WHY THE CONGRESS IS WRONG

- SHRI ARUN JAITLEY

(MINISTER OF FINANCE, INFORMATION &
BROADCASTING AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS)

The Congress Party, for the past few days, has

disrupted both houses of Parliament. Its Goebbelsian
propaganda is that the partys leadership is a victim of
political vendetta. What then are the facts?
A company was created for the purpose of starting
a newspaper National Herald. The company got
allocation of prime land in several parts of the country.
The land was meant to be used for the newspaper
business. Today, there is no newspaper. There is only
land and built up structures which are being
commercially exploited.
A political party is entitled to collect funds for its
political activities. For that purpose, it gets an exemption from payment of income tax. Rupees ninety crores
from amongst the funds collected by the Congress Party
are given to the newspaper company. Prima facie, it can
be said that there a breach of the provisions of the
Income Tax Act in as much as an exempted income is
used for a non-exempt purpose.
The rupees ninety crore debt is then assigned to a
Section 25 company for a paltry amount of rupees 50
lakhs. Tax exempted money effectively gets transferred to
a real estate company. The real estate company now
1

acquires 99% of the share-holding of the former

newspaper company. Effectively, the Section 25 company
substantially controlled by the leaders of the Congress
Party now owns all the properties acquired for a
newspaper publication, and for virtually no consideration,
the Section 25 company owns all the assets. This profit
will become huge taxable income in its hands.
Since 2012, as a private citizen, Dr. Subramaniam
Swamy, alleges a breach of trust. It is the duty of every
citizen to report an offence when it comes to his notice.
Any citizen can set the process of criminal law into
motion. A Trial Court issues summons on Dr. Swamys
complaint. The accused leaders of the Congress Party
move the Delhi High Court for quashing, which grants
them an interim protection. Eventually, the Delhi High
Court dismisses the petition of the accused. The accused
now have two alternatives. They can either challenge
the order in the Supreme Court or appear before the
trial court and contest the case on merits.
The facts are clear. By a series of financial
transactions, the leaders of the Congress Party created
Chakravyuh for themselves. They have to find their
own exit route out of the Chakravyuh. They have
acquired properties worth a huge amount without
spending anything. They have used tax exempted
income for a non-exempted purpose. They have
transferred the income of a political party to a real
estate company. They have created huge taxable income
in favour of the real estate company. The Government,
2

so far, has not taken any punitive action. The

Enforcement Directorate has not issued any notice to
them. The Income Tax authorities will follow their own
procedure. The Criminal Court, meanwhile, has taken
cognizance of the offence. The High Court has agreed
with the Trial Court. The battle has to be fought legally.
But the results of legal battles are always uncertain. The
Congress is, therefore, crying foul and calling it political
vendetta. Is that a charge against the Courts? The
Government has passed no order in relation to the
disputed transactions. There is equality before the law.
No one is above the law. India has never accepted the
dictat that the queen is not answerable to the law. Why
should the Congress Party and its leaders not contest
the notice before the Court? The Government cannot
help them in the matter, nor can the Parliament. Why
then disturb the Parliament and prevent the legislative
activity from continuing? The answer to the Congress
Partys leadership landing up in a Chakravyuh is to fight
their battle legally and not disrupt Parliament. By
disrupting democracy the financial web created by the
Congress leaders cannot be undone.

IRRESPONSIBLE CONGRESS
Misusing National Herald case to disrupt House
Editorial| 10 December 2015

The Congress has behaved in a most

irresponsible manner by disrupting Parliament's
proceedings over the National Herald case. The
issue has nothing to do with either the two Houses
or the Government. Based on a petition by a private
citizen, Mr Subramanian Swamy, a trial court in
Delhi had summoned Congress president Sonia
Gandhi, vice president Rahul Gandhi and a few
other senior party leaders before it as accused. The
accused approached the Delhi High Court seeking
quashing of the summons but the court declined
their plea. Now they have to appear on December
19 unless they get legal relief meanwhile. The
Congress has claimed that the case is one of
"political vendetta" and "proxy litigation" by the
Bharatiya Janata Party against its senior leaders.
Now, it's true that Mr Swamy is a member of the
BJP, but there is nothing to suggest that he has been
acting on behalf of either the party or the
Government. In fact, he has been pursuing the
4

National Herald case for a long while now, and it had

been on his radar even before the BJP-led
Government assumed power. Moreover, he has
enjoyed the reputation of being a lone-wolf
maverick. On their part, senior Ministers in the
Narendra Modi Government have made it clear that
the regime has got nothing to do with the case,
although they admit that the issues Mr Swamy has
raised and based on which the senior leaders of the
Congress have been made the accused, are serious
enough to merit attention. But even here we don't
have any arm of the Government investigating the
matter as of now. Where then is the question of
political vendetta when a court finds it appropriate
to proceed with the matter? Surely, neither the trial
court nor the High Court can be accused of being
politicaly motivated, the first in issuing the summons and the second in upholding it. The Congress
needs to understand that the matter has to be
fought legally and not politically - and certainly not
by blocking the functioning of Parliament at a time
when crucial Bills of national import are pending
approval. In any case, all that the court has done is
to ask Ms Sonia Gandhi, Mr Rahul Gandhi and
others to appear before it. Congress
leaders can continue to take umbrage over this only
5

at the risk of projecting themselves as people above

the law of the land.
In the meantime, instead of raving and ranting
against the Modi regime, the Congress should
respond to the pointed legal questions thrown up.
Since the matter has been in the public domain for
long, the key details are known to all those who
have been even casually following it. They need no
repetition at length. However, it is important to bear
in mind that the Delhi High Court, while dismissing
the Congress leaders' plea for quashing the trail
court's summons, said the issue "smacks of
criminality". The court also said that "questionable
conduct of the petitioners needs to be properly
examined to find out the truth". These are serious
observations by the court, and the Congress cannot
hope to effectively brush aside through a display of
political brazenness. It is fine for Ms Gandhi to
indulge in rhetoric - "I'm Indira Gandhi's daughterin-law. I'm not afraid" - to fire up her supporters, but
it does little to address the grave charges that she
and others face.

UCU
Dec 10, 2015
- . ( U ,
U )

U
E UU S U U ,
UU U U
U U U UU
R U U
U UU c
U U
Q U U SU
U , U UC U U
U U , Q U U, U,
, U, U-
U U U
U UP U
U U U
U U
, UU U . U
U vwz
U ,
U U 7

 U U U U U U
U U U U -U
U U U Q
- U :
U ?U UC
U U U U
U
. U h U U h U
U U , U
U U
S ,
U U U , U U
UC U SU
UC U
S U
L S U U
. U , S
U U U U
US UU S, . U
U U U U S

UC U . U
U , U c
, CU M
U , U UCU U
8

 S U-U U
- U U M ,
U U S
mU ,
SU Q U U U S
U , UC UU .
U , U
Q
, U
U U
- U U , U
U U
UUU {} U UU (w{ ),
U (ww U U ), , , S,
U, U , U U
, UU U U U , wx
U v~.y~ U
U Q S
U U M ,
U S U

U M U M
U U
U U -U U U U U
9

 SU U ?
U M U U
U M U
U U U U
U UU
. U, , . U U UU U
?
U U U
? Q
U U , U U
U, , QU U U U
U U U,
, U UU
U, CU, -U, U U
U h
U U U U Q UCU, U U U U
U U

10

HOW THE CONGRESS HAD

WRECKED CONSTITUTION
A Surya Prakash|08 December 2015
It is ironical that the Congress, which was at the vanguard
of the freedom movement and Constitution-making, later
became the party which mutilated the Constitution and robbed
it of its founding principles
On November 26, Parliament observed the Constitution
Day and leaders of various political parties hailed the Republic's
founding fathers for their diligence and foresight while drafting
the country's Constitution.
Since we happen to be the world's largest democracy and
also the most diverse society, the success of the democratic
process over the last six decades is certainly a matter of pride for
every Indian citizen. This is the most extraordinary human
experiment in the world because nowhere else can one find
democracy co-existing with such poverty and diversity.
Therefore, despite all their faults and inadequacies, all
stake-holders in the democratic process deserve congratulations
and they include the people, their representatives and all the
political parties.
Among political parties, the Congress takes pride in the
fact that it led the freedom movement and played a key role in
Constitution-making. While speaking in the Lok Sabha, Congress
president Sonia Gandhi drew attention to this fact and said the
history of our Constitution "is inextricably linked with that of the
freedom movement and therefore of the Congress".
This is indeed true and this very fact imposes a special
11

responsibility on India's oldest party to uphold the highest values

embedded in our Constitution.
The Congress president also said the Constitution had
seen over a hundred amendments, "a number of them in
response to changing circumstances and emerging challenges".
This is also true, though not all amendments would stand the
scrutiny of even those who having only a nodding acquaintance
with the core principles enshrined in democratic constitutions.
An unfortunate example of this would be the 39th
Amendment, which nullified the June 1975 verdict of the
Allahabad High Court which had found Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi guilty of corrupt electoral practice.
This amendment was hustled through the two Houses of
Parliament and State Assemblies in order to prohibit the courts
from entertaining election petitions against the Prime Minister.
In gross violation of parliamentary rules, it was introduced and
passed in the Lok Sabha on August 7, 1975 and again introduced
and passed in the Rajya Sabha on the very next day. Then a
miracle happened! As many as 17 State Assemblies, summoned
on Saturday, August 9 ratified this amendment and an amenable
President gave his assent on Sunday, August 10 and the
ever-obliging civil servants of those days opened offices that very
Sunday to notify the amendment.
Why this break-neck speed, you may ask? Because the
Supreme Court was to hear Indira Gandhi's petition on August 11
and the Government's lawyers had to tell the court that the
Constitution stood amended and Parliament had decreed that
election petitions against the Prime Minister were henceforth
out-of-bounds for it!
In the course of her speech, Ms Gandhi quoted BR
Ambedkar as having said: "However good a Constitution may be,
it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it
happen to be a bad lot." Ms Gandhi also said the ideals
12

and principles that are embedded in our Constitution and that

have inspired us for decades are now under assault. What we
have witnessed these past few months particularly are a
complete negation of what our Constitution stands for and
guarantees".
If we reflect over the events during the dreaded
Emergency in 1975-1977, when the Congress imposed a
dictatorship in the country and flung the core values of our
Constitution out of the window, we realise how true Ambedkar
was. It will also help us get a correct gauge of current political
disturbances if we juxtapose the present debate on the so-called
intolerance with the horrendous assault on our democratic
system 40 years ago.
The 39 Amendment was just for starters. It put the then
Prime Minister above the law and nullified Article 14 which
guaranteed equality before the law to all citizens. But the final
nail in the coffin was the 42 Amendment which clipped the wings
of the judiciary, removed brick-by-brick, the foundations on
which the document stood and did such violence to the basic
principles enshrined in it that the Constitution eventually
became a poor caricature of what Ambedkar and his colleagues
had given us.
The 42 Amendment introduced two provisions which can
only be described as reprehensible. First, it abolished the need
for quorum in Parliament and the State Legislatures. The
Constitution stipulates that at least 10 per cent of the members
must be present in the Houses to transact business. This was
done away with, thus making it possible for just a handful of
Congress MPs to sit late in Parliament and make laws for the
country. Fortunately, the Janata Party, which defeated the
Congress in the 1977 Lok Sabha election, corrected the mischief
and restored the Constitution to its original, pristine glory.
The other provision, which should make any democrat
hang his head in shame, was that which empowered the
13

President to amend the Constitution through an executive order!

As anyone with a nodding acquaintance with the Constitution is
aware, it is very difficult to amend the Constitution because the
Government of the day cannot even change a full stop or a
comma in it without securing the support of two-thirds of the
members in each House of Parliament.
Further, if the amendment involves the rights of the
States, the Assemblies of at least one half of the States will have
to ratify the amendment. Only then can the amendment be
made. The Congress found this to be too much of a rigmarole
and authorised the President to "adapt or modify the provision
(in the Constitution) to remove the difficulty" through an
executive order.
Apart from the Indian President during the Emergency,
the only other heads of state to have had the power to amend
their constitutions through executive order were Hitler and
Mussolini!
The Congress president concluded her speech on the
Constitution by saying "it is to the protection and advancement
of constitutional processes that we must re-dedicate ourselves".
It is indeed an irony that the Congress, which was at the
vanguard of the freedom movement and Constitution-making,
later became the party which mutilated the Constitution and
robbed it of its founding principles like equality before law, right
to life and liberty and fundamental rights including the right to
freedom of expression.
Therefore, every citizen must feel gratified that this party
is now committed to advancement of "constitutional processes".
This augurs well for our democratic well-being.

14

'Democratic' Sonia Vs 'Dictatorial' Modi

By S Gurumurthy |10th December 2015.
The Congress party characterises Modi as a
dictator and by implication, presents Sonia as a democrat.
Whether a popular leader is a dictator or a democrat is tested by
conduct. An unpopular dictator is an oxymoron. A dictator may
become unpopular but no unpopular person can ever become a
dictator. How a leader behaves when in position of power particularly when his or her position is under threat - offers the
most reliable test. A popular Indira Gandhi was tested twice.
Once in 1969 when her senior colleagues dissented her
individualistic style. She used State power, backstabbed the
party and defeated the party nominee in the election for the
President of India and captured the party with the help of the
enemies of the party by forging an ideological alliance with
them. This destroyed the democratic Congress party as the
nation knew till then. She put the party under her virtual
dictatorship. She changed the very paradigm of national politics
from politics of ethics and character to politics of power and
success. This brought out her dictatorial mind. The real dictator
in her came out when the Allahabad High Court unseated her
from Parliament and the Supreme Court made her a Prime
Minister without voting rights in Parliament. She struck at the
nation, imposed Emergency and, as Nani Palkhiwala said,
defaced and defiled the Constitution, courts, Parliament,
Opposition, media, and the people at large and put the whole
nation under total dictatorship. It is 40 years since and still now,
no one in the Congress or from the family of Indira Gandhi has
sincerely regretted the Emergency. On the contrary, Rajiv
Gandhi, after he got four-fifths majority in the Lok Sabha in
15

1984, even tried to justify the Emergency. And that Congress

party and Sonia Gandhi, claiming to be the proud
daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi, are trying to brand Narendra
Modi as dictatorial - by implication, claiming to be democratic.
Is it not time then that one compared the democratic
credentials of Sonia and Modi?
Look at how the 'dictatorial' Narendra Modi conducted
himself when, just three years before he became the Prime
Minister, he was under tremendous pressure from the
Opposition, media and even the courts. Sonia Gandhi and her
party had accused him of being the merchant of death. The UPA,
which had made the CBI its Alsatian, used the agency to target
him in the Sohrabuddin case. The sordid story was exposed by
The New Indian Express (see articles titled, Fixing Shah, by
Fabrication, CBI Betrays Court, Bails Out Congress and
Interrogating The Media - published in August 2010). The media
was applauding every effort to fix and get rid of him. Yet, there
was no FIR against him. No complaint had been filed in any court
against him. No court had issued him summons. No court had
ordered his examination by police. But the Special Investigation
Team (SIT) on Gujarat riots summoned him for examination like
police would summon any one at their discretion. He was as
popular in Gujarat as he is now all over the country. He was a
powerful and performing Chief Minister of Gujarat. Also he was
seen as the rising national leader within the BJP when the SIT
summoned him. But he did not use his party to drum up support
for him in the Assembly nor did his party stall Parliament. The
Gujarat Assembly functioned and so did Parliament. He could
have gathered a million people to give him a great ovation when
he went to the SIT office to put pressure on the investigation
and on the instigators of the case against him. He respected the
summons and drove to the SIT office in his car. He walked down
the lane leading to the SIT alone. He was grilled by the SIT for
over eight hours. He answered their questions. Satisfied with his
answers, the SIT finally exonerated him. But his adversaries
16

would not leave him. They charged the SIT with favouring him.
Finally, the Supreme Court had to exonerate him twice - once,
when the UPA was in power and next time, a few months ago.
This is 'dictatorial' Modi's behaviour.
Now compare how the 'democratic' Sonia behaved after
the National Herald case caught up with her, her son and her
family loyalists. Here is the National Herald case in brief. In
November 2012, Dr Subramanian Swamy exposed how Sonia
Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have grabbed properties of National
Herald worth thousands of crores through a convoluted criminal
strategy. After that, this newspaper carried a detailed article,
National Herald Affair: It's Fraud All The Way (TNIE, November
8, 2012), explaining the fraud. In January 2013, Dr Swamy filed
a criminal complaint against Sonia, her son and family loyalists,
including Motilal Vohra, the Congress party treasurer, charging
them with conspiracy, fraud, cheating, and criminal breach of
trust to rob the shareholders and the public of thousands of
crores. All this happened when the UPA was in power. Rahul
Gandhi threatened to file a defamation suit against Dr Swamy.
Swamy challenged him but Rahul ran away. In June 2014, a Delhi
criminal court took cognisance of the offence and issued
summons. Forthwith, Sonia Gandhi and other five accused,
including Rahul, filed petitions in the Delhi High Court to quash
the criminal proceedings. They kept delaying the hearing till
they thought they got the judge they felt comfortable with. One
judge recused himself and so did the next. The matter went to
the third judge, who Sonia and her co-accused did not like, and
he too recused himself. All the accused petitioned to have the
matter heard by the second judge who had recused himself
earlier. The case was posted before the very judge, who Sonia
and her co-accused felt comfortable with. It is that very same
judge, who decided on December 7, 2015 that the lower court
has rightly ordered their trial and summoned them, and asked
them to appear before the metropolitan magistrate. Still, hell
broke loose. The very next day the Congress president was seen
17

instigating her MPs to stall Parliament. When the Speaker asked

them why were they disturbing the House, they shouted they
saw in the National Herald case "political vendetta" and
"democracy in danger". When the Speaker asked them to spell
out what they want and offered to allow them to raise the issue
and speak in the House, they ran away from speaking in the
House. Obviously, they only had instructions to stall the House.
The same theatrics were repeated in the Rajya Sabha. Not that
they did not talk in the House. They couldn't. Why?
It needs no seer to say that the prosecution on the
National Herald fraud was an act of the judiciary and the Modi
government had had nothing to do with it. There was no CBI or
Income Tax or the Enforcement Directorate in the picture which
could link the prosecution to the government. It was the private
complaint of Dr Subramanian Swamy on which the magistrate
held that Sonia, Rahul and the four family loyalists had created
a trust company fully controlled by them as a cloak or sham of a
special purpose vehicle to convert public money and to acquire
control over thousands of crores of assets of National Herald.
The court held that the accused acted as a consortium to
achieve the nefarious purpose and asked them to face trial. This
was the prima facie assessment of the court under the law. The
government had no role in this process at all. It was between
Sonia Gandhi and her co-conspirators on the one hand and
Dr Subramanian Swamy on the other, with the court playing the
neutral and judicial role. This order was passed in June 2014. Did
Sonia or Rahul or any of the accused or the Congress party even
hint that the magistrate had acted outside the law? Stop
Parliament? In contrast, they all went to the Delhi High Court to
quash the order and summons of the magistrate. The judge,
whom they were comfortable with, decided on December 7 that
they better face the criminal case as the magistrate had rightly
decided.
The very next day, the 'democratic Sonia' ordered her
party to stall Parliament. Even as she was overseeing the closure
18

of Parliament for the day on December 8 and her son was on a

flying visit to Tamil Nadu to offer relief to the flood-affected
people, their lawyers were standing before the
magistrate and pleading that Sonia, Rahul and the other
accused were "keen to appear before the court". Where is
vendetta then, Madam Sonia? The court has granted them 10
days and directed them to appear on December 19. It remains
to be seen whether the 'democratic' Sonia and Rahul will walk
alone and appear before the court like Modi did before the
police
or
gather
a
huge
crowd
for
theatrics and disturb the court like the Gandhis
disturbed the Shah Commission.
A caveat: Obviously stressed by the court notice on
charges of swallowing thousands of crores of properties of
National Herald by using the Congress party, Sonia Gandhi said,
"Why should I be scared of anyone? I am Indira Gandhi's daughter-in-law." She said this after personally directing the Congress
party to halt Parliament on Tuesday. This is 'democratic' Sonia,
the daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi, the saviour of democracy
in India, charging Modi with 'dictatorship'. There cannot be a
more cruel joke on democracy.
The author is a well- known commentator on political
and economic issues.

19

Go to court
Editorial | December 10, 2015.
In disrupting Parliament over the National Herald case,
the Congress displays extremely bad form, and worse judgement. The Herald case is in the court and the party must submit
to the due process it so loudly swears by.
This means that Congress leaders must respect the court
summons and explore the legal avenues to defend themselves.
By all accounts, there are serious questions that the Congress
needs to answer on the manner in which The National Herald
was bailed out and its assets brought under the
control of a company promoted by four party
leaders, including Sonia and Rahul Gandhi. By attributing
motives to the judicial proceedings instead, and stalling
Parliament, the Congress embarrasses itself and Jawaharlal
Nehru, the founder of The National Herald and a stickler for
parliamentary etiquette and political propriety.
The Congress's apparent strategy - of turning an issue
that belongs in a court of law into a political battle to be fought
in Parliament - blurs the lines between the parliamentary institution, the party, and the family that rules it. Clearly, much of
the party's anxiety and conspiracy-mongering in the matter has
to do with the fact that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi are among the
accused. But why should these or other party leaders be
exempted from a court appearance if the judge considers it
necessary? In fact, in stoking a clamour over the court summons
to the Gandhis, the party may be lending substance to the
charge that for the party, the Gandhi family has always been,
and continues to be, more equal than others. Party leaders,
especially Sonia Gandhi, have sought to draw parallels between
20

the post-Emergency legal challenges that Indira Gandhi faced

from the Janata government and the Herald case. But the
charges that have come to haunt the Congress have to do with
the period when it was in power. Its cries of vendetta politics or
imputations that it is ranged against the might of state power
now seem diversionary.
Admittedly, the Herald case can potentially take the
sheen off what its supporters have read as an upturn of sorts in
Congress fortunes - the party found itself on the winning side in
Bihar and it also has the power to withhold its cooperation on
the crucial GST bill from the government. Yet, the Congress may
be scoring a self-goal in turning a civil dispute into an existential
political battle and thereby turning the spotlight more fully on
what can be seen as the questionable management of the
family heirlooms. The party needs to urgently rethink the wisdom of its strategy.

21

National Herald affair: It's fraud all the way

By S Gurumurthy | 08th November 2012
The bare facts exposed by Dr Subramanian Swamy on the
National Herald affair this month are eloquent, needing very little prose. The fraud is explicit without exposition. Here are the
basic facts. Financial crisis forced Associated Journals Limited
(AJL), the publishers of National Herald newspaper founded by
Pandit Nehru, to close down the paper in 2008. To pay off the
employees to help the closure, the Congress Party had given
interest-free loan of Rs 90 crore plus to AJL, then. With the newspaper shut, AJL had become a mere real estate company in 2008,
with property in Delhi, Lucknow and Mumbai worth over Rs
2,000 crore in its balance sheet. Against this, AJL owed just Rs 90crore plus to the Congress. It had very little liability, besides. The
balance real estate of AJL, left after paying off the dues to
Congress, legally and morally belonged to AJL's thousand plus
shareholders. Big and small, they had contributed Rs 89 lakh to
AJL's capital, when the Rupee was hundred times more valuable.
If AJL's real estate had been sold and cash distributed to the
shareholders,
Brahm Dev Narain, a teacher holding just 41
equity shares in AJL, would have got some Rs 84,000. Hundreds
of others would have got similar sums.
But, by deep design and defying both law and morals,
Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi appropriated - actually misappropriated - control of AJL's Rs 2,000-cr real estate without paying a dime to AJL's shareholders. In just three months, between
November 2010 and February 2011 and in three moves, control
of thousands of crore worth property passed onto the Gandhi
family. Here unfolds the sordid story.
As the first step, in November 2010, a trust company
22

named "Young Indian" was mysteriously formed with a capital of

just Rs 5 lakh, in which Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi owned 38
per cent each (total 76 per cent) and two family retainers, Motilal
Vora
and
Oscar
Fernandes,
owned
the
balance 24 per cent, making it cent percent Gandhi family outfit.
Second, the very next month, December 2010, the Gandhis got
the Congress party to assign the Rs 90-cr plus loan given to AJL in
2008 to Young Indian (read themselves) by paying to the party
just Rs 50 lakh. The Congress wrote off the balance Rs 89.75 cr as
irrecoverable. This creative - actually criminal - accounting substituted Young Indian for the Congress, entitling Young Indian to
recover Rs 90-cr plus due from AJL. Finally, in February 2011, AJL
converted the Rs 90-cr plus due to Young Indian into equity
shares and allotted them. By this step, Young Indian became
almost 99 per cent owner of AJL, and as much of the real estate
of AJL. When AJL had assets worth Rs 2,000 cr, why should the
Congress write off Rs 89.75 cr due from it as bad debt? Would
the Congress have done it for any person outside the Gandhi
family? And did the Congress Working Committee or AICC know
of, or consent to, donate Rs 89.75 cr to the Gandhis through
Young Indian? More. In the founding documents of Young Indian
the one word that is totally absent is "Congress"! The design is
self-evident. The Congress should be out completely and the
Gandhi family should exclusively grab control of the AJL's lands
at Delhi, Lucknow and Mumbai worth thousands of crores for
pittance. And it did happen.
The rest of Young Indian's story stinks even more. With
the Gandhi family and loyalists holding its entire capital, the
directors of Young Indian - besides Sonia and Rahul, are Vora,
Oscar, Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda - are time-tested friends of
the family. But, what is the object of Young Indian? Young Indian
says its first annual report (April 27, 2012), "is engaged in activities to inculcate in the minds of India's youth commitment to the
ideals of democratic and secular society".
23

See what is the first act of this idealist

company, after its birth in November 2010, to "inculcate" such
ideals in youth. Its annual report shows that the company forthwith started its "operations in December 2010", and as its first
act in pursuance of "its objects", it acquired the "loan owed" by
AJL "for a consideration of Rs 50 lakh", by which it became AJL's
99 per cent owner. So the first act of Young Indian to promote
idealism in Indian youth was to defraud the Congress party of Rs
89.75 crore on the one hand and the shareholders of AJL of
thousands of crores of money on the other. See how the plot
thickens.
Young
Indians'
annual
report
discloses
a
further design - to alter the character of AJL itself. It says that AJL
is recasting "its activities" to align its objects, Young Indian's
"main objects". Finally to merge AJL into Young Indian? And "as
part of the restructuring exercise of" AJL, says the annual report,
the "loan was converted into equity". A joke indeed! Young
Indian speaks as if it is helping to restructure AJL. Young Indian is
a pauper. Its director's report shows that, from its inception in
November 2010 to March 2012, its total income was - believe it
- just Rs 800! Its total expenditure was Rs 69.79 lakh and its loss,
after deducting its income (Rs 800) was Rs 69.78 lakh. Does the
AJL, with huge real estate, need an asset-less and income-less
pauper Young Indian for its restructure?
See the deepening design. Young Indian's annual report
intentionally conceals the crucial fact that the loan of Rs 90-cr
plus owed by AJL to it was originally due to the Congress party the intention being that Young Indian looted the Congress should
be concealed. The report also suppresses the fact that AJL with
asset base of a couple of thousands of crores had become
(almost) its wholly-owned subsidiary. It says, in fine print, that
shareholders- who? Sonia, Rahul, Vora, Oscar, Dubey and
Pitroda! - will get information regarding the subsidiary on
request.
24

This is a fraud on company law, which mandates that the

details of the subsidiary be available to the public. More. Young
Indian also totally suppresses its 99 per cent holding in the AJL
saying that the shareholding "is treated as application on the
object of the company" and so "the same has not been reflected
as an investment in shares". This deceptive accounting jargon
means that the payment of `50 lakh for 99 per cent of shares of
the AJL worth thousands of crores is shown not as an asset, but
as expenditure! Why? Obvious.
To keep the investment out of the balance sheet of Young
Indian! The annual report blatantly lies that since the net worth
of AJL is negative, its investment in 99 per cent capital of AJL is
written off as expenditure.
The balance sheet of AJL as on March 31, 2011, shows a
positive net worth Rs 8 crore; of which Young Indian's 99 per
cent share is Rs 7.92 cr. So the negative net worth story is a fabrication. The real net worth of Young Indian is, of course, over Rs
2,000 cr.
And the final lie. After Dr Swamy's expose, the Congress,
with tears in its eyes, told the nation on November 3, 2012, that
revival of National Herald, a symbol of Gandhi-Nehru ideals, was
an "emotional issue" for the party, as if it has paid Rs 90 cr plus
now for Herald's revival. It had paid the amount in 2008 to help
close, not revive, the Herald. Just three weeks before the
Congress shed tears to revive National Herald, on October 11,
2012, 'The Pioneer' newspaper reported that Rahul Gandhi was
emphatic that Young Indian had no intention of relaunching any
newspaper. By an email to 'The Pioneer', Rahul Gandhi's office
said: "Young Indian is a not-for-profit company and does not
have commercial operations.... The company has no intention of
starting any newspaper". Any more evidence needed to prove
that the sobbing story of Herald's revival is fake? A post facto lie?
So. The Gandhi family usurping the AJL's Rs 2,000 cr real
25

estate, with the funds of the Congress and through Young Indian,
is fraud all the way. On the Congress. On the shareholders of AJL.
And on the National Herald.
Pandit Nehru said: "I will not let the National Herald close
down even if I have to sell (my own house) Anand Bhawan". And
now? The Gandhis have buried the National Herald and looted its
real estate.
S. Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political
and economic issues.
E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net

26

Wrong place, wrong time

Editorial | December 9, 2015.

Parliament is not the place to fight

the National Herald case
Whether or not the National Herald case, in
which summons for personal appearance have been
issued by a trial court in New Delhi to Congress
party president Sonia Gandhi and vice-president
Rahul Gandhi, is a case of criminal breach of trust,
as the complainant Subramaniam Swamy has
alleged, is a matter for the courts to decide.
However, the fact remains that the development
has come at a singularly inopportune moment. With
the battle lines being drawn between the Congress
and the BJP, the peace brokered between the ruling
party and the principal opposition party by Prime
Minister Narendra Modi seems to have shattered.
Hopes of vital legislation such as the Goods and
Services Tax Bill or the new bankruptcy code
becoming law in this session of Parliament have
unfortunately receded. Once again, the core business of Parliament - legislation - has been stalled by
27

issues that rightly, ought to be settled outside it. But

this is hardly surprising. Our politicians, regardless
of party affiliation, have consistently put personal
political survival above larger national interests, and
our elected representatives have seldom shown the
ability to differentiate between constructive opposition and blind political belligerence.
The issue, as outlined in the complaint, and
reaffirmed by the Delhi High Court, which quashed
the plea seeking exemption from personal
appearance, is certainly grave. Associated Journals,
a company founded by Jawaharlal Nehru, which
used to publish Congress mouthpieces like National
Herald and Qaumi Awaz, ceased operations in 2008,
after which it was loaned about ?90 crore by the
Congress party. Subsequently, in 2010, Young
Indian, a Section 25 (not-for-profit) company of
which 76 per cent is owned by Sonia and Rahul
Gandhi, acquired Associated Journals for ?50 lakh.
The deal included the company's outstanding debt,
but also netted Young Indian property owned by
Associated Journals, which is estimated to have a
street value of between ?1,600 crore and ?2,000
crore. Subsequently, the Congress party appears to
have written off Associated Journals' debt. Since the
28

principal parties involved in the transaction from

both sides happen to be the same set of individuals,
there is undoubtedly a question mark over the
propriety of party funds being used to fund what is
essentially a private transaction. The case has
inevitably acquired political overtones, given that
Swamy is now a senior BJP leader (he moved the
petition as head of the Janata Party) and the case
involves the Congress's top leadership.
But this is a battle that needs to be settled in
the courts, not in Parliament. Only the judiciary can
decide whether the Gandhis are guilty or not
of breaching the law. The Congress has many
legitimate, even justified, differences on the GST
Bill, which it can make a case for and attempt to win
support. Stalling legislative business to fight proxy
political battles only hurts the national interest.

29

National Herald case: Sonia and Rahul

Gandhi fighting legal battle politically
By Indrajit Hazra | December 10, 2015.

In the summer of 1977, a bahu showed

immense courage as she returned to the
constituency that had first sent her husband to
Parliament and, after re-electing her twice, had
voted her out of power in March that year.
As the wife of Feroze Gandhi, the politician
and journalist who was also the publisher of The
National Herald, Indira Gandhi had been his election
campaign manager before becoming Raebareli's
MP. But on March 20, 1977, she had not only tasted
humiliating defeat in her pocket borough, but she
had also lost her prime ministership.
And yet, only a few
months
after
being
punished by the electorate
for the Emergency, she was
received with unexpected
enthusiasm as she 'apologised' for the 21 months of 'excesses'.
30

It was from Raebareli in the summer of 1977

that she launched her remarkable comeback by
attacking the vindictiveness and incompetence of
the ruling Janata Party.
Thirty-eight years later, another daughter-inlaw of the Nehru-Gandhi family finds herself not
just out of power, but still in the freefall she and her
party experienced in May 2014. Like her saas,
Indira's bahu is facing an existential crisis of a party
she and her son lords over.
Like Mrs Gandhi 1.0, Mrs Gandhi 2.0 considers
herself 'victimised' by the government of the day,
which like the original Janata Party that had
prematurely declared that it would "consign Indira
Gandhi to the dustbin of history" is still working on
its promise to "make India Congress-free".
But that's where the similarities end. When
Sonia Gandhi, responding to the Delhi High Court
rejecting the plea for quashing the summons for
her, her son and others at a Delhi magistrate's court
for The National Herald case, reminded us about
dynasty - "I am Indira Gandhi's daughter-in-law and
I am not scared of anyone" - what she did was
remind us, as well as herself, that the Gandhis31

Congress (interchangeable words those) has been

where it is now before, and pulled itself out of a
deeper hole.
"I absolutely see a political vendetta. This is
the way the central government works," said
Congress vicepresident Rahul Gandhi whose day job
now seems to be the same as that of the old Janata
Party leaders before they came to power and
imploded: To be manically fixated on the evils of the
prime minister.
Rahul Gandhi is hardly the only person who
believes that the judiciary can be influenced by
things other than legal argument. The fact that the
petitioner against his mother and himself is
Subramanian Swamy, who even if he is more of a
migraine for the BJP than he is a headache for the
Congress, makes it easier for the Gandhis to play the
hounded victims.
Victimhood and being made targets of political
vendetta has been a longstanding Congress weapon
of choice.
The success of its use by post-Emergency
Indira Gandhi is the primal reason why Sonia and
32

Rahul are bent on establishing the governmentrather than Swamy or the court - as the vicious bully
in the park. Past personal attacks exchanged
between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the
Gandhi duo also make this charge almost impossible
to deny.
And yet, while Indira Gandhi fought a political
battle and won it, Sonia & Son are fighting a legal
battle politically at the cost of keeping Parliament
during Modi's tenure under near-permanent
lockout. But in politics where the ends will always
justify the means, will fishing out dynasty and victimhood be fruitful for Indira's bahu and grandson?
It's doubtful for three reasons. One, it isn't
1977 and the draw that Indira was even in her days
in the wilderness for India's vast electorate is
unmatched by a cloistered Sonia Gandhi or Rahul,
who seems to appear in the public domain with the
force of an angry ad break.
Two, the obsessive hatred towards Indira
made the Janata Party government bring nothing
constructive to the table of governance, which
Indira Gandhi masterfully took advantage of. The
present government, for all its foot dragging, foot33

in-mouths and policy paralysis, is viewed as a still

unsuccessful, rather than unwilling, player.
It is the Congress, and those other parties
carefully watching its stock to possibly hitch a ride
with it if and when the time comes, that is seen as
obstructionist, both inside and outside Parliament.
If the swell story doesn't arrive, the government will
be blamed. But the Congress will definitely not be
coming out of this sour story alive.
Three, and most importantly, the brand
equity of the Gandhi surname, which till a few years
ago was seen as the Congress' biggest USP, is now
well past its sell-by date. The namedropping of
Indira Gandhi by her daughter-in-law this week
simply confirms how bereft of tricks the
Gandhis-Congress are today.

34

Losing Credibility
Now, Congress distrupts Parliment over a court case.
Editorial | December 09, 2015.

Why Congress should not disrupt

Parliament over a court case
The Congress should make a coherent and
sensible political case for this alleged "vendetta" on
the floor of the House rather than disrupt its
functioning
Both Houses of Parliament were disrupted
again on Wednesday by angry members of the
Congress Party protesting the summons of the
party's president and vice-president, Sonia Gandhi
and Rahul Gandhi, by a Delhi court in a matter
related to the transfer of control of the company
that used to publish the National Herald newspaper.
On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court rejected an
attempt to exempt the two senior Congress leaders,
among others charged in the case, from a personal
appearance in court. The high court also said their
conduct in the case "smacked of criminality". The
35

Congress has declared that the case, which follows a

complaint by Bharatiya Janata Party leader
Subramanian Swamy, is part of a political
"vendetta". The criminal case deals with charges of
cheating and misappropriation of funds in the chain
of events that included a large loan from the
Congress' own treasury to the company controlling
the National Herald being bought over by a third
organisation at a fraction of the face value. As a consequence of the chain of transactions, control
passed to a trust in which Sonia Gandhi and Rahul
Gandhi were major shareholders. Mr Swamy's
contention is that they thus illegally gained control
of an entity with substantial and valuable realestate holdings.
The facts of the case and whether or not the
Gandhis' behaviour was criminal will be established
by the legal process. It is to be hoped a resolution
will be swift, since it is not in the interest of Indian
politics or faith in the judicial system for such a highprofile case to be left hanging. The question, however is this: What does this have to do with the
functioning of Parliament? If there is indeed a
political vendetta being launched against the
36

Opposition, then the leaders of the Congress surely

must make their case on the floor of the very
Houses that they are instead choosing to disrupt.
This decision to disrupt is both irresponsible and
impolitic. It is irresponsible because Parliament has
a great deal of pending legislation, including
important economic reform bills, that it must
discuss. And it is impolitic because it only enhances
the impression that the Congress Party is now nothing more than a support system for the Gandhi
family - of which the alleged appropriation of party
resources by the family in the National Herald case
is only one illustration.
The Gandhis and the others associated with
them in the case - including former National
Knowledge Commission member Sam Pitroda - are
to appear in the trial court on December 19. What is
the Congress' endgame? Will it continue to disrupt
Parliament every day till then? In this din, it is far
from clear what specific accusations it is, in fact,
making. Is it levelling charges on the independence
of the judiciary? After all, the problem was
precipitated by an order from a high court judge.
37

The party is losing credibility by the minute. If it

wishes to retain any, it must make a coherent and
sensible political case for this alleged "vendetta" on
the floor of the House and submit it to the judgment
of the people of India.

38

The Gandhis must face the courts

EDITORIAL | December 10, 2015.

Whatever be the merits of the charges against

the principal office-bearers of the Congress party in
the 'National Herald' case, it is an issue that has to
be settled in a court of law, and not in the wider
political arena, much less in Parliament. If the
Congress believes there has been no wrongdoing in
the transactions related to the acquisition of
Associated Journals Private Ltd. by Young Indian, a
non-profit company in which the party's president,
Sonia Gandhi, and vice-president, Rahul Gandhi, are
the main shareholders, it must simply choose the
judicial route to establish their innocence. The Delhi
High Court order upholding the trial court summons
to both of them, along with other directors of Young
Indian, is based on what it sees as prima facie
evidence of criminality. The best way to deal with
the situation is to face it legally. When Subramanian
Swamy first questioned the legality of the
transactions, it was the Congress that challenged
him to take Ms. Gandhi and her son to court. "It is
39

for those who make allegations to prove their

charges," the party had said in 2012. It cannot then
turn around now and say that the entire
proceedings amount to political vendetta. Even if
there is a political motive, the party's president and
vice-president have to provide answers to the
questions that have arisen from the trial court
summons and the High Court's refusal to intervene.
To disrupt Parliament on an issue that involves no
larger public interest goes against all democratic
norms, and it cannot be justified on any count.
Indeed, to speak of political vendetta following a
court summons is to cast aspersions on the very
independence of the judiciary.
A look at the facts of the case does make one
doubt whether AJL could not have protected its
shareholders' interests by liquidating some of its
assets in order to return its loan to the Congress.
The floating of Young Indian, described by the court
as a 'special purpose vehicle', does cast some
suspicion. At the same time, the weak point in
Dr. Swamy's case seems to be the absence of any
identifiable victim who has been cheated or whose
funds have been misappropriated. After all, the
various assets of AJL still stand in its name and the
40

shareholders of Young Indian, which being a Section

25 (non-profit) company, cannot get any dividend or
profit out of the company's rental income. The
Congress will have to believe in its own contention
that there was no 'entrustment' in the first place for
anyone's trust to be breached and that no one
claims to be deceived or cheated. But the judicial
process will have to be faced squarely without
resort to political theatre. The charges of cheating
and criminal breach of trust against the Congress
leaders will have to be countered only through the
legal route.

41

Old dirty trick

Editorial|10 December 2015

In the gambling dens of the "wild west" it was

a popular theory that "when you don't have the
cards, best to kick the table over." The Congress is
attempting precisely that by stirring up a political
storm in and beyond Parliament and seeking to play
a victim/martyr card rather than "fight" the
National Herald case in the appropriate forum -the
courts. And that is what concerns people not
directly involved in the dispute -are judicial actions
to be dragged through the filth of politics?
Impacted, maybe even overturned, by shrill rhetoric, mass protest, numbers in Parliament, and what
have you? It had been said long ago that when out
of power the Congress is reckless in destroying
those pillars of the democracy that do not happen
to prop it up (the "family", that is), and now the
Delhi High Court is being virtually accused of
functioning at government diktat. It would appear
that the self-styled "legal eagles" -Singhvi, Sibal and
now Tulsi too -are doing a Jethmalani by mounting
42

external pressure on the courts rather than take a

legal route. Would the trio have the guts to declare
the High Court's scathing observations as having
been drafted at the government's behest? This is
not just blatant contempt of the judicial system but
issuing a licence to abuse it.
The National Herald case may have political
motivation: Subramanian Swamy's track record as a
trouble-maker is well-known, but the fact that he
has -in this case, others too -convinced the courts of
prima facie irregularities cannot be discounted. Not
by all the noise the "palace" is provoking. Not by
trying to seek sympathy by claiming Indira Gandhi's
legacy (not necessarily a positive endowment), or
via press conferences and TV jaw-jaw. The
determination will be made by the courts. Period.
The charge of political vendetta may or may
not "stick", but it takes no great study of history to
discern who first subverted national institutions for
petty personal and political purpose: this
newspaper could testify to having been "given the
treatment". Why, even till a couple of years ago the
CBI etc are what cemented the UPA and its external
supporters. The BJP might have presented itself
43

better had its lesser-lights not rushed into gloating

over the High Court's observations.
The real casualty would be matters before
Parliament; Rahul Gandhi and his disrupting
regiment have another fig-leaf to cover their prime
purpose of bringing governance to a halt. That the
major "protest" took place in the Rajya Sabha will
only accelerate the debate over the utility of the
"Upper House". As for the GST Bill -Mamata
Banerjee has provided some insight by commenting
that "Rahul doesn't want it".

44

National Herald issue: How the Gandhi

family revived Associated Journals
By N Sunderasha Subramanian | December 2015.

Prior to 2011, the company was in dire straits.

But recent financial results show its fortunes are on
the mend
Under Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, The
Associated Journals has morphed from a company
that was bleeding crores into one that is making
profit, filings with the Registrar of Companies show.
While the profits are helping it write down the
losses it had accumulated over time, the company is
also investing significantly in construction-related
activities that could potentially increase its revenue
prospects, filings show.
It has reported profit before tax and extraordinary items in each of the three financial years that
followed its takeover by Young Indian, a not-for-profit controlled by Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi,
Rahul Gandhi, Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes.
45

The Associated Journals is at the centre of a

raging national political debate. After the Delhi High
Court ruled that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi will
have to appear in person in court over a plea filed by
Bharatiya Janata Party member Subramanian
Swamy, the Congress has raised the political
temperature in the country and called the move
political vendetta. The BJP-led government,
meanwhile, has said it is a court order and it has no
role to play in the whole affair.
Sometime between November 2010 and
January 2011, Young Indian took over the
accumulated liabilities of Rs 90 crore on the books
of The Associated Journals and was in turn allotted
shares amounting to nearly 99 per cent in the
company. Swamy moved court in 2012, alleging that
the transaction was unfair on the 1,000-odd original
shareholders of the company who were reduced to
a minority following the deal and were hence
deprived of their rightful share in the real estate
assets of the company. According to Swamy, these
assets were worth Rs 1,600 crore, three years ago.
The value has since increased to Rs 2,000 crore, say
his supporters.
46

How the Gandhi family revived Associated

JournalsIn choppy waters
Prior to the takeover, The Associated Journals
was in dire straits. In the financial year ended March
2008, the year its flagship, National Herald, was last
published, it booked a loss of Rs 5.96 crore, up
almost six times from Rs 1.01 crore in the previous
year. The spike was caused largely by the Rs 3.33
crore irrecoverable rent and other past expenses
the company chose to write off that year.
On the income side, circulation revenue
plunged to Rs 64.31 lakh in 2007-08 from Rs 2.86
crore in the previous year. Advertisement income
fell around 30 per cent to Rs 2.57 crore from Rs 3.63
crore. The only silver lining was rental income - it
grew to Rs 1.02 crore from Rs 86 lakh. As a sign of
operations winding down, expenses on newsprint
came down from Rs 2.52 crore to Rs 63.17 lakh. But,
salaries and wages grew to Rs 4.73 crore from Rs
4.28 crore.
This was followed by more losses: Rs 33.78
crore in 2008-09, Rs 1.9 crore in 2009-10 and Rs
0.39 crore in 2010-11. The huge loss in 2008-09 was
due to the voluntary retirement scheme for staff,
47

which increased the expenses on salaries and wages

to Rs 34.12 crore.
Much of that has changed now. Barring 201213, when it reported a net loss of Rs 4.65 crore after
writing off exceptional items of over Rs 10.59 crore,
the company booked net profits in two of the last
three financial years for which records are available.
In 2011-12, a year after the ownership changes, it
booked a profit of Rs 2.22 crore. In 2013-14, the last
year it has reported its numbers for, The Associated
Journals clocked a net profit of Rs 7.95 crore.
How the Gandhi family revived Associated
Journals Its largest income source in 2013-14 was
"rental income from investment property, long term"
that stood at Rs 9.4 crore, up from Rs 6.02 crore in
2012-13 and Rs 2.68 crore in 2011-12.
A part of this rental income is from the Passport
Seva kendra operated by Tata Consultancy Services in
Herald House in New Delhi from where the National
Herald used to be published. Interest on fixed
deposits showed a steep fall to Rs 59,638 in 2013-14
from Rs 14.10 lakh in the previous year, suggesting
some of these might have been redeemed.
48

On the expenditure side, electricity expenses

of Rs 19.19 lakh and repairs to building of Rs 16.02
lakh were among the biggest heads, followed by
security expenses of Rs 7.95 lakh and legal charges
of Rs 6.38 lakh.
Contractual payments and civic charges such
as water and property tax clubbed under
miscellaneous expenses totalled Rs 84 lakh, up from
Rs 68.77 lakh in 2012-13. Interest cost of Rs 2.48
crore was by far the biggest expenditure but it was
capitalised under capital work in progress.
Shrinking losses
Analysis of The Associated Journals' filings
shows that the profits are gradually reducing the
accumulated losses on the balance sheet. At the
end of 2013-14, the accumulated losses stood at Rs
66.96 crore, down from Rs 72.50 crore reported at
the end of 2010-11, before the ownership changes
took place.
Total fixed assets on The Associated Journals'
books were Rs 1.71 crore at the end of 2013-14 nowhere close to the thousands of crores that
Swamy says these are worth. According to the notes
49

to accounts in the annual report, "fixed assets are

stated at cost, less accumulated depreciation."
Email sent to the company elicited no response.
Tangible assets capital work in progress was
one of the biggest items in the 2013-14 balance
sheet. The annual report showed that total "capital
work in progress" stood at Rs 63.31 crore. According
to the annual report of the company, these constructions were amongst the steps taken to restart
National Herald.
The company reported capital work in
progress in four locations: Mumbai, Panchkula,
Patna and Lucknow. Mumbai had the highest closing
balance at Rs 36.35 crore, followed by Panchkula
(Rs 14.8 crore) and Lucknow (Rs 11.94 crore).
Patna's construction expenses stood at a modest Rs
20.19 lakh and did not see any addition in the year.
Filings showed that the Mumbai land in Bandra was
allotted by the government in 1983.
The company also noted an ongoing dispute
with one Vishnu Goyal based in Indore over land
and publication. "Relating to (the) land at Indore,
the company had revoked in earlier years the
general power of attorney issued in favour of Vishnu
50

Goyal for publication of National Herald by him from

Indore. The matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India"
The turnaround in The Associated Journals'
fortunes shows that it's not just political acumen,
the Gandhi family also has a head for business.

51

In Mumbai, 'commercial building' rises

on plot AJL got for Nehru library.
By Kavitha Iyer Mumbai |Dec 10, 2015.

The proposal for a Nehru memorial

library is not mentioned in the building
permission documents.
Written by Kavitha Iyer Mumbai, Dec 10, 2015.

The AJL plot in Bandra.

Having remained vacant for three decades, a
prime plot of land in suburban Mumbai, allotted by
the Maharashtra government to Associated Journals
Ltd in 1983 for building a Nehru memorial library
52

and research centre, will now house a 11-storey

office building.
According to building permissions granted by
the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to the
company that once published the National Herald,
the newspaper launched by Nehru, and Qaumi
Awaz, the project is a "commercial building"
comprising two levels of basement parking, an
office and atrium on the ground floor and eleven
floors of offices.
The proposal for a Nehru memorial library
is not mentioned in the building permission
documents.
The plot of land is located in Bandra, along the
Western Express Highway. Measuring 3,478 sq m, it
stands on part of a large plot earlier reserved for a
hostel for Scheduled Caste students.
According to an August 1983 order, the
Maharashtra government allotted the land to M/s
Associated Journals (Bombay) Ltd "for publication of
daily newspapers and for establishing a Nehru
Library-cum-Research Institute" on payment of an
occupancy price.
53

Among the conditions imposed, the order by the

additional collector stated, "That the building to be constructed by the grantee shall be exclusively used for the
purpose for which it is granted"
For nearly three decades, the plot remained
vacant even as a parcel of the original larger plot was
handed over to a housing society floated
by Congressman Rajiv Chavan - former Mumbai
Congress president Kripashankar Singh is a member of
the society.
In the interim, while seeking removal of encroachments and realignment of its boundaries and alterations
to a BMC sewage pumping station on a part of the plot,
Associated Journals also sought and received extensions
to complete construction on the plot.
By early 2012, the Associated Journals Ltd,
through its chairman Motilal Vora, initiated steps to
seek permissions for construction on the plot
allotted to the company. All subsequent communication
from the BMC to Associated Journals regarding the construction refers to the project as a
"proposed office building". A commencement certificate was granted in June 2013 for a proposed "commercial building".
54

The building is now nearly four storeys high. At

the site on Wednesday, a watchman called the
upcoming construction a "Congress Bhavan".
Mumbai-based RTI activist Anil Galgali, who in
2012 wrote to then chief minister Prithviraj Chavan
and urged the government to take the plot of land
back since no construction had begun for nearly 30
years, told The Indian Express Wednesday that the
land can still be taken back for non-compliance with
the original allotment conditions.
"Not only is there no proposal for a press or
Nehru memorial library in the under-construction
building, the government land has also not been
used in a timely manner. I will write to Chief
Minister Devendra Fadnavis, seeking cancellation of
the allotment," Galgali said.
While Associated Journals had previously run
foul of the government over lease dues, a letter
from the suburban collector in 2010 stated that
occupancy price of Rs 98,17,440 had been paid
following an order in 2006 and there seemed to be
no arrears of lease rent outstanding.

55

The limits of negativism

Article: Dec 9, 2015.

M. Venkaiah Naidu
THE writer is Union minister for urban
development, housing and urban poverty alleviation, and parliamentary affairs writes: PM Modi
admired globally, political opponents affecting
image of India
The special sitting of Parliament to commemorate Ambedkar only saw parties try to score
brownie points. Opposition must realise that the
people are tiring of confrontational politics.
At a time when India is making rapid
economic strides and regaining its rightful place in
the comity of nations after a decade of decadence,
the political detractors of the BJP-led NDA, unable
to countenance the growing appreciation of its policies and programmes, have launched a campaign to
defame and discredit the government. This
increasing intolerance towards a government that
assumed power with a majority mandate stems
from the insecurity complex of a shrinking Congress
56

and confused Left. In the process, they are trying to

obfuscate the truth, rake up divisive and extraneous
issues, whip up an atmosphere of fear, and derail
the development agenda.
Even as world powers are acknowledging
India's resurgence under the leadership of Prime
Minister Narendra Modi, the BJP's political
opponents are trying to hijack the national political
discourse, when the need of the hour is to have an
all-round consensus on important issues. But why
are the political opponents at home getting into a
frenzy over non-issues? Is it because they will
become politically less relevant with the passage of
time, as the government is trying to fulfil the
objectives enshrined in the Constitution? Had these
parties been serious about India's progress, debates
in Parliament and outside would have been more
constructive and meaningful.
Let us pause and look at the significance of a
special sitting of Parliament to celebrate the
Constitution and commemorate the 125th birth
anniversary of B.R. Ambedkar. The idea was to
revisit Constituent Assembly debates, historic
speeches made by great sons of the country, and
57

peep into their vision for India. But I was

disappointed that during the debate, we tried to
score brownie points over each other instead of
pondering on the challenges facing the country.
The time has come to assess the extent to
which the aspirations and expectations of the
people have been fulfilled, while looking at the
challenges before us. Babasaheb was a towering
national leader, with great qualities of heart and
head. He looked at the inequities in Hindu society as
civilisational lacunae, and dedicated his life to
eradicating them. Ambedkar was a great social warrior. He carved a niche for himself on the basis of his
brilliant capabilities and intellect, and braved the
odds and insults of the time. Yet there was no
hatred or animosity in his political thinking. His fight
was against the dichotomies, contradictions and
evils of society, and not against Hindu society and
civilisation itself. For Ambedkar, nationalism was not
the mere transfer of power from the British, but
meant the reconstruction of the nation. His core
project was nation-building. India owes to him the
position it has attained today. For instance, it was
Ambedkar who initially envisioned fiscal federalism
in the constitutional scheme. The division of
58

revenue between the Centre and states was

categorically dealt with in his comprehensive work
on the financial autonomy of the provinces.
While favouring a federal form of government
with an independent judiciary, Ambedkar believed
in uniformity in fundamental laws, civil and
criminal. He resigned from the Union cabinet when
he realised that the Hindu Code Bill would not be
passed. He was also not in favour of judges selecting
judges and had said that "to allow the chief justice
practically a veto upon the appointment of judges is
really to transfer the authority to the chief justice
which we are not prepared to vest in the president
or the government of the day."
Ambedkar's fundamental concern was to
liberate untouchables, the depressed classes,
vulnerable women and minorities from the clutches
of social oppression. While the provision of positive
discrimination for SCs, STs, OBCs and women in the
Constitution has led to a reservation policy in
education and employment, which has no doubt
had a positive impact on their socio-economic
condition, the gap between them and the rest of
society persists. While Ambedkar's message, work
59

and life are a guide for those at the helm, they also
hold up a mirror to us, pointing out the distance still
to be travelled to achieve the dreams of the
founding fathers.
Even after 68 years of Independence, our
country is grappling with evils like illiteracy (26 per
cent), poverty (22 per cent), female foeticide,
dowry, untouchability, atrocities on women, caste
and communal politics, money power in politics,
growing opportunism and defections, regional and
economic disparities, the clamour for special status
for states and the inclusion of more castes into the
SC, ST and OBC categories.
It is sad that instead of strengthening
democratic institutions, earlier regimes weakened
them and tried to make them subservient to
achieve political objectives. On the other hand,
Modi, with his typical missionary zeal, is seeking to
transform the country by improving the lot of every
section - sabka saath, sabka vikas - especially the
socially and economically vulnerable.
The time has come for those manufacturing
dissent and indulging in a disinformation campaign
to realise that such tactics won't pay, and might
60

boomerang sooner than later. The best example of

this was the recent incident in Bangalore, when
students overwhelmingly expressed support for
Swachh Bharat and Make in India, stumping the
Congress leader.
People have become politically aware and
conscious of their rights. They abhor the wilful
disruption of Parliament on flimsy pretexts. Is it so
difficult to respect the overwhelming mandate of
the people? The biggest irony is that people who
subverted and sabotaged democracy, crippled
fundamental rights, imposed censorship, put lakhs
of people, opposition leaders and workers behind
bars, amended the Constitution to suit individual
whims and fancies, and superseded judges to create
a pliant, committed judiciary, are now preaching
sermons.
On the Congress's charge that the NDA was
not recognising the contributions of former Prime
Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, I would like to set the
record straight and declare in unambiguous terms
that we respect Nehruji and never intended to
ignore his contributions. At the same time, I would
like to know from Congress leaders why their
61

governments did not accord due respect and

recognition to the monumental contributions made
by great men like Ambedkar, Subhas Chandra Bose,
Rajendra Prasad and Sardar Patel. Saddened by the
neglect of such stalwarts, we are now correcting
historical wrongs and giving due recognition to
them. Yet the Congress seems to be terribly upset
by this and grudged the Ambedkar celebrations. No
party or family can appropriate the country's
freedom movement. It was a people's movement,
an unprecedented struggle of the masses. The
Congress is simply unable to digest this fact.
Is it asking for too much from the opposition
parties to support well-meaning, developmentoriented schemes in the interests of the people?
People are in no mood to accept negativism or the
politics of confrontation. They want collaborative
politics that will make their lives better and their
futures brighter.
The time has come for all people to strive
together to ensure the enactment of a common civil
code, stopping conversions through fraudulent
means, implementing sarva shiksha, empowering

62

women and reservations, bridging the yawning

urban-rural divide, reducing economic disparities,
making agriculture remunerative, stopping the
playing of caste and religious politics, curbing
the criminalisation of politics, eradicating
corruption, curbing fundamentalism, shedding
pseudo-secularism, curbing terror, disapproving of
asking people on foreign soil to overthrow a
democratically elected PM and petitioning
authorities in the UN, US and UK on
domestic issues.

63

Yes, Democracy in Danger due to vendetta politics

Points made by Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu, Minister for
Parliamentary Affairs at a Press Conference held at
Parliament Building on 9th December, 2015.

OAs reported in media today, senior Congress

leader Shri Ghulam Nabi Azad, yesterday said that
the democracy is in danger in the country. He said
so after the petition of Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri
Rahul Gandhi for exemption from appearing in the
court in the National Herald case was rejected by
the Delhi High Court.
OI agree with Shri Azad that democracy is in
danger. However, the fact is that this danger is
coming from none other than the Congress Party.
OI also agree that vendetta politics are being
played out in the country but again it is the
Congress which is doing so.
ONot accepting the mandate of the people to
the Modi Government is a clear danger to
democracy.

64

OTrying to prevent governance and stalling

legislations through un-constitutional and
un-democratic tactics as is being done by Congress
is a clear danger to democracy.
OMaking the highest forum of democracy,
the Parliament of India dysfunctional through
disruptions for no valid reasons is certain danger to
democracy and that's what the Congress is
unfortunately doing.
ORefusing to abide by the rules of democracy
and resorting to the ways of mobocracy is a certain
danger to democracy. Congress is proving to be
fountain head of this mobocracy.
OTaking objection to a judicial verdict and
stalling Parliament is the biggest threat to
democracy and Congress should realize this.
OSeeking to convert a family problem into a
national issue and misusing Parliament for family
interests is the biggest threat to democracy and
Congress party should take responsibility for this.
OHaving been reduced to a miniscule minority in the Lok Sabha, Congress is obstructing legislative business in the Rajya Sabha using its numbers.
65

Is this not a threat to democracy?

OOut of frustration over steadily declining
political space and adverse judicial pronouncement
and unable to accept people's mandate to Modi
Government, Congress is taking the Parliament to a
ransom. This is clear case of vendetta politics.
OLooking for excuses to stall Parliament and
preventing major legislations like GST Bill is a clear
case of vendetta politics. Can Congress deny this?
OToday, quoting an important leader media
reported that some top Congress Leader is against
passing GST Bill, whose original author was the
Congress Party. This is a clear case of vendetta politics.
OCongress Party wants to take revenge
against the people of the country for giving absolute
majority to a single party in the Lok Sabha and that
too for Modi Government. Congress Party is keen to
pay it back to the people by stopping all progressive
and development oriented legislations. This is again
a clear evidence of vendetta politics.

66

OBut the best way to address these issues is

the forum of the court and not the Parliament.
Obstructing Parliament for something related to
judicial system is nothing but vendetta politics.
OIts amazing that Shri Rahul Gandhi says that
nobody can stop him from questioning the
government. Who has stopped him from doing so?
Students of a Bengaluru college have answered him
enough.
OPeople of the country are wise enough to
understand the desperate politics of Congress Party
and their consequences.
OCongress Leaders should realize that their
party is preventing over 500 other MPs from raising
questions and issues in both the Houses of
Parliament.
OCongress Party has been resorting to denigrating the institution of Prime Minister by raising
slogans against Shri Modi besides making uncharitable comments.
OCongress Party raised the issues of
intolerance and conversions in the Parliament and
ended up being cornered.
67

OIn politics one needs to be patient and wait

for the opportunity while trying to resonate the will
and aspirations of the people. Instead of doing so,
Congress is acting in haste just to defend the
interest of individuals. This is where the
fundamental threat to democracy emanates from.
O So nobody is able to understand or state
why the Congress stalling the Parliament.
OI appeal to the Congress Party not to further
disrupt the Parliament and cooperate in making the
best out of the remaining sittings in the larger
interest of the people and the country.

68

 U
Publish Date:Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:50 AM (IST)

U
U U
S
U
vx U U h U
U g U
U U
U U U
SU U U U -
U U -
U UU U U
-S - U U U U

U U U U U - U
U ,
U UU
U
U U U
U h U
69

 U U U
U mU U U U U
U U U U U
U U U
U S h U U U
Z U U h U U U U
MU U U ,
UU U U U U UU
, U U U M U S
- U
U U U
U SU U U
U
U S
U U
- -U
U U S
U U U U
U UU U U -U (
|{ U) U
U U S U U
U S M U U
U U Q S U -U
U U S
, U U UU
70

 U U U U
U U
U U U U
U U U U
U U
U U
U U UU U
U U ?
U U U
S U U ,
U U U U , {z
U
U U U U
U ? U UU U ? U
S U Q U M
?
U U U U ? U U U
U ?
U U ,
U U U,
h U U U U -U
U U U
U
- U
U
71

 U U U U
U U U Z U
U
U v~|z U wvz U
U U U
CU U
Q S U U U U
U U U U
U U U
U
U
M
U U U
U U
U - U UU U
U
( , U
SU U )

72

U U ,
UU
December 10, 2015

U D U U
U U
U U U UU
U h U
M UU
UU U
S U U
M U # S
U U U U
U
U U
U S U U
U S
U U U
U UU
UU U U U U
U U U
U U S
73

UU U U
U U U U
U U U
U U U
U U
U U U
U
U U U UU
U U U
mU U
S U U U S
U U
U
U UC U -
U U U U
UU U U U
UU U U U U
U U U U U
U
U Q U

U M U U S
U U v}}w
74

 U U U UU
U , U U U U U U
U U
U

U U U
S U U

75

S U
D

| December 10, 2015

U S mU
, U U U
U U U M
U
UU U U U U
U U
U S U
,
U U UU ,
U U U U U
S U
, U U U
U ! U U S SU
R U U U U
U M
U , S U M U
U U U U
U U U L U
U U
U
76

U S SU U U
U U L M SU ,
U U SU R
U
U U , U U ,
U U U
UU S
U U
U
U U
M U U U
? U , U , U
U U
SU ? U L
U U S U
SU U ? U
U , U
U U MU
U ! U U U
U U
U U , U U

77

 U UU
U, U U ?
Patrika news 2015-12-10

U g U U U
UU g U U l
UU LU U U U
U
U, S U g U U
, U , UU U
U U U U U
U U U U g U U
UU - S U,
SS a U U U
U U
U S UU U
U U
S U U
SS a UU
U S U
U U U U S U

78