Understanding the Sangh Parivar's new tactics

Last updated on: September 09, 2009 10:31 IST

Dr Walter Andersen, an American expert who wrote the seminal book on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh titled Brotherhood of Saffron and was among the first to predict that the Bharatiya Janata Party would rise to power in India on the wings of its Hindutva ideology, has said the recent attacks by the RSS on the BJP leadership, particularly Lal Kishenchand Advani [ Images ], it totally out of character. Andersen, who headed the South Asia division of the Intelligence and Research Bureau at the State Department for several years, said the RSS holding Advani responsible for the Lok Sabha debacle and its assailing the party leadership for creating a controversy with Jaswant Singh's [ Images ] expulsion for his book praising Jinnah and taking the pressure off Prime Minister Mamohan Singh over signing of the Indo-Pakistan Joint Statement in Sharm-el-Sheikh, was highly unusual for the Sangh Parivar. "Generally, this kind of washing of dirty linen in public is highly unusual in the Sangh Parivar and violates one of its central positions on the importance of social solidarity of the group," he said. Andersen, now associate director of the South Asian Program at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, told rediff.com: "Often it was the metaphor of the family that is used to explain the organisation, but something has changed and there are a few things that are critical," that has perhaps brought about this transformation.
He argued that when the BJP emerged as a governing party at the Centre in 1998-2004, and in several large states, "This brought all sorts of people outside the narrow Sangh perimeters into the party."
"Power also proved to be a temptation even for the more ideological, either because of a chance for exercising power or getting money."
Andersen said, "One has only to read the more committed Sangh newspapers and journals over the past decade to understand the angst over the impact of these temptations. Some have even argued that it would be best to stay aloof from the temptations of power entirely -- ironically sort of the view of Mahatma Gandhi [ Images ] and the Congress immediately after independence."
He said, compounding this irony was that the argument by Sangh Parivar that "appeals to the same deep current of selflessness and Sonia Gandhi [ Images ], it should be recalled, gained enormous respect from her decision to stay out of the top ranks of power."
Andersen said, "The new sarsanghchalak, Mohan Bhagwat, is perhaps the most politically inclined head of the RSS since its founder Keshav Baliran Hedgewar some eight decades ago."
He pointed out that Bhagwat "has been taking a more active role than any previous sarsanghchalak since Hedgewar and that is having an effect in the party. Hedgewar, it should be recalled, was an active member in the Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha." Andersen said, there was no doubt Bhagat was 'a superb organiser and chief administrator as the general secretary of the RSS', in his previous avatar "and he, like Hedgewar, is also very close to the pracharaks, who are the full time workers and the steel frame of the RSS and who form such a crucial base in all the affiliated organisations, such as the BJP."
He said although Bhagwat has often claimed "to be above mere politics," there was no denying that "he has spent his official life as an intermediary between the RSS and the BJP and issuing political statements, like a younger leadership is needed in the BJP and his criticism of Advani's role in the campaign."
Andersen, who in an earlier interview, immediately following the election results, had told rediff.com that the defeat of the BJP signalled the end of the political road for Advani and like ailing former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee [ Images ], would soon be put out to pasture, said the most recent salvo against Advani by the RSS was obviously to promote a revolt and bring in a new leadership in the party.
He said the recent criticisms by the RSS, specifically targeting Advani, was seemingly "to favour advancing either Arun Jaitley [ Images ] or Sushma Swaraj [ Images ], both relatively young BJP figures, to the forefront of the party or Madhya Pradesh [ Images ] Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, who has twice been chief minister and led the BJP to significant victories in this large Hindi-speaking state."
Andersen predicted that in the coming months and years "the RSS will play a more important role in vetting candidates, BJP officials and even policy," and added: "With the senior leadership under attack by the RSS, others have taken advantage of the opportunity to jump on the senior leadership and their presumed poor management of the party during the recent parliamentary campaign," and the other controversies that had emerged, including the Jaswant Singh furore.
He also said that the BJP's problem was further exacerbated because the party 'has no huge charismatic figure like Vajpayee to lead the party to redefine itself in a fast-changing India, much more prosperous and more actively engaged in world politics'.
Andersen said that Vajpayee also had immense credibility because he "was a senior RSS pracharak in an organisation that respects seniority."
He explained that "within the sangh parivar, the RSS leadership -- the pracharaks -- view themselves as somewhat morally superior to others and Vajpayee could not be lectured due to his senior position."
Andersen said it also helped that Vajpayee had "a manner of the wise old man that once could identify with and none of the older senior leadership possesses this quality. Furthermore, Vajpayee was a Brahmin and that high caste ranking still counts for something. So, given this relative power vacuum there is more open fight for power and an effort apparently by Bhagwat to fill a vacuum, despite all his disclaimers about this." Regarding Jaswant Singh, and his expulsion by the BJP and then his being dismissed as a non-entity by the RSS, which led to Singh counter-attacking and describing the RSS as comparable to the white supremist Ku Klux Klan in the US, Andersen said it should not be forgotten that "Jaswant Sngh was never a member of the RSS or its affiliates when he joined the party. He had no real base in the pariwar, who did not support his appointment to a cabinet position by Vajpayee, but Vajpayee could get away with this because of his stature."
Andersen said, "When this book came out, it was time, in a sense, for the long knives to come out against him, particularly since he had criticised former Home Minister Patel, an icon for the sangh leadership. He praised Jinnah, still a demonised figure for many Indians and certainly for much of the Sangh Parivar."
He opined that Singh may have done so because "he may have genuinely felt that the Congress refusal to compromise with Jinnah on centralisation drove Jinnah reluctantly to support a separate state of Pakistan." Andersen also said that "Jawant may also have felt that his criticism of Nehru for ultimately supporting partition would find a receptive audience in the Sangh Parivar since it has been a virtual doctrine of the parivar that partition was a tearing apart of the sacred soil of Mother India."
"But it did not -- and if you recall, Advani got into deep trouble for his praise of Jinnah, but could come out of it relatively well as he is a RSS pracharak with long years of service to the organisation and the parivar. In addition, one must keep in mind, Jaswant's close relationship with Nusli Wadia, Jinnah's grandson," for which he was now been attacked in the wake of the publication of his book as someone who could never be trusted.
Andersen said, "My guess is that Jaswant's long and close friendship (with Wadia) influenced his thinking about what Jinnah was trying to achieve."
On the question of whether the BJP was imploding, Andersen said, "The short answer is that it is going through an internal shakeup, and there might be some significant departures -- either forced or voluntary -- but I doubt that it will disintegrate, as some of the interpretations of 'imploding' seem to imply."
"The bottom line is that the BJP is still going through something of a post-election shake-up and how well it emerges from this depends keeping the loyalty of the core parivar base group while working out cooperative arrangements able to bring in new groups into the party and allies to the National Democratic Alliance. Vajpayee could do this. Advani not nearly as well."
Andersen said there was no assurance "if the next generation would do better, but the BJP needs to advance itself as an opposition party with distinct views on issues of importance to Indians, and especially the urban middle class Hindu base that has been the party's major support group."
But he predicted, "The party is likely to experience major turmoil before it reconstructs itself -- though I am relatively confident that it will do so."


Nationalistic goals of RSS

by Venu Gopal on Sep 10, 2009 03:48 PM Hide replies

The RSS began various organizations in different fields of activity in order to advance the nationalistic cause in all fields of social activity. Jan Sangh was built-up by the RSS to advance the nationalistic cause in the field of politics. That role was subsequently taken up through the BJP. If the BJP becomes a mere political party in the electoral ring for the sake of power, RSS would have to build another party to attain its nationalistic goals in politics.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/09/understanding-the-sangh-parivars-new-tactics.htm

Dr YSR was a very devoted Christian'

September 07, 2009 14:36 IST
Pulivendula, in south central Andhra Pradesh, where Dr Y S Rajasekhara Reddy [ Images ] grew up, falls in the Nandyal diocese.
The Reddys were prominent Christians in this district. YSR's family converted to Christianity when his grandfather was influenced by British missionaries; the late chief minister was a third generation Christian.
Reverend Dr P J Lawrence, the bishop of the Church of South India's Nandyal diocese, remembers Dr Reddy:
Dr YSR, as he was affectionately known, was a member of the Protestant Church of South India. He was a committed Christian. His father Raja Reddy was also a Christian. They worshipped at the CSI church in their hometown, Pulivendula.
Dr YSR was a very devoted Christian, always attending church whenever they were in their hometown.
Incidentally, Dr Reddy and I studied at the Veerasaiva College in Bellary (eastern Karnataka bordering Andhra Pradesh). We were contemporaries in college.
I had the privilege of attending their (YSR's family's) last Christmas function. There were many family members there and also preachers. It is a very big family of more than 500 close relatives.
Dr YSR read the Bible and prayed every day with Christian discipline. His mother was a very devout lady. She prayed for his success in the first election. Dr YSR always acknowledged his mother's prayers for his success.
There is no doubt he is with the Lord in heaven. He loved people and people poured their love on him.
It was the people's love that got him elected (as chief minister) for a second term. He had implemented many good programmes for the people in the state.
Dr YSR was a very charismatic leader. Not only a great leader, but a legend and an icon.
We had very cordial and friendly meetings whenever I met with him. I met him recently to invite him to my diocese in October and we were expecting him to come as the chief guest for the 125th anniversary of the SPG high school, Nandyal.
He has helped a lot of Christians, especially Dalit Christians. He recently gave a gift to all Dalit Christians by passing a legislative order giving them the same benefits (as Dalits).
He leaves behind his son Jaganmohan Reddy [ Images ], the MP from Kadapa, recently elected. He also has a daughter married to Anil Kumar, a well known young evangelist.
Dr Lawrence spoke to Vaihayasi P Daniel


Hindus fear conversions as their flock gets depleted. But while the missionaries are on a mission to convert Hindus, Christianity itself appears getting converted to Hinduism, as a recent survey in America revealed, where more that 76% of churchgoers had beliefs akin to Hindu beliefs and contrary to Christian beliefs, like being reborn after death, God being approachable in many ways, that Jesus is not the only truth etc. Hinduism, in short, is the most influential religion in the world today and it appears that within 100 years, Abrahamic religions would be studied more in museums than actually lived.

http://news.rediff.com/special/2009/sep/07/dr-ysr-was-a-very-devoted-christian.htm

Ishrat Jahan encounter not fake: Gujarat govt

Updated on Tuesday, September 08, 2009, 18:35 IST Zeenews Bureau
Ahmedabad: Refusing to subscribe to the observations made in the Tamang Report about the alleged ‘fake’ encounter of four persons including teenaged Ishrat Jahan in 2004, the Gujarat Government has decided to challenge the report. Addressing a press conference, state government spokesperson Jay Narayan Vyas said, “Justice Tamang report is invalid and the Gujarat government will challenge it,” adding that the “encounter was not fake.” He also claimed that the report was prepared in a “hurry”, without giving Gujarat government a chance to express its views. Questioning the report’s findings, Vyas termed it as “bad in law” saying that the accused were not given an opportunity to explain their stand. “Normally, in the process of tenet justice an opportunity will be given to the accused to present their stand. But in this case, a judicial magistrate has not given any chance to the accused,” Vyas said. “The Committee was asked to give the report around November 2009 but the committee submitted it within a month of its constitution.” “The report quoted the Cr PC 176 of the IPC to probe this incident. But the 176 allows only the custodial deaths and it was not a custodial death. How can they probe under this clause? None of the sub clauses mention about probing for the encounters, so we will challenge the whole report. Hence, it is not valid for us,” said Vyas.
He also dragged the Centre into the whole issue by revealing that the Home Ministry in its report had accepted that Ishrat Jahan and her partners were involved in plans to carry out terror strikes in Gujarat and Maharashtra, he added. A few days after the incident, a section of media carried out a news report stating that Ishrat and the others killed belonged to their organisation, added Vyas. As per the Tamang report, four persons-- Ishrat, Javed Ghulam Sheikh alias Pranesh Kumar Pillai, Amjad Ali alias Rajkumar Akbar Ali Rana and Jisan Johar Abdul Gani--killed in an encounter on the outskirts of the city on June 15, 2004, were not linked with Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashker-e-Toiba, as claimed by the police.BJP defends ModiBJP today defended Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, saying he cannot be held responsible for everything that happens in the state. "Why should Modi take a call?....Do you think anything that happens in any state, the Chief Minister is responsible? If anything happens in the national capital, is the Prime Minister responsible?" senior BJP leader M Venkaiah Naidu said in reply to a question on whether Modi should be held accountable for the Ishrat Jahan encounter. Naidu accused the media of suffering from "Modi-mania". "How is the Chief Minister concerned with this (Ishrat Jahan case)? Let law take its own course," he said. BJP’s national spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad referred to the affidavit filed by the Centre which had accepted that Ishrat Jahan and her partners were involved in plans to carry out terror strikes in Gujarat. ”No one can deny that this country is not under terror threat. LeT operatives are active in India,” he said.


While the civil rights of citizens must never be curbed and India must not become a police state, we must not become naive and forget that India has many enemies, not just in the form of our Islamist neighbors but also among those who share the same anti Hindu ideology within India and their fellow travelers in hating India and Hinduism - the communists, whether in China, Nepal or Kerala. Therefore in the name of civil rights India must not become a soft state. The police and men in uniform must be seen as a force to protect India from its enemies and they must be empowered to take the law in their hands if this is necessary to curb the power of anti-Indian forces. Merely being a force that seeks to arrest culprits is calling them to act only after a crime has been committed. They must have pro-active powers and be empowered to act even on a hunch, even if at times they are proved erroneous - as long as they are by and large spot on is enough to ensure that anti-Indian forces would not have a free run in India. Specific cases of police indiscretion must be gone into but this should not result in the powers of the police to act arbitrarily if necessary being curtailed. This will only be at the cost of the nation's integrity.

http://www.zeenews.com/news561713.html

China, a bigger threat than Pak for India

CNN-IBN
Chinese incursions on the Indian territory have been increasing but India seems powerless to stop them. Earlier this year, a Chinese helicopter violated Indian airspace in Ladakh. Recently, the word 'China' was painted on rocks near the Ladakh border.
The Government says these intrusions take place because the India-China border is not clearly demarcated in this area. But China does not accept what India believes is the existing border.
The Ministry of External Affairs has also said that these incursions are not an issue and violations of airspace are simply navigational blunders by helicopters because the borders are not well-defined.
And that leads us to the question that was being asked on CNN-IBN's Face The Nation: Is China India's greatest threat in the region?
To try and answer the question on the panel of experts were CPI (M) leader Nilotpal Basu; Defence Analyst and Rear Admiral (Retd) Raja Menon; and former diplomat G Parthasarathy.
At the beginning of the debate 90 per cent of the people who voted in agreed that China was India's greatest threat in the region, and only 10 per cent disagreed.
China: India's greatest threat?
G Parthasarathy kick-started the debate saying, "With regard to the Ministry of External Affairs, I can say that they are making the same mistake which Jawaharlal Nehru made – pretending a problem does not exist when it does. In 2002, we were preparing to exchange maps with China over what is the Line of Control. China backed off because they did not want to define the Line of Control then. Then we went into a new pattern of border talks. After 2005, they have become very aggressive on their claims in Arunachal Pradesh, saying the whole of Arunachal is South Tibet and they are pushing this in international forums as well. Now since the Line of Control is not demarcated, the Ministry of External Affairs is saying it cannot be regarded as intrusions from the Chinese point of view."
He added that the fact of the matter was that the number of incidences and the level of penetration after 2005 have increased and Chinese troops deployment have increased.
He further stated, "There are statements on Chinese websites which say that they will divide India into 30 parts. The latest is that they have been training an army in Manipur."
The reality is that China wants to expand itself geo-politically in South Asia. The question is: Is there a difference in perceptions in the way defence forces see it and in the way diplomats see it especially since the Army Chief has been saying that strong measures have to be taken against these incursions.
Raja Menon said that a problem like this with China is potentially dangerous.
"The Chinese have a saying called 'teaching a lesson'. It is a part of their strategic vocabulary. As far as they are concerned, 1962 was not about grabbing territory but it was about teaching India a lesson. They don't believe that we should talk, because until one finishes talking, one can't use force. They feel that using force is part of negotiations, so we are in a dangerous situation here," he said.
He said that most armed forces around the world were brought up to believe that war was another form of diplomacy but that there was a thin dividing line. For the Chinese, he said, that dividing line did not exist.
"Mao had said that armed forces and negotiations were compatible, on the same plane," Menon stated.
Parthasarathy added here that the way China was supplying nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan, equipping Pakistan's air force with 150 front range aircraft, showed that China obviously has a policy of containment of India.
India playing into America's hands?
Parthasarathy stated, "All I am saying is that let's be realistic and not keeping saying Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai, that they are our comrades."
Communist Parties in India have an ideological affinity to China but did they feel now that the national interest of both the countries was on a collision course?
To this Nilotpal Basu said, "I think in no way can the patriotism of Indian communists be questioned. In 1962, we had pointed out that there was a border dispute between the two countries which needed to be resolved through a dialogue process. Unfortunately, though China has come around to seeing our point of view, in the last few months we have been hearing this extreme China bashing by India. I think it is coincidental with the increasing tendency towards multi-polarity in the world today. There are forces in India which want the global uni-polar architecture to continue even though Americans are losing a lot of leverage they had earlier, post the financial meltdown."
"China has resolved border disputes with 27 countries and we hope that saner council will prevail and we should be able to resolve our dispute peacefully through a dialogue process so that the full scope of the multi-polar world can be got. There are so many forums on which India and China can come together - like WTOs and climate change forums - and contribute more positively to the architecture of the contemporary world," he added.
What he was trying to say was that India was playing into America's hands.
Parthasarathy said, "Let me put it this way - it is China which has endeavoured to spoil our relations with the US. Let's not forget they teamed up with Nixon in 1971 in Mao Tse Tung's time. Secondly, I agree with Nilotpal Basu that we have to engage with the neighbour - especially a powerful one which is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council. But we cannot ignore Chinese behaviour when they lay claim to an entire state in India, when their military strength leads close to our deployments at the border, when they are arming Pakistan and when they go to the United Nations and block the declaration that Lashkar-e-Toiba is a terrorist organisation. What has China got in common with the Lashkar-e-Toiba to block it in the UN?"
"Let us be very, very clear that China is a great country, a powerful neighbour and we have to live in peace, we have to seek cooperation. But if China plays balance of power politics and it plays according to its own rules, then we have to look out for our own interests," he added.
Parthasarathy said, "We need a multi-polar world, I agree with Mr Basu, but not on Chinese terms."
China ruthlessly pursuing own interest?
The panelists said China is not a democracy, it plays by its own rules and it doesn't care about international rules.
There was an article which came out in the China International Institute of Strategic Studies which said: “India should be broken up into 20-30 independent nation states by China, that the Indian state is nothing but a Hindu religion state based on caste exploitation, that China should support ULFA and that there should be another Bengali nation next to Bangladesh.”
These statements don't assure India about Chinese intentions. Nilotpal Basu defended China's position saying that there were millions of crazy people roaming around cyber space and nobody has control on them.
"If we take all these things seriously, then no one can save us," he stated.
Raja Menon interrupted here saying, "We don't have to take seriously, the things that people say but we do have to take seriously what they are doing here on the ground. This whole business of them making Pakistan a nuclear power began in the mid '80s, when India was not threatening anybody and we had a slow growth rate. We started growing only after 1991. But they calculated in 1985 that we needed to be kept south of the Himalayas. They started the whole thing."
Parthasarathy said, "China is a challenge because it wants to be the unquestioned great power of Asia on its own terms. They have started deploying their Navy in Indian Ocean. India will take years to match that but for the first time they are seeing a potential in India - provided India plays its diplomatic cards well. They are very concerned about what India is doing in South East Asia, they are very concerned about the way we are making inroads into Myanmmar."
Don't underestimate China
Parthasarathy said the only way to win the respect of the Chinese was to grow at 10 per cent per annum for the next 10 years, have five nuclear submarines and have a very strong military force.
"China respects hard military power. Not soft power. They acknowledge our soft power and they are quite envious about it but they still don't see how we can convert that into usuable military hard power. And if we don't have hard power, we don't matter to the Chinese," Menon stated.
Parthasarathy agreed saying China had a measure of contempt, mystification and envy as far as India was concerned.
"They are our neighbour, we have to engage them, but let us engage them from a position of strength - economic and political. Let us have no illusions of this bhai-bhai business. Keep your options open, work with China on various levels, but never underestimate their inclination to use power and be ready for it," he said.
China is a country which is not a camp follower, it negotiates on its own terms. Is this a foreign policy paradiem which India should emulate?
To this Basu said, "No country can emulate another on a one-to-one correspondence basis. Chinese foreign policy is independent, I agree, but I feel Sino-Indian relationships would have surged much further if the shadow of the US had not clouded the atmosphere. All this talk is suiting American interest the most. No single power will dominate the world in the 21st Century. It has to be a multi-polar world. There is unfortunately a display of raw and mighty power to redesign the world on uni-polar lines. We need a more democratic interaction with China."
Parthasarathy begged to differ saying the Chinese dealt very well with the US. "It is very rarely that you will find China not agreeing to a resolution put forward by the US in the Security Council. China used the US against us during the Bangladesh conflict, after our nuclear test and it was China working with the US which stymied our permanent seat with the UN Security Council."
"We are not using the US against China. It's the other way round. They have a relationship with the US which is independent and which is why Hillary Clinton and Obama regard it as the most important country in the 21st Century. Let's be real," he stated.
Menon said that no one in their right senses was looking at a war between India and China.
"We are saying we cannot be pushed and we must have a strategy to ensure we don't get pushed," he concluded the debate by saying.
Final results of the SMS/Web poll: Is China India's greatest threat in the region?
Yes: 91 per cent
No: 9 per cent

The threat said to be from China has to be correctly identified as threat from Communism in China and we must seek to end China's communist rule by strengthening the Buddhist movement in China. This is applicable to Nepal also, which has become anti-India since it was overtaken by the communists. Pakistan of course has been an enemy of India since the day of its birth because of its Islamist mindset. Till India recognizes that its real enemies, both within and without, are the Communists and Islamists, we will be dealing with the problem erroneously. We have to vibrantly propagate democracy and secularism the world over to overcome communism and Islamism in the long run.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/china-a-bigger-threat-than-pak-for-india/100882-3.html

Gujarat HC lifts ban on Jaswant’s Jinnah book

Updated on Friday, September 04, 2009, 14:59 IST

Zeenews Bureau New Delhi: Gujarat High Court on Friday overturned the state ban imposed on expelled BJP leader Jaswant Singh’s book Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence. Setting aside the ban, HC opined that there is no ground to ban the book. The ban curtails fundamental rights, the court said. The state government had contended the contents of the book tarnished Sardar Patel’s image. The government alleged that certain references about Sardar Patel in the book were an attempt to defame the image of Vallabhbhai Patel as they questioned his patriotic spirit. “Jaswant Singh's book questions role of Sardar Patel during the partition of India as well as his patriotic spirit. This is an attempt to tarnish the image of Patel who is considered the architect of modern united India,” a statement issued by the state government had said. "It is a bid to defame Patel by distorting historical facts," it charged. However, Jaswnat has been maintaining all along that there is no basis on which his book could be banned. He had called the ban on his book a ‘ban on thinking’.
Expressing his joy at the High Court judgement, Jaswant said, “I am absolutely thrilled to hear the judgement. I feel vindicated now.” Taking a dig at Gujarat government for banning his book on flimsy grounds, he quipped, “Why did the court have to intervene at all. My book is no pornography. I have not used any foul or abusive language in my book.” The senior BJP leader, Jaswant Singh, had written a book on Jinnah which was released last month and is selling like hot cakes but he drew flak from his party for the same. However, he was expelled from the party before the release of the book. The expulsion of the former external affairs minister in the BJP-led NDA regime caused a stir within the party and leaders called for the reinstatement of the leader into the party after he served the party for more than 30 years.

The BJP did not want to be seen as condoning the eulogizing of Jinnah and denigration of Sardar Patel. The issue before it was not the freedom of speech, the issue was political correctness. No one can deny that political correctness, though often whimsical, is a valid matter. The High Court has rightly upheld the right to freedom of speech. Both entities - the BJP government and the High Court carried out the roles that were expected of them - the upholders of political correctness and freedom of speech respectively. Both have made their points. Now let’s get on with the reading!

http://www.zeenews.com/news560812.html

Advani likely to step down as leader of Opposition

CNN-IBN
Published on Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 16:44 in Politics section
New Delhi: Sources have told CNN-IBN that Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, L K Advani, is likely to step down between November 8 and December 25 this year.
It is L K Advani's birthday on November 8, and he will turn 82. December 25 is BJP stalwart Atal Bihari Vajpayee's birthday.
Sources have also said that Advani will have a say in who will be the next BJP President.
Advani worked out his exit plan after meeting RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat. He had also consulted former RSS chief K C Sudarshan.
He will now be NDA chairman after stepping down from his current post.
Sources say thatL K Advani is a lonely man today. Colleague after colleague - people who were with him in the Vajpayee government - are now questioning his credibility. While the Kandahar hostage crisis is almost a decade old now, the issues it has raised have been aimed directly at the man who has prided himself on being the BJP's Loh Purush (Iron Man).
Former national security advisor Brajesh Mishra, former finance minister Yashwant Sinha and former defence minister George Fernandes have stated categorically that L K Advani was present at the Cabinet Committee on Security meet held on Kandahar.
They say that Advani was in the know of the plan to swap terrorists for hostages on the hijacked Indian Airlines plane IC814.
The Kandahar controversy could not have come at a worse time for Advani. Ever since the 2009 election defeat, there has been a question mark over Advani continuing as the BJP's leader of Opposition.

As Advani is obviously hale and hearty, he should continue as leader of opposition for the 5 year term. Why should anyone in the BJP have a problem with this? There is no parliamentarian today who can match his capacity and experience. He will no doubt continue to spellbind parliament with his charisma and precision of expression. I for one want to see more of Advani and not less. BJP will soon have a new president as per its constitution and they can elect someone as young as it gets. Organizational excellence at all levels is what BJP should aim at. Political dividends will inevitably come its way.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/advani-likely-to-step-down-as-leader-of-opposition/100492-37.html

Tata's new plan: Talk endlessly for Re 1

Updated on Tuesday, September 01, 2009, 20:41 IST

New Delhi: Indian call charges touched a new low today with telecom operator Tata Teleservices' new tariff plan that allows CDMA subscribers unlimited hours on local calls for just Re 1. In the new 'Pay-Per-Call' plan, the company has moved away from the usual practice of charging on a one minute-pulse basis. Instead Tata Teleservices pre-paid CDMA subscribers will be charged Re 1 for all local calls and Rs 3 for long distance calls, regardless of the duration.
Tata Indicom and Teleservices subscribers would be able to avail of the plan by paying a daily fee of Re 1 or Rs 30 monthly and call rates would also apply on mobile to landline and to calls made to other networks. The plan also offers subsidised rate for SMSes or short message service at Re 0.50, for both local and national SMS. "Pay-per-call will change the pricing paradigm in the telecom space and endless talks does not mean the caller will misuse the facility as there will be monitoring of the calling pattern of subscribes once any abuse of the scheme is noticed. Usually a caller talks for 405 minutes on a local call and three minutes on STD", said Tata Teleservices managing director Anil Sardana. Vineet Bhatia, the company's chief operating officer for Delhi and head of the northern region said, "The service gives consumers freedom to talk to their hearts' content without any of the hassles they face on the charging front." The service is available on all new Tata Indicom connections for Rs 99 with a validity of 10 years, and on one-time recharge of Rs 96 for existing customers. The company expects volumes to make up for the loss of average revenue per user in this plan. TTSL's CDMA service is pan-India and has a subscriber base of under 40 million. Bureau Report


Tatas are real do-gooders. But with their too-good-to-be-true schemes, they may unintentionally be swamping the roads and airwaves with their 1 lakh rupee cars and 1 rupee non-stop-talk calls. Any, cheers to you, Tata.

http://www.zeenews.com/news560092.html