy. By just mentioning the word "citizenship" in their press release, the office of President has kept their card closed, as of now. We don't know what do the office of President mean when they say "citizenship issue". It may be the nature of Ms. Sonia's Indian citizenship or it may be her association with Italy or it may the reciprocity of citizenship as requested by section 5 of citizenship Act 1987. If we were to give a general interpretation to the press release, then it means the President didn't discuss the first case - namely nature of Ms. Sonia Gandhi's Indian citizenship. But core of the report in the media is centered on the Article 102 & 103 of Indian Constitution and Section 5 of Citizenship Act. By using the a general phrase like "citizenship issue" the office of President has kept the choices open. They can take any side depending upon the nature of event's that unfolds.

Whose inner voice? - The Pioneer

The following is an article from the "The Pioneer" newspaper. I think those genuine emotional, loyal congress leaders has some explaining to do - especially Dr. Manmohan Singh.

Did Sonia Gandhi step down from the race to be Prime Minister because her "inner voice" suddenly told her to do so? Why did this "voice" speak now, despite her being elected Congress Parliamentary Party leader and after obtaining letters of support from all allied parties?

Apparently, it was not the "inner voice" but certain queries that could have been put to her by the President of India, custodian of the Constitution, which caused her to withdraw her name.

Contrary to attempts by Congressmen and Communists to portray her eleventh-hour retreat as a "personal decision" spurred by her children, it could be the clarifications apparently sought by President A P J Abdul Kalam that resulted in the rethink. The President, it is reliably learnt, did not outrightly reject her candidature for the post of the Prime Minister. However, he is believed to have sought certain clarifications on a few points regarding the precise status of her Indian citizenship. In doing so, he may have referred to some pointed queries referred to him by legal luminaries who met him since the declaration of the Lok Sabha election results.

That probably explains why Ms Gandhi's decision to opt out came only after she emerged from the Rashtrapati Bhawan after meeting the President on Tuesday at 12.30 pm. That could also explain why she did not allow the entourage of allied parties to accompany her for the meeting, contrary to custom.

According to highly placed sources, the President may have conveyed to her that in view of the legal and constitutional queries raised, he would need some more time to examine the matter. Accordingly, there could be no swearing-in on Wednesday, May 19 - a date unilaterally announced by Left leaders and enthusiastically endorsed by Congressmen on Monday without consulting the Rashtrapati Bhawan.

Highly placed sources in the Government told The Pioneer that on the basis of various petitions submitted to him, the President could have sought to clarify a few issues from Ms Gandhi. He is said to have informally communicated to her on Monday evening that certain queries needed to be answered, even as he invited her to have a discussion on Government formation.

On the basis of pleas submitted to him by people like Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy and BJP leader Sushma Swaraj against any person of foreign origin occupying a top constitutional post, and the legal advice that he had obtained from top constitutional experts, the President could have sought three clarifications from Ms Gandhi. This would be a haunting experience for Ms Gandhi. The BJP leaders had already declared that they would continue to support any form of agitation on the foreign origin issue.

The most damaging clarification that has apparently been sought relates to Article 102 of the Constitution that says: "A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament" on any or more of five possible grounds. Clause(d) of the same Article says "... or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state".

The term "adherence" had to be clarified specifically as Ms Gandhi in her affidavit before the Returning Officer of the Rai Bareli parliamentary constituency had stated that she owned ancestral property, namely portion of a house, in Orbassano, Italy, the country of her origin. This fact of ownership, legal experts say, makes her subject to Italian law in this matter and could be interpreted as "adherence" to a foreign country. Since this portion of the ancestral property was apparently bequeathed to her by her father in his will, she inherited it only after his death. Consequently, the property was not her's when she filed her 1999 nomination affidavit.

Article 103 states that "if any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to disqualification mentioned in Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision to the President and his decision shall be final". Clause 2 of the Article says: "Before giving any decision on such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion."

This means that the President is required by the Constitution to undertake an elaborate process of examining the legal and constitutional issues involved. Thus, Ms Gandhi's swearing-in could not happen before the matter was fully clarified and resolved.

Another point that came in the way of Ms Gandhi was Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Under this, there is a reciprocity provision whereby citizenship granted by India to persons of foreign origin is circumscribed by the rights that particular country confers upon foreigners seeking citizenship there.

The crux of this provision of "reciprocity" is that a person of foreign origin, who has acquired the citizenship of India through registration by virtue of marrying an Indian national, cannot enjoy more rights (like becoming Prime Minister), if the same opportunity is not available to an Indian-born citizen in that particular country.

While it is not known whether the President mentioned this, legal luminaries pointed out there could be a further lacuna over the issue of her surrendering Italian citizenship. It is believed that while acquiring citizenship through registration in 1983, she surrendered her Italian passport to the Italian Ambassador in New Delhi but did not obtain a formal notification from the Italian Government that her citizenship of that country had been cancelled.

This might be only a technicality that could be rectified in a few days, but it would have certainly helped the BJP raise the pitch of the campaign once the citizenship issue returned to the fore.

Another petition submitted to the President on Tuesday by Sushma Swaraj pointed out that as the Supreme Commander of India's Armed Forces, the President should examine a key issue. It referred to the fact that a Defence or Indian Foreign Service official cannot even marry a foreign national without permission, or must quit his post. How could a person of foreign origin be handed over the nuclear button in such circumstances, Ms Swaraj's petition demanded to know.

What could have prevented Sonia?

Article 102 of the Constitution says: "A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament - (d) if he or she is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state." Sonia Gandhi, in her affidavit, had declared she owned a house in Italy and may thus invite, the term "adherence" of the said provision.

Under Article 103, the President is the sole adjudicator on the issue who has to decide on such matter in consultation with the Election Commission.

Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, dealing with the reciprocity clause for a person who registered herself as an Indian citizen, says the said person could not enjoy more rights than those available to an Indian born person in that other country if he/she acquires citizenship of that country, like Italy for instance.

The clauses of the Citizenship Act were apparently not fully met when Ms Gandhi relinquished her Italian citizenship.

Union or Center - Does it count?

1. Name and territory of the Union.-
(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. (2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule. (3) The territory of India shall comprise - (a) the territories of the States; (b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and (c) such other territories as may be acquired.

The Constitution of India

The words "Union" and "Center" are being interchangeably in India by almost everybody. Are they equivalent?, Does it count to differenciate between them?. No, they aren't equivalent. Yes, it does count to differenciate them. Here is why:

The union, as in Indian constitution, is a combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of states for mutual interest or benefit. The constitution projects a federal structure for the Indian state - formed by the union of culturally, linguistically and ideologically diverse states - the sense of which is lost when one uses the word "center".

256. Obligation of States and the Union.-
The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.
257. Control of the Union over States in certain cases.-
(1) The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.
258A. Power of the States to entrust functions to the Union.-
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Governor of a State may, with the consent of the Government of India, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the State extends.

The Constitution of India

For the past 57 years of independence, no one seems to have any problem with using those two words interchangeably. But if we were to be proud of our special characteristic - namely, unity in diversity - for many many years in the future, we better start respecting the federalism in built in our constitution. Any effort on the contrary will definitely be a non starter. It's imperative that our future generation - if not the present - grow up with a strong respect for this federalism.

Indian Democracy: the failed institution - India votes 2004

In the completed general election 2004, the people of India has given clear mandate to congress president Sonia Gandhi ( Ghandi or Ghandhi?) - hype's the party. But the actual number of seats own my congress is only 147 out of 543 seats for Lok Sabha, Is this a clear mandate?, seems to be for the congress party. Moreover, it is my understanding, the congress has own at least one third (if not more) of these 147 because of its various regional allies. Definitely this is the case both in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, where people voted against the local government then for Sonia's leadership - the congress never announced their PM before the election. This is the same in case of Bihar, Maharastra and few other states. Even the pre-poll alliance of congress, the DPA, couldn't manage to get the majority of its own. Where is the (hyped) clear mandate for Sonia's leadership. Probably the congress people have some special non-human skills - available only to those self-respectless, shameless creatures. Yes, it is a failure of democratic institution when a voter has to vote for a candidate with out knowing who is going to be their PM - who will be elected by these elected representatives. The ultimate failure is the failure to develop credible leaders among more than one billion peoples on this country.

By making Sonia Gandhi as the PM of India, the congress will ring the death-knell of Indian democratic institutions. The Party has clearly conveyed their inability to find a leader outside the Nehru-Gandhi family or from few million odd congress followers. The Party has paved way for the rise of imperialism under the banner of democracy. So what did India achieve in 60 of her independence?. In my humble opinion - apart from nuclear weapons, few missiles and a fighter aircraft - a failed democratic institutions. She failed to develop credible institutions which can created policy maker, visionaries and above all leader who will lead this country into to future. The NDA's are not different in this matter either.

Who is a Religious fundamentalist?.

1. George Monbiot article on The Guardian, also at

US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy

In the 19th century, two immigrant preachers cobbled together a series of unrelated passages from the Bible to create what appears to be a consistent narrative: Jesus will return to Earth when certain preconditions have been met. The first of these was the establishment of a state of Israel. The next involves Israel's occupation of the rest of its "biblical lands" (most of the Middle East), and the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.

Wait a minute, are they talking about construction of a temple in place of a mosque

The legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel, and their war will lead to a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will either burn or convert to Christianity, and the Messiah will return to Earth.

The true believers are now seeking to bring all this about. This means staging confrontations at the old temple site (in 2000, three US Christians were deported for trying to blow up the mosques there), sponsoring Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, demanding ever more US support for Israel, and seeking to provoke a final battle with the Muslim world/Axis of Evil/United Nations/ European Union/France or whoever the legions of the antichrist turn out to be.

Final Phase - India votes 2004

Well the final phase of polling is over as of writing this blog. All parties are nervous right now, I suppose. This phase is not with out any trouble. There were reports of all kinds of problems, from booth capturing to classical missing names problem - the later is hurting the credibility of election (particularly this one) in India. At least one person might have died in poll related violence today on the final phase of polling - which was conducted in five phases. In south chennai many voters found their names struck off from the voters list. In one case, only 15 personal from a particular residential street found their names in the list - rest what the hurry, they still have more elections to come not to mention the assembly election with in three years. Some people's group threatened to move to chennai high court on this issue - let's see what happens?.

Aussies make teleporting reality

Aussies make teleporting reality: "Aussies make teleporting reality. In a world breakthrough out of the realms of Star Trek, scientists in Australia have successfully teleported a laser beam of light from one spot to another in a split second but warn: don't sell the car yet.

Teleportation became one of the hottest topics among physicists in quantum mechanics in the past decade, after the IBM lab in the United States provided theoretical underpinning for the work in 1993. Since then about 40 laboratories globally have been experimenting in this area.

Although teams in California and Denmark were the first to do preliminary work on teleportation, the ANU team of scientists from Australia, Germany, France, China and New Zealand was the first to achieve a successful trial with 100 percent reliability."
ANU Quantum Optics group's presentation

Sumerian [Tamil] -> Archaic Tamil ?

Recently, while reading a news group in Tamil.net, I came across an interesting theory. The language of Sumerians was from an archaic Tamil. Many people have argued in similar lines as both the languages ( Tamil and Sumerian ) shared words and many similarities - yet to established with any certainties. Interestingly - at least to me - the theory put forth by Prof. BV Ventatakrishna Sastry of Hindu university of America, goes on to state that Rigkrit ( Sanskrit used in RigVeda I think ) branched off from the Archaic Tamil and Current Tamil is continuation of it. My efforts to accress the authors web page ended in vein - hope I get lucky in future. There seem to be at least another person - Dr. K. Loganathan (probably from Malaysia) - working on the same theory. You can read part on research from the following link (you may need to have TSC compatible font installed to be able to view the tamil text on this page).
http://arutkural.tripod.com/sumstudies/sum-incan-1.html

One can also read their discussion on Tamil.net mailing list.

PS: I used the spelling TAMIL to be in consistent with the authors otherwise I always use the spelling THAMIZH - I think this spells proper than other one. Unfortunately everybody seem to follow the former.