![\"arun](\"https:\/\/patriotsforumindia.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/arun-shourie.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe day I entered Indiraji’s household I became an Indian, the rest is just
\ntechnical — that is Sonia Gandhi’s latest explanation for not having
\nacquired Indian citizenship till fourteen years after her marriage to Rajiv Gandhi.<\/p>\n
First the facts. Surya Prakash, the Consulting Editor of The Pioneer, has
\ndocumented these in detail. Sonia married Rajiv on 25 February, 1968.<\/p>\n
Under section 5(c) of the Indian Citizenship Act she became eligible to register
\nherself as a citizen of India on 25 February, 1973. She chose to continue as a
\ncitizen of Italy. She applied for Indian citizenship only ten years later, on 7 April, 1983.<\/p>\n
A foreigner seeking Indian citizenship has to state on oath that he or she
\nhas relinquished his or her citizenship of the original country. This
\nrequirement was all the more necessary in the case of an Italian citizen:
\nunder Italian law, an Italian taking citizenship of another country
\ncontinues to retain his or her Italian citizenship. Sonia Gandhi’s
\napplication did not have the requisite statement, nor did it have any
\nofficial document from the appropriate authorities in Italy. The omission
\nwas made up in a curious way: the Ambassador of Italy stepped in, and wrote
\nto the Government saying that Sonia Gandhi had indeed given up her
\ncitizenship of Italy. He did so on 27 April, 1983. Sonia got her citizenship
\nforthwith — on 30 April, 1983.<\/p>\n
Another nugget Surya Prakash has unearthed is that while Sonia became<\/p>\n
a citizen on 30 April, 1983, her name made its way to the electoral rolls as
\nof 1 January, 1980! In response to an objection, it had to be deleted in
\nlate 1982. But sure enough, it was put back on the electoral roll as<\/p>\n
of 1 January, 1983. She hadn’t even applied for citizenship till then.<\/p>\n
All technicalities! If any ordinary person were to proceed in the same way,
\nhe would be up for stern prosecution.<\/p>\n
Maruti was one of the most odious scandals connected with Mrs Indira Gandhi
\nand her family. The Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice A C Gupta
\nrecorded that, though she was at the time a foreigner, Sonia Gandhi secured
\nshares in two of their family concerns: Maruti Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.
\n(in 1970 and again in 1974), and Maruti Heavy Vehicles (in 1974). The
\nacquisition of these shares was in contravention of the very Act that Mrs
\nGandhi used to such diabolic effect in persecuting her political opponents,
\nthe Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Just another technicality!<\/p>\n
But the Mother of Technicalities, so to say, is to be found in the way Sonia
\nGandhi, without having any known sources of income, has become the
\ncontroller of one of the largest empires of property and patronage in Delhi.
\nThe Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Library and Museum is one of the principal
\ninstitutions for research on contemporary Indian history. It is situated in
\nand controls real estate which, because of its historical importance, cannot
\neven be valued. The institution runs entirely on grants from the Government
\nof India. Sonia Gandhi has absolutely no qualification that could by any
\nstretch of imagination entitle her to head the institution: has she secured
\neven an elementary university degree, to say nothing of having done anything
\nthat would even suggest some specialization in subjects which the
\ninstitution has been set up to study. But by mysterious technicalities she
\nis today the head of this institution. So much so that she even decides
\nwhich scholar may have access to papers — even official papers — of Pandit Nehru
\nand others of that family, including, if I may stretch the term, Lady Mountbatten.<\/p>\n
Real estate, only slightly less valuable, has been acquired on Raisina Road.
\nThe land was meant to house offices of the Congress. A large, ultra-modern
\nbuilding was built — the finance being provided by another bunch of
\ntechnical devices which remain a mystery. The building had but to get
\ncompleted, and Sonia appropriated it for the other Foundation she completely
\ncontrols — the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. The Congress(I) did not just oblige
\nby keeping silent about the takeover of its building, in the very first budget
\nits Government presented upon returning to power, it provided Rs 100
\ncrores to this Foundation. The furore that give-away caused was so great
\nthat the largesse had to be canceled. No problem. Business house after
\nbusiness house, even public sector enterprises incurring huge losses, coughed<\/p>\n
up crores.<\/p>\n
The Foundation has performed two principal functions. The projection of
\nSonia Gandhi. And enticing an array of leaders, intellectuals, journalists
\netc. into nets of patronage and pelf.<\/p>\n
But the audacity with which the land and building were usurped and funds
\nraised for this Foundation falls into the second order of smalls when they are set
\nalongside what has been done in regard to the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts.<\/p>\n
This Centre was set up as a trust in 1987 by a resolution of the Cabinet.
\nThe Government of India gave Rs. 50 crores out of the Consolidated Fund of
\nIndia as a corpus fund to this Centre. It transferred 23 acres of land along
\nwhat is surely one of the costliest sites in the world — Central Vista, the
\nstretch that runs between Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate — to this
\nTrust. Furthermore, it granted another Rs. 84 crores for the Trust to
\nconstruct its building.<\/p>\n
The land was government land. The funds were government funds. Accordingly,
\ncare was taken to ensure that the Trust would remain under the overall control
\nof the Government of India. Therefore, the Deed of the Trust provided, inter alia,<\/p>\n
– Every ten years two-thirds of the trustees would retire. One half of the
\nvacancies caused would be filled by the Government. One half would be
\nfilled by nominations made by the retiring trustees.<\/p>\n
– The Member Secretary of the Trust would be nominated by the Government
\non such terms and conditions as the Government may decide.<\/p>\n
– The President of India would appoint a committee from time to time to
\nreview the working of the Trust, and the recommendations of the committee
\nwould be binding on the Trust.<\/p>\n
– No changes would be made in the deed of the Trust except by prior written
\nsanction of the Government, and even then the changes may be adopted
\nonly by three-quarters of the Trustees agreeing to them at a meeting
\nspecially convened for the purpose.<\/p>\n
Now, just see what technical wonders were performed one fine afternoon.
\nA meeting like any other meeting of the trustees was convened on 18 May,
\n1995. The minutes of this meeting which I have before me list all the
\nsubjects which were discussed — the minutes were circulated officially by
\nDr Kapila Vatsyayan in her capacity as the Director of the Centre with the
\nobservation, “The Minutes of this meeting have been approved by Smt Sonia
\nGandhi, President of the IGNCA Trust.”<\/p>\n
What did the assembled personages discuss and approve? Even if the topics
\nseem mundane, do read them carefully — for they contain a vital clue, the
\nSherlock Holmes clue so to say, about what did not happen.<\/p>\n
The minutes report that the following subjects were discussed:<\/p>\n
1: Indira Gandhi Memorial Fellowship Scheme and the Research Grant Scheme.
\n2: Commemoration volume in the memory of Stella Kramrisch.
\n3: Sale of publications of the IGNCA.
\n4: Manuscripts on music and dance belonging to the former ruling house of Raigarh in M P
\n5: Report on the 10th and 11th meetings of the Executive Committee.
\n6: Approval and adoption of the Annual Report and Annual Accounts, 1993-94.
\n7: Bilateral and multilateral programmes of IGNCA, and aid from U N
\nagencies, Ford Foundation, Japan Foundation, etc.
\n8: Brief report on implementation of programmes from April 1994 to March 1995.
\n9: Brief of initiatives taken by IGNCA to strengthen dialogue between Indian
\nand Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, China.
\n10: Documentation of cultural heritage of Indo-Christian, Indo-Islamic and
\nIndo-Zoroastrian communities.
\n11: Gita Govinda project.
\n12: IGNCA newsletter.
\n13: Annual Action Plan, 1995-96.
\n14: Calendar of events. 15: Publications of IGNCA.
\n15: Matters relating to building project.
\n16: Allocations\/release of funds for the IGNCA building project.<\/p>\n
There is not one word in the minutes that the deed of the Trust was even
\nmentioned.<\/p>\n
This meeting took place on 18 May, 1995. On 30 May, 1995 Sonia Gandhi
\nperformed one of technical miracles. She wrote a letter to the Minister of
\nHuman Resources informing him of what she said were alterations in the Trust
\nDeed which the trustees had unanimously approved. Pronto, the Minister wrote
\nback, on 2 June, 1995: “I have great pleasure in communicating to you the
\nGovernment of India’s approval to the alterations.”<\/p>\n
The Minister? The ever-helpful, Madhav Rao Scindia. And wonder of wonders,
\nin his other capacity he had attended the meeting on 18 May as a trustee of
\nthe IGNCA, the meeting which had not, according to the minutes approved by
\nSonia Gandhi, even discussed, far less “unanimously approved” changes in the<\/p>\n
Trust Deed.<\/p>\n
And what were the changes that Sonia Gandhi managed to get through by this
\ncollusive exchange of two letters?<\/p>\n
– She became President for life.
\n– The other trustees — two-thirds of whom were to retire every ten years
\n— became trustees for life. The power of the Government to fill half the vacancies<\/p>\n
was snuffed out.
\n– The power of the Government to appoint the Member Secretary of the Trust
\nwas snuffed out; henceforth the Trust would appoint its own Member Secretary.
\n– The power of the President of India to appoint a committee to periodically
\nreview the functioning of the Trust was snuffed out; neither he nor Government
\nwould have any power to inquire into the working of the Trust.<\/p>\n
A Government Trust, a Trust which had received over Rs. 134 crores of the
\ntax-payers’ money, a Trust which had received twenty three acres of invaluable
\nland was, by a simple collusive exchange of a letter each between Sonia Gandhi
\nand one of her gilded attendants became property within her total control.<\/p>\n
The usurpation was an absolute fraud. The Trust Deed itself provided that no
\namendment to it could come into force — on any reasonable reading could not
\neven be initiated and adopted — without prior written permission of the
\nGovernment. Far from any permission being taken, even information to the
\neffect that changes were being contemplated was not sent to Government. An
\nex post “approval” was obtained from an obliging trustee.<\/p>\n
That “approval” was in itself wholly without warrant. Such sanctions are
\ngoverned by Rule 4 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business)
\nRules, 1961. This Rule prescribes that when a subject concerns more than one
\ndepartment, “no order be issued until all such departments have concurred,
\nor failing such concurrence, a decision thereon has been taken by or under
\nthe authority of the Cabinet.” Other departments were manifestly concerned,
\nconcurrence from them was not even sought. The Cabinet was never apprised.<\/p>\n
The rule proceeds to provide, “Unless the case is fully covered by powers to
\nsanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds, conferred by
\nany general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance, no department
\nshall, without the previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, issue any
\norders which may… (b) involve any grant of land or assignment of revenue
\nor concession, grant… (d) otherwise have a financial bearing whether
\ninvolving expenditure or not…”<\/p>\n
And yet, just as concurrence of other departments had been dispensed with,
\nno approval was taken from the Finance Ministry.<\/p>\n
The Indian Express and other papers published details about the fraud by
\nwhich what was a Government Trust had been converted into a private fief.
\nTwo members of Parliament — Justice Ghuman Mal Lodha and Mr. E. Balanandan
\n— began seeking details, and raising objections.<\/p>\n
For a full two and a half years, governments — of the Congress(I), and the
\ntwo that were kept alive by the Congress(I), those of Mr. Deve Gowda and of
\nMr. I. K. Gujral — made sure that full facts would not be disclosed to the
\nMPs, and that the concerned file would keep shuttling between the Ministry
\nof Human Resource Development and the Ministry of Law.<\/p>\n
As a result, Sonia Gandhi continues to have complete control over
\ngovernmental assets of incalculable value — through technicalities
\ncollusively arranged.<\/p>\n
A latter-day Dalhousie — annexation of Indian principalities through technicalities!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
http:\/\/arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com\/articles\/19990913.htm>http:\/\/arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com\/articles\/19990913.htm Annexation Through Technicalities *Arun Shourie* The day I entered Indiraji’s household I became an… more