Vajpayee, RSS cowered before Indira Gandhi: BJP can’t ignore Swamy’s account of the Emergency

Vajpayee, RSS cowered before Indira Gandhi: BJP can’t ignore Swamy’s account of the Emergency

What has been true of every anniversary of the Emergency will also be of the 40th - RSS-BJP leaders will recount tales of resistance they mounted against the authoritarianism of Indira Gandhi. But what they will not talk about, or counter, are the accusations Subramanian Swamy made against their leaders in the past.

In a piece for the Hindu newspaper, dated 13 June 2000, a fortnight before the 25th anniversary of the Emergency, Swamy claimed then RSS chief Balasaheb Deoras and former Prime Minister AB Vajpayee betrayed the anti-Emergency movement by writing letters of apology to Indira Gandhi. Swamy is now a member of the BJP's national executive.

In the piece, Swamy wrote, “It is on the record in the Maharashtra Assembly proceedings that the then RSS chief, Balasaheb Deoras, wrote several apology letters to Indira Gandhi from inside the Yerawada jail in Pune disassociating the RSS from the JP-led movement and offering to work for the infamous 20-point programme. She did not reply to any of his letters.” (The 20-point programme and Sanjay Gandhi's five-point the Congress regime cited to justify the imposition of the Emergency, in its endeavour to regenerate India.)

Indira. Gandhi, however, replied to Vajpayee, who, Swamy claimed, too wrote apology letters to her. “In fact for most of the 20-month Emergency, Mr. Vajpayee was out on parole after having given a written assurance that he would not participate in any programmes against the Government,” Swamy declared.


]Atal Behari Vajpayee and Indira Gandhi. Agency.

It seems the two weren't the only luminaries from the RSS who apologised to Indira Gandhi, precisely the reason why Swamy thought it was “ludicrous” of the BJP to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the anti-Emergency movement in 2002. He even recommended to readers that they thumb through Akali leader Surjit Singh Barnala's book which provides “vivid description of other erstwhile Jan Sangh worthies who chose to walk out of prison on promise of good behaviour". (Jan Sangh was subsequently renamed the BJP).

However, Swamy's wasn't a wild swipe against the entire RSS. “Not all in the RSS were in a surrender mode,” Swamy noted. “The exceptions were Madhavrao Muley, Dattopant Thengadi and Moropant Pingle.”

During the 1975-77 Emergency period, Swamy was an RSS insider, handpicked to represent the Jan Sangh in the Rajya Sabha. His credentials of resisting the Emergency regime are also impeccable. He was underground, crisscrossed India in disguise, and travelled abroad to campaign extensively against Indira Gandhi.

He became a hero when he walked into the Rajya Sabha on 10 August 1976 undetected. When Vice-President BD Jatti was about to complete the obituary references, Swami pointed to Jatti that he hadn't included democracy in his list of recent deaths. As the MPs stood up to observe a two-minute silence for the deceased, Swamy declared he was staging a walkout - and escaped from Parliament before he could be arrested.

Yet, considering Swamy's shifting political allegiances over the years, should his allegations against the RSS be taken seriously?

Stories about RSS chief Balasaheb Deoras apologising to Indira. Gandhi have always been in circulation. It has been reiterated, once again, in senior journalist Coomi Kapoor's recent book, The Emergency: A Personal History. Kapoor is Swamy's sister-in-law.

In the chapter, 'Swamy on the run', Kapoor says, “Ironically, Balasaheb Deoras, who was put in jail, did not play such a heroic role. From prison he sent several letters to Indira Gandhi praising her leadership, and these were perceived as a form of apology and a plea for pardon.” This echoes Swamy's allegation made in The Hindu in 2000.

However, Kapoor is more sympathetic to Deoras than Swamy. She writes, “Others more kindly disposed towards Deoras argued that these letters were a tactical move meant to protect the interests of the organization and its members.” But this argument could well be a retrospective attempt to present the RSS as a steadfast opponent of the Emergency.

Kapoor's own narrative illustrates vividly that Deoras wasn't the only RSS luminary who buckled under pressure. She categorically says that after RSS leaders, Nanaji Deshmukh and Dattopant Thengadi, were arrested, the morale of the men fighting the Emergency underground was shattered. Kapoor writes, “Many more ‘Twenty Pointers' - paying allegiance to the Emergency powers, they declared their allegiance to Indira Gandhi's Twenty Point Programme and Sanjay Gandhi's five-point programme.”

Swamy's indictment of the RSS, in contrast to Kapoor's, wasn't confined to individuals but extended to the organisation as such. In the Hindu piece, Swamy said it was RSS leader Muley who advised him to go abroad. Why?

Swami answered, “…A tearful Muley told me in early November 1976…(that) I had better escape abroad again since the RSS had finalised the document of surrender to be signed in end January of 1977, and that on Mr. Vajpayee's insistence I would be sacrificed to appease an irate Indira and a fulminating Sanjay whose names I had successfully blackened abroad by my campaign.”

Is there corroborative evidence to support Swamy's charge that Vajpayee struck a deal with Indira Gandhi?

Kapoor says Vajpayee and LK Advani were arrested in Bangalore on 26 June. Days later, Vajpayee was admitted to the city's Victoria Hospital, where he was operated for appendicitis. This was a misdiagnosis - he had typhoid and, because of the needless operation, he developed septicaemia.
Vajpayee was subsequently shifted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, “kept isolated on the fifth floor”. Kapoor says Vajpayee's foster family had to take recourse to lengthy procedure to meet him, involving, among other things, securing clearance from the Prime Minister's Office.


]Subramanian Swamy. IBN Live.

Did Vajpayee promise to cooperate with Indira Gandhi because of his understandable wish to have his foster family around? Kapoor doesn't mention the letter of apology which Swamy referred to. But she does say, “Eventually, because he was bedridden, Vajpayee was granted parole to stay at home".

The mystery about Vajpayee's parole deepens even further when Kapoor discusses the Opposition leader Charan Singh's negotiations with Indira Gandhi. Singh was keen to come out of the prison, but was apprehensive that if he were to walk into freedom alone, his image would be tarnished. He, therefore, submitted to the Congress regime a list of political prisoners who he wanted to be released along with him.

Kapoor writes, “Charan Singh was released in March 1976… Most of the prisoners on the list given by Singh were released soon afterwards, except for (socialist stalwart) Madhu Dandavate. BJP leader Atal Behari Vajpayee, bedridden after a slip-disc operation and suffering from septicaemia, was by this time on parole, but under house arrest.” This means Vajpayee had been on parole at least from August-September 1975 to March 1976.

It is strange Kapoor shouldn't have asked Swamy whether or not Vajpayee apologised to Indira Gandhi. Not only is she Swamy's sister-in-law, her book draws on her personal interview with him. Nor is it that what Swamy wrote in the Hindu was the only time he accused Vajpayee of acquiescing to Mrs Gandhi.

For instance, Outlook magazine in March 1998 ran excerpts from Swamy's autobiography, Swami and Friends-a Few Enemies Too, which was serialized in the Tamil weekly Kumudham.

One of the entry quotes Swamy saying, “Just to get out of the prison on parole, Vajpayee had given a letter of apology to Indira Gandhi and had created a bad precedence.”

As recently as 25 Nov 2012, The Economic Times quoted Swamy saying, “During the Emergency, Vajpayee wanted me to surrender. He felt that it would send the right message. The RSS had told me not to, under any circumstances. So I didn't.”
Swamy's animus towards Vajpayee is well known. Could he have been exaggerating the story about Vajpayee's submission during the Emergency? That's possible.

Nevertheless, different accounts make it clear Vajpayee spent much of the Emergency period on parole, albeit under house arrest. Not the doughty opponent of the Emergency as he has been made out. Nor was it that the RSS remained steadfast in opposing the Emergency. Its role in the resistance against the Emergency wasn't bigger than that of socialists, without whom the movement to reclaim democratic and civil rights would have floundered. Worse, the RSS leadership seemed to have caved in to Indira. Gandhi.

The Sangh's narrative of the anti-Emergency movement has gone unchallenged for a variety of reasons.

One, the collapse of the Janata Party and the dispersal of socialists have prevented the creation of Emergency memories parallel to that of the Sangh's.

Two, several Janata Party's offshoots over the last 25 years have aligned with the Congress, rendering difficult the task of keeping alive the memory of their own as well as their mentors' role in it. To harp on the movement against the Emergency implies criticising the Congress too.

Three, the anti-Emergency movement, as political scientist Prof DL Sheth suggests, provided the Sangh an event to celebrate and mainstream itself. Till then, it had been a marginal force, having contributed little to the Independence movement and known more for its role in the killing of Gandhi. The Jayaprakash Narain, or JP, movement sanctified the Sangh. This has prompted the Sangh, with a little help from its friends, to spin myths about its own role in the RSS.
Four, the party in power is relatively better placed than others to scribble its name on the milestones of the past. This truism will be on display on the 40th anniversary of the Emergency, as it was on the 25th as well - the BJP was in power then too.

As BJP leaders celebrate their role in resisting the Emergency, it will be yet another attempt at scrubbing from the public memory what is inconvenient to them and writing history in black-and-white, as is their habit.

Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist from Delhi. His novel, The Hour Before Dawn, published by HarperCollins, is available in bookstores. Email: ashrafajaz3@gmail.com

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/vajpayee-rss-cowered-before-indira-gandhi-can-bjp-ignore-swamys-account-of-emergency-2312104.html

Why did Sonia and Rahul sneak out just when Cong has BJP on the ropes

Why did Sonia and Rahul sneak out just when Cong has BJP on the ropes

A new Congress strategy has been visible in recent weeks. It is a simple and effective one. The strategy runs something like this: whenever there are corruption scams to be talked about, the Gandhi family will take the backseat, and possibly missing in action (MIA). When it comes to attacking the Modi Sarkar on ideological grounds (anti-poor, secularism), Sonia and Rahul will be at the forefront.

Sonia Gandhi, her son Rahul and daughter Priyanka sneaked out of the country before International Yoga Day for allegedly personal reasons. This is perfectly all right, but is it just coincidence that for the next two weeks, the Congress and the media have been in a feeding frenzy over scams involving all BJP states and the centre, the family is completely MIA?

Sushma Swaraj has been under attack for abandoning normal ministry protocol to enable Lalit Modi to obtain British travel documents; Vasundhara Raje has been literally under siege daily for being a business partner of Lalit Modi in dubious circumstances; the Madhya Pradesh government has been on the backfoot over the Vyapam scam, which has seen many of the accused dying under unexplained circumstances; a couple of Maharashtra ministers - Pankaja Munde and Vinod Tawde - have been blasted for scams involving their ministries.

In all these “scams”, no member of the Gandhi family has been at the forefront of accusations. They obviously timed their exit in such a way as to allow others to do the talking. The attacks on Vasundhara Raje have been orchestrated by Sachin Pilot and Jairam Ramesh; the attacks in Madhya Pradesh have been led by Digvijaya Singh and other low-level Congress flunkies. Even Jyotiraditya Scindia, who is related to Vasundhara Raje is MIA.


]

File picture of Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. AFP

The strategy behind this can only be speculated on, and this is what it looks like. The Gandhi family is missing in action because it makes for an easy target if either Sonia Gandhi or Rahul is seen to be leading the onslaught.

Here's possibly why.

Sushma Swaraj's help to “fugitive” Lalit Modi - the “fugitive” label being stuck on him by the media and the Congress purely on the basis of a couple of show cause notices issued by the Enforcement Directorate - falls flat when compared to the kind of help the Gandhi family gave to its own pet fugitive, the late Ottavio Quattrochi, a key player in the Bofors payoff scandal. Quattrochi was Sonia Gandhi's pal, and the UPA government not only did not chase him, but also allowed him to take his scam money and run. The UPA unfroze Quattrochi's bank accounts, enabling him to take his scam-tainted money. If the Gandhis had taken on Swaraj themselves, the Quattrochi issue would surely have come up for discussion.

Vasundhara Raje is being attacked by Sachin Pilot and not Rahul Gandhi for it immediately brings Robert Vadra's own land-grab cases in Haryana and Rajasthan to the fore. In fact, a case involving Sonia's and Rahul's own property grab - the transfer of the Rs 5,000 crore Herald properties to their private trust using party money - is being heard in a Delhi court. Raje is being targeted by lesser fry in the Congress party in order to ensure that no bullets ricochet on the Gandhi family, which is vulnerable on this count.

Exit from India for a couple of weeks also allowed the Gandhi family to avoid questions on the 40th anniversary of the 1975 internal emergency imposed by Sonia's mother-in-law and Rahul's grandmother, Indira Gandhi. In fact, most Congress flunkies also eased themselves out of the limelight during the week leading upto 25 June, and some, in fact, managed to claim that LK Advani's interview to The Indian Express on the emergency was, in fact, about Narendra Modi's authoritarian tendencies. Sonia and Rahul have never formally condemned Indira Gandhi's emergency, seen as the biggest assault on democracy in independent India ever.

It is more than likely that Sonia and Rahul will focus their attacks on the Modi government largely on the ideological front, where the NDA will be painted as anti-poor, pro-cronies, and anti-farmer. The Gandhis may not take the government directly on any scams, having just lost the last Lok Sabha elections for running India's most corrupt government ever.

The strategy seems to be working so far, with Rahul himself kicking off the plan by attacking the government as a “suit-boot-ki-sarkar” during the budget session of parliament. He has obviously touched a raw nerve in Modi's psyche, for the Prime Minister has been trying to reinvent himself as a pro-poor politician in order to shift his party to the centre of the Indian political spectrum - away from its traditional right-wing orientation.

Using the minions to have a go at the BJP on corruption is intended to keep the Gandhi family protected from the counter-fire.

The Gandhi family went out of the country in mid-June even as the Congress party offered covering fire. Their prolonged absence has thus escaped media comment.

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/sonia-rahul-sneaked-just-cong-bjp-ropes-2321136.html

Jesus is a MYTH

'Jesus is a MYTH': Christ stories appeared decades after his 'death' - and he was probably many people rather than just one, atheist writer claims

• Atheist writer David Fitzgerald claims there is no evidence Jesus existed
• 
  
• The San Francisco based author instead says Jesus was a literary allegory created by combining old Jewish stories and rituals along with rival cults
• He insists it is time to stop believing in Jesus Christ as a historical figure

By RICHARD GRAY FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 08:17 GMT, 3 April 2015 | UPDATED: 16:41 GMT, 4 April 2015

Jesus Christ was not a real person and is probably the result of a combination of stories about several different individuals, according to a writer and leading atheist activist.

David Fitzgerald, a San Francisco based author, believes he has compiled compelling evidence that proves Jesus did not exist.

He claims there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus in historical accounts from the time when he was supposed to have lived, yet other Jewish sect leaders from the time do appear.
Scroll down for video 

+4

Mystery: This painting depicts Jesus Christ as single person but writer David Fitzgerald believes he was a literary invention that combined the stories from several cults and figures in Judea during the first century

He also points to discrepancies in the early gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, claiming these were written decades after the supposed time of Jesus.

Instead he insists the disciples of Jesus were also probably not real and their names only later attached to the gospels to lend them credence.

NO MENTION OF JESUS IN HISTORY 

Historical researcher Michael Paulkovich has claimed that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist after being unable to find any verifiable mention of Christ in historical texts by 126 writers during the ‘time of Jesus’ from the first to third centuries.

He claims that he is a fictional character invented by followers of Christianity to create a figure to worship.

He says this is surprising despite his ‘global miracles and alleged worldwide fame.’ 

The 126 texts he studied were all written in the period during or soon after the supposed existence of Jesus, when Paulkovich says they would surely have heard of someone as famous as Jesus - but none mention him.

'When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not - and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions - I must conclude that Christ is a mythical character,’ he writes. 

‘"Jesus of Nazareth" was nothing more than urban (or desert) legend, likely an agglomeration of several evangelic and deluded rabbis who might have existed.’ 

In a new book due to be published later this year, he will argue that the figure of Jesus was actually a combination of pagan rituals and stories about other people.

Speaking to MailOnline, he said: 'There is a paradox that Jesus did all these amazing things and taught all these amazing things yet no one heard of him outside his immediate cult for nearly 100 years.

'Or it means he didn't do all these things at all.

'The first gospel of Christianity appears to have been a literary allegory that were written decades after the time they portray.

'I believe that Christianity started as one of the many mystery faiths that appeared at the time where old Gods and old traditions were rebooted.

'Christianity appears to have been a Jewish mystery faith.

'By the time of Paul there appears to have been plenty of different "Lord's suppers" as he complains about the existence of other gospels and messiahs.

'It appears that early Christianity managed to take the stories from these other faiths and incorporate them into the story of Jesus.'

Mr Fitzgerald, whose first book 'Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All' was published in 2010, believes it is no longer reasonable to assume there has to be a single historic figure who began Christianity.

Instead he says early Christians drew upon the beliefs and rituals of other cults and faiths around in the first century.

He argues that John the Baptist's cult is one such example and had initially been a competitor to the cult of Jesus before being incorporated into the Christian story.

+4

Mr Fitzgerald says there are inconsistencies in the Gospels of the Christian bible (pictured above) that suggest Jesus Christ was a literary allegory and these accounts were written decades after his supposed life

+4

The statue of Christ the Redeemer (above) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is one of many depictions of Jesus but Mr Fitzgerald says that many of the early depictions were unable to agree on his appearance

Mr Fitzgerald said: 'There is nothing implausible to think that Jesus was a real person, but I just don't think that he can have been a single person if he existed at all.

'We also have no mention of Jesus in other historical texts from the time. There were certainly people writing about Judea at the time like Philo of Alexandria.

'During this period there were many other messiahs and wannabe messiahs who did far less exciting things than Jesus, but all of them managed something Jesus did not - to make a dent on the historical record.

'Two billion people believe all these miracles happened yet there is no evidence they did.'

The earliest mention of Jesus yet to be discovered is a limestone ossuary on which the words 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus' is inscribed.

The box, which has been dated to 64AD - several decades after the crucifixion - was seized by the Israeli Antiquities Authority and its owner arrested for forgery in 2003.

Although he was later cleared in 2012, doubts about the authenticity of the inscription remain.

Others have said there could have been several people named James, whose father was called Joseph and had a brother called Jesus living in Jerusalem at the time.

David Fitzgerald claims there is no evidence Jesus existed

+4

The James Ossuary (above) is thought by some to be the first mention of Jesus in an inscription on its side

There are three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources which have been used to research the existence of a 'real' Jesus.

A Jesus is mentioned in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, which was written around 94 AD.

WAS JESUS A MIDDLE-CLASS ARCHITECT (IF HE EXISTED)? 

Rather than being born in a stable to a carpenter father, Jesus was actually the son of a successful, middle-class and highly intellectual architect.

This claim comes from biblical scholar Dr Adam Bradford, who also says that between the ages of 12 and 30 - the so-called 'missing years' of Jesus' life, when little is known about him - he was studying at religious schools and became the highest-ranking rabbi in Judea.

The radical revision of Christian history would suggest that, in preaching the spurning of worldly possessions for an austere life, Jesus may have been speaking from experience.

Dr Bradford has analysed the Bible's original Greek and Hebrew scriptures to try to establish the truth about Christ's background.

He says a mistranslation of the Greek word 'tekton' to describe the profession of Joseph, Jesus's father, is one of many mistakes that have led to a fundamental misunderstanding of Christ's character.

Dr Bradford claims that while 'tekton' is usually said to mean carpenter, it more accurately means master builder or architect. As an architect, Joseph would have had a higher social status that enabled him to better educate his son. 

Roman historian Tacitus later mentions Christ and his execution with Pontius Pilate in his Annals, thought to be written around 116AD.

Both mentions were a considerable time after his alleged execution.

Mr Fritzgerald also takes issue with many of the stories about the Crucifixion that stem from the first Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke.

He said: 'There are many examples of inconsistencies in the gospels that suggest they were written by people who did not live in Judea at the time they are set.

'Mark makes many mistakes about life and geography during the first century in Judea.

'If Jesus really had been arrested on the eve of Passover, they would probably have just put him in jail and tried him after the weekend.

'The trial itself violates the rules of Jewish law - why was he not stoned?

'What we know about Pontius Pilate also suggests he was someone who would not do what the Jews asked him and would often do what they asked him not to.

'Instead Mark portrays him as being persuaded by the Jewish leaders to execute him.'

Mr Fitzgerald argues that many of these stories were in fact incorporated into the story of Christ as literary devices rather than as a historical account.

He said: 'There is also no evidence for the tradition that sees Barabbas - an anti-Roman rebel and murderer - being released while Jesus, an innocent, is condemned to death.

'What this actually seems to be is Mark using the story as an allegory for the Yom Kippur scapegoat ritual where one goat is released into the wilderness and the other is sacrificed for God.'

Mr Fitzgerald hopes to have his new book 'Jesus: Mything in Action' out later this year.

He added: 'It still puzzles me that as soon as anyone tries to pin down who Jesus is we get 50 different Jesus's emerging. There is no consensus.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3018471/Jesus-MYTH-Christ-stories-appeared-decades-death-probably-people-just-one-writer-claims.html#ixzz3dnyY3Z4h
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

How Rajiv protected Quattrocchi

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Maggi banned but what about oil, eggs, vegetables, pulses

Maggi banned but what about oil, eggs, vegetables, pulses

Why did Maggi hit the headlines? Maggi’s case -- given its popularity -- is playing out in a blaze of publicity, as more states ban the noodles and has now been withdrawn from the Indian market by its manufacturer Nestle India

 

Maggi two-minute noodles is only the latest food item to be found violative of food-safety standards in India. Consider this: 64 percent of loose edible oils sold in Mumbai is adulterated, according to a study conducted last year by the Consumer Guidance Society of India.

 

The study tested 291 samples of sesame oil, coconut oil, groundnut oil, mustard oil, sunflower oil, cottonseed oil and soybean oil. This apart, arsenic above “critical limits” was found in cereals, pulses, vegetables, roots and tubers. Cadmium above similar criticality was found in cereals, fruits and curd, in a 2013 MS University of Baroda study. Both heavy metals are toxic to human beings.

 

Looking at other items, 28 percent of eggs sampled in Uttar Pradesh’s Bareilly, Dehradun and Izatnagar towns were contaminated with E. coli (effects are said to include diarrhoea, urinary and respiratory infections and pneumonia) and 5 percent with multi-drug resistant salmonella bacteria (Effects: diarrhoea, fever, cramps), according to this 2013 study by the Indian Veterinary Research Institute.

 

More than half of all duck eggs -- a local staple in Kerala -- sampled in the prosperous town of Kottayam were contaminated with salmonella, according to this 2011 study. Nearly 69 percent of 1,791 milk samples in a nationwide study did not conform to Indian standards (though they weren’t necessarily unsafe). Milk, as IndiaSpend reported earlier, is one of the most-commonly adulterated food items in India, followed by oil and eggs.

 

As one can see, we are surrounded by food that is contaminated, adulterated and does not meet Indian safety and packaging standards. What we have presented to you is only a sampling of recent studies on Indian foodstuff.

 

Why did Maggi hit the headlines? Maggi’s case -- given its popularity -- is playing out in a blaze of publicity, as more states ban the noodles and has now been withdrawn from the Indian market by its manufacturer Nestle India.

 

“The trust of our consumers and the safety of our products is our first priority. Unfortunately, recent developments and unfounded concerns about the product have led to an environment of confusion for the consumer, to such an extent that we have decided to withdraw the product off the shelves, despite the product being safe,” said an official statement by Nestle India.

 

“This is a very serious issue as it concerns the safety of consumers. Therefore, for the first time, the government has suo motu complained to the Consumer Commission to take cognisance of the matter on behalf of a class of consumers,” Consumer Affairs Minister Ram Vilas Paswan said.

 

The move comes after product samples analysed by Food Safety and Drug Administration (FDA), Uttar Pradesh were found three times above safe limits.

 

The permissible limit of lead in food items like Maggi is 2.5 parts per million (ppm), according to food safety regulations of 2011. Maggi samples analysed by the Uttar Pradesh watchdog were found to have lead concentration nearly seven times higher at 17.2 ppm, raising fears of possible lead poisoning among consumers.

 

The findings of the Uttar Pradesh regulator prompted several states to conduct similar tests on Maggi. Sevral states have not only banned Maggi but also other brad of instant noodles. Since health is a state subject, states have their own regulators to test if the foodstuff adhere to safety regulations.

 

Yet, lead isn’t only in food. And foodstuff isn’t the only item that violates safety standards. The air you breathe, the water you drink, even your walls could hold the main toxin that Maggi noodles are suspected to contain.

 

Lead is also present in household paint. A third of enamel paints analysed had lead concentration above 10,000 ppm -- 111 times more than the prescribed norm of 90 ppm by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), according to a recent study by Toxics Link. The study tested 101 enamel paints, of which 32 paints revealed high lead concentrations. All 32 paints were made by small and medium enterprises.

 

Lead and other carcinogenic heavy metals have also been commonly found in everything from spinach in Delhi and Nagpur to brinjal, tomato and beans in West Bengal. Indeed, there are few vegetables that do not display lead contamination, primarily deposited from vehicular exhaust, as this 2013 study of carrot, radish, beet, cabbage and other vegetables in West Bengal revealed.

 

But one is also unclear about how MSG crept into Maggi. Besides lead, high levels of mono-sodium glutamate (MSG), a taste enhancer, was also found in Maggi.This is a product widely used in what is called “Indian-Chinese” food.

 

MSG should not be added to “pastas and noodles (only dried products)”, according to Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. Similarly, glutamate is one of the most common, naturally, occurring non-essential amino acid, which is found in tomatoes, parmesan cheese, potatoes, mushrooms, and other vegetables and fruits.

 

MSG is “generally recognised as safe” by U.S Food and Drug Administration, though it is considered harmful in India. Major complaints arising from MSG use include burning sensations of the mouth, head and neck, headaches, weakness of the arms or legs, upset stomach and hives or other allergic-type reactions with the skin.

 

Maggi is the most recognisable instant noodle brands in India. This could justify the nationwide uproar against revelations of adulteration. This also raises fear of several other food items being adulterated.

 

The bottom line also is India has not kept pace with its toxins. Detection is crucial to counter the growing problem of food adulteration, but the country has not established enough testing laboratories. 

 

But as IndiaSpend finds, India has only 148 food-testing laboratories. This means, each laboratory serves 88 million people. China, by contrast, has one laboratory for every 0.2 million people.

 

The percentage of food samples found not conforming to the regulations increased from 12.77 percdnt in 2011-12 to 18.80 percent in 2013-14 -- a six percentage-point increase over three years, as per national food watchdog data.

 

So, while products are violating safety norms, government agencies have also cracked down on violators. The number of convictions in food-adulteration cases increased from 764 in 2011-12 to 3,845 in 2013-14 -- a 403 percent rise. But does this data provide the full picture?

http://www.moneylife.in/article/maggi-banned-but-what-about-oil-eggs-vegetables-pulses/42138.html

Eight Presidents Who Opposed A Central Bank (Federal Reserve)

Submitted by Tuskeegee on Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:16

in

• Daily Paul Liberty Forum

http://www.dailypaul.com/213857/eight-presidents-who-opposed-a-central-bank-federal-reserve

Eight Presidents Who Opposed A Central Bank (Federal Reserve)

Sun, Jul 25, 2010

All Articles, Counterpoint

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Since 1963, to this present day, the United States has remained under the control of the royal European banking elite through their control of the Federal Reserve who during this past nearly 60 years have all but dismantled what was once the great Nation known as the United States of America.

Through their infiltration of all levels of government, corporations and media, they have used their forces to destroy America’s “moral fiber” and reduce this once great power to but a shadow of its former self. Their once great industrial might is now gone, their schools are noted for their shockingly high dropout rates (even those who graduate know less than a child born a century ago), its once great cities are fast falling into ruin as its roads and bridges disintegrate too, and, perhaps worst of all, these once great people have nearly lost all hope.

The stage for this all occurring is being set now as the most pivotal day in the history of the United States is racing towards us all….December 21, 2012.

What I constantly argue is that without a central bank, talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, and now possibly Iran would be impossible, because the government would have to go directly to an individual to raise taxes, and would therefore be impossible after the 100th house they visited. Central banking allows for money to be produced out of “thin air” to finance our overseas empire. This is where we get inflation folks!!!

Since someone reading this thread, will question my wisdom, I wanted to talk about 6 presidents that did stop a central bank under their administration.

General George Washington (1732-1799) who is credited with being the “Father of the Nation” for winning his Nation’s war of Independence from the British. Washington gained further fame by returning to his Virginia farm in the “spirit of Cincinnatus” after ending his second term of office and not, as many had wished, becoming a king.

General Andrew Jackson (1767-1845). A hero of the War of 1812 for defeating a superior British force at the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson was put into power to defeat the establishment of a Central Bank that was supported by President John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) and was feared would split the Nation.

Of the danger facing the United States should a Central Bank be allowed to gain control of the US economy Jackson warned:

“The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government … are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it. I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.”

Directly to President Adams and the other Central Bank supporters Jackson said directly:

“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves.”

Adams was enraged at his and the Central Banks defeat by Jackson and refused to attend his inauguration. To his dying day Adams retained a great hatred of this president and as a Member of the United States House of Representatives (the only American President to serve in this body after leaving office.) cast the only “no” vote on a law to give medals to the US Military officers who had served in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Immediately after casting his vote Adams collapsed and died two days later.

General Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885), who like Jackson before him was put into power to defeat those forces attempting to create a Central Bank said needed due to the United States massive debts incurred from their Civil War (1861-1865) and opposed by President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), who said:

“The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest creative opportunity. The financing of all public enterprise, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and will then become servant of humanity.”

Upon President Lincoln’s assassination by those forces advocating a Central Bank he was succeeded by President Andrew Johnson (1808-1875) who, like Lincoln before him, opposed those European forces [the Rothschild's banking family alone was reported to have lost nearly $50 million in support of the Confederacy.] attempting to take control of the American economy and in further “outrages” against them forgave the Southern States of their debts, granted unconditional amnesty to all Confederate Soldiers, freed all remaining slaves in the United States, and paid back the Russian Empire for its blocking of a North American invasion by British and French forces by purchasing Alaska for $7.2 million.

For President Johnson’s continued opposing the aims of the Central Bankers he was greatly weakened by two attempts to impeach him from office [In 1926 the US Supreme Court ruled the basis for those impeachment attempts as unconstitutional.] thus necessitating the need to put General Grant in power.

Chester A. Arthur (1829-1886) who was also the first non-military member of the order to ascend to the Presidency but did so through the rules of primogeniture (right of first born) granted to him as the direct descendant of maternal grandfather and Revolutionary War leader Uriah Stone and was “established in place” to take power upon the assassination by these European bankers of President James A. Garfield (1831-1881).

President Garfield warned of the dangers to America should these Central Bankers ever gain power by stating shortly before his death in 1881, “Whoever controls the money of a nation, controls that nation and is absolute master of all industry and commerce. When you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

William McKinley (1843-1901) whose membership in the order was granted under their rules of primogeniture through his grandfather and American Revolutionary War hero David McKinley, and who by his own right had distinguished himself as a hero in the Civil War.

President McKinley began his attack against the Central Bankers with his ally and Secretary of State John Sherman (1823-1900) whose connection his older brother and Civil War here General William Tecumseh Sherman (1820-1891). The legal tool used by President McKinley and Sherman against the European bankers was the law known as the “Sherman Antitrust Act” which was first brought to bear against the Rothschild supported and funded JP Morgan financial empire known as the Northern Trust who by the late 1800′s owned nearly all of America’s railroads.

Shortly after President McKinley began his attack against the Central Bankers he was assassinated (1901) allowing his Vice President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt (1858-1919) to take power. Upon the Rothschild backed “and paid for” President Roosevelt taking office one of Roosevelt’s first acts was to drop the United States government lawsuits against the Northern Trust and accelerate the American age known as “Manifest Destiny” which continues to this day and basically gives these Central Bankers the “power” to plunder the entire World for profit and gain above all else.

The last chance to thwart the European plan to establish a Central Bank in the United States ended on April 14, 1912 with the deliberate sinking of the RMS Titanic by British agents that killed one of the orders members named Major Archibald Willingham Butt (1865-1912) along with the American business tycoons John Jacob Astor IV, Benjamin Guggenheim and Isidor Straus who were returning to the United States from Great Britain after what they believed was a successful “negotiation” with the Rothschild’s to “leave America alone” under “threat of war”

With the last “obstacles” removed from creating a Central Bank in the United States with the sinking of the Titanic the European banking powers forced through the American legal system what is known as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which once enacted (and remains to this day) became the sole and complete authority over the United States economy forcing the American people into two World Wars and countless other conflicts during the past 97 years all designed with one single purpose, to create for Europe’s royal families a “New World Order” controlled by them.

General Dwight David “Ike” Eisenhower (1890-1969), who was “appalled” over his Nations defacto surrender to Nazi German forces during World War II in order to obtain the atomic bomb Hitler was ready to use against them, and the deliberate murder of his close friend General George S. Patton (1885-1945) who upon his learning that Europe’s royal “powers” had delivered the atomic bombs secrets to the Soviet Union was ready to march against them.

Both Eisenhower and Patton, Sons of the American Revolution, were especially enraged over President Harry Truman’s (1884-1972) dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.

President John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) with the election the country’s fortunes neared victory when on June 4, 1963 President Kennedy issued Executive Order 1110 which for the first time since 1913 returned to the United States government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve (Central Bank).

Five months later, on November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was brutally assassinated while sitting by the side of his wife in a Dallas, Texas motorcade, an event so shocking that has continually been talked about through the ages.

For as this date is more well known as the end of the ancient Mayans long count calendar (and ending of the World?), it is also the date the Federal Reserve’s 99-year old charter to control the American economy ends. And, most importantly, for it to be renewed it would require not only a majority vote in both houses [Senate and House of Representatives] of the US Congress, but also a three-quarter majority vote by every one of their 50 States’ legislative bodies.

“We the people” have less than 2 ½ years to prohibit this “private corporation” from renewing.






http://www.kamron.com/economics/people_who_opposed_the_frb.htm


People Who Opposed the Central Banking Scheme




The Signers of the Constitution
The Revolution was fought for Independence from England's Central Banking System, as well as for Freedom from English Taxation. Many of the Signers lost everything, and some, their lives, in this English War of Conquest.


Those who fought and died in the War of 1812
Another English War of Conquest-
The Bank of England financed this renewed attempt to get control of our Commerce, Trade, and Money Systems. BEN FRANKLIN - THE TWO BANKING SYSTEMS From the autobiography of Ben Franklin, as reported by Gertrude Coogan in "Money Creators": ...the inability of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War.
Ben Franklin answering a question about the booming economy of the young colonies: "That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportions to the demands of trade and industry." (Colonial Scrip had no debt or interest attached.

See Essay on Colonial Scrip.


Alexander Hamilton-(1755-1804)
Founded the first central bank in the United States.
International bankers saw that interest-free scrip would keep America free of their influence, so by 1781 banker-backed Alexander Hamilton succeeded in starting the Bank of America. After a few years of "bank money", the prosperity of "Colonial Scrip" was gone. Benjamin Franklin said, "Conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity had ended and a depression set in to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with the unemployed!" Bank money was like our FED money. It had debt and interest attached.
By 1790 Hamilton and his bankers had created a privately owned central bank and converted the public debt (interest-free) into interest bearing bonds, payable to the bankers. When Hamilton's bank charter expired in 1811, the international bankers started the war of 1812. By 1816, another privately-owned U.S. bank was started with $35 million in assets - only $7 million of that was owned by the government. This bank lasted for 20 years. U.S. history shows that currency with debt and interest attached created a depression.
{Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel, in 1804 by Aaron Burr, a British Sympathizer.}



Napoleon Bonaparte-(1769-1821) Emperor of France(1804-1815)
Had a free hand in Europe as long as he borrowed from the Bank of Rothschilds. When he quit borrowing he was attacked by the English. Napoleon, a sympathizer for the international bankers, turned against them in the last years of his rule. He said: "When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."



Andrew Jackson, 7th U.S. President, 1829-1824
When the 1816 charter expired in 1836, Andrew Jackson vetoed its renewal. See Jackson's Veto Message to Congress It was then that he made two famous statements: "The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" Later he said "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..."


Abraham Lincoln-(1809-1865) the 16th President of the U.S.-Assassinated while in Office.
In his First Inaugural Address, Lincoln made a point to discuss the role of Capital and Labor. Significant national issues were, at that time, in the first official speech, immediately after a Presidential Election.
Lincoln spoke on finances and government: "In his First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861, Abraham Lincoln stated: "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed, if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights."
President Lincoln needed money to finance the Civil War, and the international bankers offered him loans at 24-36% interest. Lincoln balked at their demands because he didn't want to plunge the nation into such a huge debt. Lincoln approached Congress about passing a law to authorize the printing of U.S. Treasury Notes. Lincoln said "We gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they ever had - their own paper money to pay their debts..." Lincoln printed over 400 million "Greenbacks" (debt and interest-free) and paid the soldiers, U.S. government employees, and bought war supplies. The international bankers didn't like it and wanted Lincoln to borrow the money from them, so that the American people would owe tremendous interest on the loan. Lincoln's solution made this seem ridiculous. Shortly after Lincoln's death, the government revoked the Greenback law which ended Lincoln's debt-free, interest-free money. A new national banking act was enacted and all currency became interest-bearing, debt instruments, again.



James A. Garfield-(1831-1881) 20th President of the United States.
Assassinated in Office.
President James A. Garfield said: "Whoever controls the money in any country is absolute master of industry [legislation] and commerce".


Louis T. McFadden,-Chairman of the House Banking Committee-(1928-1935)
After two attempts on his life in 1933-1934, McFadden died "mysteriously" in 1935.

See His Comments in the Essay on Colonial Scrip.
John F. Kennedy -(1917-1963)-35th President of the United States-
Assassinated in Office.
On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110.

This Executive Order called for the issuance of new currency -
the United States Note. At the time, $4,292,893 of this currency was put into circulation. This new currency was to be distributed through the U.S. Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System. Furthermore, it was to be issued debt and interest-free.
Upon Kennedy's assassination, this currency was withdrawn from circulation, never to be issued again. See Kennedy Solution