The following is the list of alleged scams submitted by the Congress to the Gujarat governor and the President:

Land for Nano plant at low rate

The state government allotted 1,100 acres of land to Tata Motors Ltd (TML) to set up the Nano plant near Sanand. The land was allotted allegedly at Rs. 900 per square metre while its market rate was around Rs. 10,000 per square metre. In short, the government gave Tata Motors total monetary benefit of Rs. 33,000 crore.

Land sold cheap to Adani Group

Land was allotted to Adani Group for the Mundra Port & Mundra Special Economic Zone (SEZ) at Re1 per square metre. This is grossly lower than the market rate.

Cheap land for real estate developer, not for airforce

The Gujarat government allotted 3,76,561 square metre of land to real estate developer K Raheja at Rs. 470 per square metre, while the South-West Air Command (SWAC) was asked to pay Rs. 1,100 per square metre for 4,04,700 square metre land.

Agricultuure University land allotted for hotel

State government allotted 65,000 square metres of land belonging to Navsari Agriculture University in Surat to Chatrala Indian Hotel Group for a hotel project despite objection from the institute. This deal was allegedly brokered by the chief minister through his office causing a loss of Rs. 426 crore.

Border land for chemical firms

A huge plot of land near the Pakistan border was allotted to salt chemical companies said to be close to BJP leader Venkaiah Naidu.

Essar Group’s encroachment

State government has allotted 2.08 lakh square metres of land to Essar Steel. Part of the disputed land is CRZ and forest land that cannot be allotted as per Supreme Court guidelines.

Land given to Bharat Hotel

Prime land was allotted to Bharat Hotels without auction on Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway in Ahmedabad. The company has been allotted 25,724 square metre land.

Corruption in allotment of lakes

State government, in 2008, awarded contracts for fishing activities in 38 lakes without inviting any tenders; bidders were ready to pay Rs. 25 lakh per lake.

Land given to L&T

Larson & Toubro (L&T) was allotted 80 hectare land at Hazira at the rate of Re1 per square metre.

Land allotted to other industries

Instead of auctioning prime land in the major cities of the state, the Gujarat government had allotted the land to some industries and industrialists who had signed MoUs in the five editions of VGGIS.

Cattle feed fraud

The Gujarat government had purchased cattle feed from a blacklisted company at Rs. 240 per 5 kg; whereas, the market rate is just Rs. 120 to Rs. 140 per 5 kg.

Scam in Anganwadi centres

Two bidders apparently formed a cartel and bid for supplying supplementary Nutrition Extruded Fortified Blended Food (EFBF) to Anganwadi centres of the state. One company bid for three zones, while the other for only two. Guidelines were violated, causing the state exchequer a loss of Rs. 92 crore.

GSPC

Despite an investment of Rs. 4,933.50 crore, GSPC has been able to earn only Rs. 290 crore from the 13 out of 51 blocks of oil and gas discovered by the company. Contractual relations of Geo-Global and GSPC deserve investigation since Geo-Global is to be hired for a higher fee, above profit-sharing.

Luxury aircraft used by CM

Instead of using commercial flights or state-owned aircraft and helicopter, chief minister Narendra Modi had used private luxury aircraft for around 200 trips in five years. The cost had been borne by the beneficiary industries.

Rs. 500 crore SSY scam

The Rs. 6237.33 crore Sujalam Sufalam Yojana (SSY) announced in 2003 was to be completed by 2005 but it is still not completed. Public accounts committee of Gujarat assembly unanimously prepared a report indicating a scam of over Rs. 500 crore which was not tabled.

Indigold Refinery land scam

Around 36.25 acre farmland in Kutch district was purchased and sold in violation of all norms by Indigold Refinery Ltd.

Swan Energy

49% of the shares of Pipavav Power Station of GSPC were sold to Swan Energy without inviting any tenders.

Tweet

Email

Forbes published a map of the distribution of the world’s billionaires in 2013:

From Veda.HareKrishna, a list of sources for the historicity of Krishna, which has been widely accepted for decades:

For example, very common in Indology books, even from Hindu authors, are words like “mythology”. It is derived from the Greek root mitos, untruth, seen also in the Spanish word men-ti-ra, falsity, and ultimately coming from the Sanskrit mithya.

Another example of misunderstanding is when some traditional believers say, “In this work I will be proving that Lord Krishna was an historical personality”, etc. because Lord had been long recognized as an historical personage:

Dr. Bimanbihari Majumdar, 1968: “The western scholars at first treated Krishna as a myth… But many of the Orientalists in the present century have arrived at the conclusion that Krishna was a ksatriya warrior who fought at Kuruksetra,…” (1)

Dr. R. C. Majumdar, 1958: “There is now a general consensus of opinion in favour of the historicity of Krishna. Many also hold the view that Vâsudeva the Yadava hero, the cowherd boy Krishna in Gokula… were one and the same person.” (2)

Horace H. Wilson, 1870: “Rama and Krishna, who appear to have been originally real and historical characters,” (3)

Dr. Thomas J. Hopkins, 1978: “From a strictly scholarly, historical standpoint, the KRISNA WHO APPEARS in the Bhagavad-Gita is the princely Krishna of the Mahabharata… Krishna, the historical prince and charioteer of Arjuna.” (4)

The New British Encyclopaedia: “Vasudeva-Krisna, a Vrisni prince who was presumably also a religious leader levitated to the godhead by the 5th century B C.” (5)

Rudolf Otto, 1933: “That Krishna himself was a historical figure is indeed quite indubitable.” (6)

1. Majundar, Bimanbihari. Krishna in the History and Legend. University of Calcutta. 1969, pp. 5
2. Majumdar, R. C. The History and Culture of the Indian people, vol. I, pp. 303
3. Wilson, Horace H. The Visnu Purana. Nag Publishers. 1989, pp. ii
4. Hopkins, Thomas J. et al. Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna. Five Distinguished Scholars on the Krishna movement in the West. Groves Press, N.Y. l983, pp. 144.
5. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, vol. 7 Micropedia, pp.7
6. Otto, Rudolf. The Original Gita, cit. for Majumdar Bimanbihari, ot. cit. pp. 5

Preciado in the Sophistic Cycle

Counter-critique of “First historical evidences of Krishna” (Primeras Evidencias Históricas Sobre Krishna” Estudios de Asia y África, Vol. XV; #4 by Benjamín Preciado Solís)

by Horacio Francisco Arganis Juarez. Graduate in Linguistics and Literature at U A de C and M.A. in Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy and Theology in IBCH. Reseacher Professor in Saltillo, Coahuila, Northeast of Mexico.

(graduade student of the Education Sciences and Humanities Faculty at the U A de C, Round Campus, and priest of Radha Govinda Mandir, ISKCON, Saltillo City, Northeast Mexico)

One Indologist, Benjamin Preciado Solis, published a lecture in l980, where he tries to present the first historical evidence about Sri Krishna Vâsudeva (c. 3200 – 3175 B.C.), the magnanimous Yadava prince, identified as Godhead incarnate in the Indian culture. He tentatively brings up puzzling concepts of Christian supporters of borrowing theory like Lessen, Weber, E. Hopkins, etc. Besides he kowtows before another British imperialist scholar upholding the same idea, A. L. Basham.

Preciado was honest in recognizing his inability to arrive at a conclusion, creating a trinket hypothesis while adulterating the age of Ghata Jataka and the Puranas, assigning them to the Christian era. This attempt has been futile because Ghata Jataka dates to the 3rd century B.C. and the Puranas are mentioned in the old Upanishads like Chandogya 7.1.14, Brhad-aranyaka 2.4.10 and others archaic texts. He made an amusing statement referring to evidence. First he said: “We can count those evidences with the fingers of our hands”. And then he stated: “The evidence is obtained from fourteen sources — eight literary and six archeological”. However, a close study of his own evidence shows that there are more than fourteen:

1. Chandogya 3.17: Krishna Devakiputra.
2. Ashtadhyayi of Panini. Mentions Krishna.
3. Nirukti of Yaska: Krishna and his wives Jambavati and Satyabhama.
4. Baudhayana-dharma-sutra: Three names of Krishna are mentioned – Kesava, Govinda and Damodara. But there are more in this quote: “Madhva, Madhusudana, Hrshikesha, Padmanabha and Vishnu”, usually describing Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita as well as in Srimad Bhagavatam; and the book makes reference to “the servants of Vishnu”.
5. Indika of Megasthenes: Surasena, the Yadus’s King, Mathura, the birth city of Krishna, Krishnapura or Kampura, Yamuna river, Krishna like Hari.
6. Quintus Curtius, who mentioned “Poros” (Purus) with an image of Krishna Hari before the battle with Alexander the Great.
7. Artha-shastra of Chanakya: Krishna and Kamsa, the birth history of Krishna, the Vrishnis, Dvaipayana or Vyasa, Balarama and devotees of Krishna with shaved head and tuft of hair (sikha).
8. Mahanarayana Upanisad: Krishna Vasudeva recognized as Vishnu-Narayana.
9. Mahabharata: Krishna mentioned everywhere.
10. Bhagavad-gita: Krishna’s teachings.
11. Grammar of Patanjali: Krishna is not an ordinary king but the Supreme, Krishna the enemy of Kamsa, Balarama, Janardana (Krishna), one temple of Balarama and Kesava (Krishna), Akrura the uncle, Svaphalka the granduncle, Ugrasena the grandfather, Vasudeva, Balarama, Andhakas, Vrishnis, Kurus.
12. Maitrayaniya Samhita of Yajur Veda: Allusions to Krishna in the Narayana Gayatri similar to Mahanarayana Upanisad quoted before (but according to him without the name Vasudeva).
13. Nidesa, a Buddhist book: Shows Krishna and Balarama.
14. Ghata Jataka: Refers to Krishna as Vâsudeva.

Archaeological evidence:

15. Heliodorus’s Column: Vâsudeva the God of gods.
16. Ghosundi inscription: Bhagavan Sankarshana and Vâsudeva.
17. Hathibada inscription: Bhagavan Sankarshan and Vâsudeva.
18. Another column of Garuda in Besnagar of a Bhagavata king dedicated to Bhagavata (Vasudeva).
19. The cave of Queen Nagnika in Deccan: Inscriptions of Sankarshana and Vâsudeva.
20. Mora inscription: Krishna and Balarama and Krishna’s sons Pradyumna, Samba, Aniruddha.
21. Inscription of Sodasa in Mathura: Krishna Vâsudeva.

In the footnotes:

22. One stamp of Gopal (gopalasya) from Kumrahar.
23. Coins of Agathocles, Indo-Greek king, with Krishna and Balarama (6 pieces).

Dr. Preciado states that there were fourteen sources but points out 21 plus two more in his footnote 43 on pp. 782. In other words, 23 with at least 40 historical references about Krishna. And the Mahabharata with 100,000 verses often talking about Krishna.

Kelly McParland in the National Post:

“Another new law will enable Moscow to block sites without a court order. Russia’s biggest social media site is now under the control of people close to Mr. Putin, according to a report in Al Jazeera.

Another law signed on Monday makes it illegal to  “wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two”. Russians could face up to five years in jail for questioning the official version of  Nazi crimes and Moscow’s role in the war, possibly including any criticism of  Joseph Stalin, Moscow’s wartime leader, who has been blamed for ordering the deaths of  tens of millions of Russians during mass purges against enemies and opponents of Communism. It could also be illegal to repeat comparisons likening Russia’s current activities in Ukraine to Hitler’s seizure of European territory before the Second World War.”

More good news for the guy on the street and more bad news for the Gray Lady (The New York Times), already sinking like a stone, now that word’s got out (gee, how did that happen) that the “Lady” lies.…and lies...and lies.

Yes.  Not only is the Times losing its readership, it’s got a full measure of come-uppance for its recent (but not new) smear job of American libertarians, who, while I might disagree with them, are not racist (in whatever sense the Times meant), not pro-Slavery and not dealing in conspiracy theory.

Actually, conspiracy and conspiracy theories are the Time’s specialty, since it’s been a known mouth-piece for the CIA for decades.

But, in addition to the “truther” and “birther” smears against antiwar activists, and the Keynesian lies,  the Times is also a propagandist for the “inequality” meme (inequality as the problem to be remedied by taxation, rather that inequality as a symptom of excessive taxation and massive money-printing) and the “gender wage-gap”.

Turns out that while preaching communism to us serfs, the Times has been practicing both inequality and sexism within its own court.

It’s been paying its female executive editor, Jill Abramson, less than its male editor, Bill Keller and she’s crying sexism.

Rush Limbaugh (often right, when he’s not acting like a hawk for war):

“Is this not juicy?  Here you’ve got the Regime last week or two weeks ago on income inequality and this pay gap between men and women and here’s the house organ, the gospel, the Bible of liberalism, the most powerful employee outside ownership of the New York Times claims that she is a victim of pay discrimination. So the Times management got in gear real fast.  “No, no, no, no, no.  She was not paid significantly less than Keller.  Remember, Keller had been here a lot longer than she had been here, and that’s why Keller’s pension was bigger than hers was.  Keller had been here a long, long time.”  So they kind of swatted that away…..

…Anyway, so it’s sort of schadenfreude, isn’t it?  I mean, here are these people at the Times leading the charge on the bogus stories of inequality and pay inequity, men and women, and here is the executive editor of the Bible of the American left complaining that she was a victim of pay discrimination because she was a woman.  You can’t write this stuff.  Well, you can’t go work for Obama because he does the same thing. Obama pays women less than the New York Times does.  (interruption) Well, she was working for Obama when she was at the Times.  That’s the point.  Everybody at the Times is working for Obama. That’s the point.

So, anyway, the Times is dumping on her.  Now the story is that Little Pinch never liked her.  Pinch Sulzberger, Arthur Sulzberger III, his dad was called Punch, so they call him Pinch. He doesn’t like it, by the way.  I don’t know why Punch was the nickname for his dad, and I don’t know why Pinch, other than it’s not Punch, is his nickname.  But the story’s out there that they never got along, that there were always fights and management disagreements, and they’re making it sound like the only reason she got the gig was that she was a woman and they were trying to be politically correct.  They’re even putting versions of that out there.  (interruption)  Well, let me tell you something.  That’s not why I remembered Jill Abramson.  That’s all fine and dandy, and if you get some jollies out of this, which I admit I do, too, I mean, I wouldn’t be human……..

….Abramson used to work at the Wall Street Journal, so did Jane Mayer.  But let’s remember what they did.  They coauthored a smear book about Clarence Thomas.  It was called Strange Justice. They just set out to destroy Clarence Thomas in this book.  They tried to portray him as this oversexed, sexually harassing, incompetent, Uncle Tom, illegitimate African-American kind of guy. It was just vicious what these two did in their book on Clarence Thomas.

And that’s who Jill Abramson is to me.  Whether she was a bad manager, was bossy, underpaid, fine and dandy.  To me those are just distractions.  And I don’t know whether this is karma, you know, things coming back, whatever you call it, justice or what have you, but that book that they wrote was just hideous.  And I’ve never, ever forgotten that.”

Some fascinating quotes from Margaret Sanger:

“Woman and the New Race, ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” Here, Sanger argues that, because the conditions of large families tend to involve poverty and illness, it is better for everyone involved if a child’s life is snuffed out before he or she has a chance to pose difficulties to its family.

[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

“Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.

April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

A woman’s duty: To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell look in the eyes… to speak and act in defiance of convention.

The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1

[The most penetrating thinkers] are coming to see that a qualitative factor as opposed to a quantitative one is of primary importance in dealing with the great masses of humanity.“

Comment:

As to that last statement, I agree with it. Quality is more important than quantity. However, the answer to that is education and standards, not sterilization/eugenicist programs imposed on people.

Included in the word “imposition” is the covert, coordinated manipulation of the population by advertising/propaganda to “voluntarily” sterilize or abort their children.

Catholic exchange.com:

“President Obama has awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to feminist icon Gloria Steinem. Steinem, in turn, said she hopes Obama’s action “honor[s] the work of Margaret Sanger,” liberalism’s iconic racial eugenicist.

It indeed has.

Margaret Sanger longed for a time when birth control would be (as she put it) “part of the regular welfare service of the government.” In this, she was inspired by Stalin’s Soviet Union—literally. In 1934, she undertook a hope-filled, fact-finding pilgrimage to Moscow. She was greatly impressed.

Upon her return, Sanger glowingly reported that “there are no obstacles to birth control in Russia. It is accepted … on the grounds of health and human right.” She said of America: “[W]e could well take example from Russia, where there are no legal restrictions, no religious condemnation, and where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.”

Sanger was prophetic. She was speaking of Barack Obama’s America, where birth control is deemed a “human right” and form of “health care” with no obstacles in its way. In fact, it’s even easier than Sanger could have imagined: Not only do contemporary progressives want no obstacles … they want all Americans to forcibly pay for birth control. If you disagree, you favor a “war on women.”

But there was more to Margaret Sanger’s vision. She wanted to advance what she called “race improvement.” She lamented America’s “race of degenerates.” This meant purging the landscape of its “human weeds.” This included a “Negro Project” especially close to Sanger’s heart.

Not surprisingly, among those most impressed with Sanger’s work was the KKK. The Klan invited the progressive heroine to one of their celebrations. She accepted. Margaret Sanger addressed her hooded brethren at a KKK rally in Silver Lake, New Jersey in 1926.

Today, Sanger’s Planned Parenthood is America’s most prolific killer of black Americans.

And now, in 2013, America’s first black president honors Gloria Steinem with an award that Steinem says honors Margaret Sanger.

The Devil works in mysterious ways.”

Comment:

Gloria Steinem was, according to many sources, a CIA agent who co-opted the American antiwar movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Sanger was a theosophist, a student of the occultist, Madame Blavatsky, as were Annie Besant and many other leaders of the Indian independence movement. That is how Western socialism and feminism were implanted into the Indian resistance from the start.

Fox News on the gender-gap in murder:

“Consider this: On December 5, John Andrew Welden will be sentenced after pleading guilty in the murder of his unborn baby. Welden’s girlfriend, Remee Jo Lee, was six weeks pregnant when he gave her an abortion pill and told her it was antibiotics.

Welden was prosecuted for violating the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Believe it or not, federal legislation forbids the murder of an unborn baby—except in the 55 million instances when it doesn’t. And a father can be convicted of murdering his unborn child without the mother’s consent, but if a woman decides to end her pregnancy against the wishes of the father, that’s her right to choose.

Choose murder? Can’t follow all of the logic? Perhaps that’s because it’s illogical.”

Comment:

I was always pro-choice until I took a close look at the people doing the choosing and the ideology they professed.  Then I realized that

1. That pro-choice women were not advocating for abortion only in extremis. They were advocating for it at all time, for whatever reason.

2.  Pro-choice women had no compunction toward the fetus/baby  inside them. They regarded it as a kind of excrescence, disease, or aberration, which is manifestly irrational, since the fetus/baby is the logical end of intercourse.

3.  Pro-choice women were using abortion in place of contraception, showing gross negligence of ordinary care that would call for man-slaughter charges against them in any other area.

4. Pro-choice feminists were manifestly narcissistic and entitled in the way they discussed other issues, using sexuality as a weapon to manipulate or ridicule, when it suited them, and then using it as a shield, when their opponents retaliated in kind.

In other words, they argue for preferential treatment both in entitlements and in protections under the law.

Once I began to see this and started to read more about the history of the modern feminist movement, I came to the conclusion that its narrative about abortion was self-serving…… and my support of it was wrong and inconsistent with my views on aggressive war.

Today, I have come to believe that abortion is at the deepest level the civil and moral wrong that has been most damaging to society.

It is true that, as the libertarians argue, war strengthens the state through militarization and centralization. But what is missed in that analysis is the underlying psycho-social factors that enable acceptance of war and militarization.

Those factors are strengthened by the break-down of the family, at the heart of which lies the killing of the unborn.

A secular pro-life activist reports:

I recently stumbled across the testimony of Dr. Grant Clark. Dr. Clark performed abortions many years ago in California. In an interview with Oregon Right to Life, he described the two cases that convinced him to stop doing abortions.

One was a case where a woman remained pregnant after he had aborted her child and, several months later, gave birth to a healthy baby. (The woman had a rare condition in which she actually had two uteruses). She adopted the child out and sued the doctor for emotional distress and child-rearing costs (even though she didn’t keep the baby). Her greed and selfishness made him rethink his commitment to performing abortions.

The second case happened when he started doing late-term abortions. From the interview:

There were 2 cases that were significant in my life, and one of them was the beginning of acceptance of 2nd trimester abortions, which were accomplished by putting a needle into the uterus, draining off some fluid, to make sure that you were in the uterus, not the bladder or somewhere else with your needle, and injecting into the uterus a very strong salt solution, which would cause a: the baby to die, and contractions to begin, very shortly after the salt solution was in there, and the mother would then abort the baby.

Interviewer: She’d deliver a dead baby.

Doctor Clark: Deliver a dead baby. But in one case, she did not deliver a dead baby. It was a live baby that she delivered.

Interviewer: Do they not have their skin burned?

Doctor Clark: The skin was burned, it was hard to look at, and hard to realize that I killed a near-term baby. The dates that the mother had given me were wrong, and we had no real way of checking it at that time. Ultrasound and stuff has come in since then, so we can date a baby’s age fairly well, but not, not back then. And the baby was born alive and lived for an hour.

Interviewer: Was it a girl or a boy?

Doctor Clark: I don’t remember, and I didn’t want to remember.… But at that point I said, “No more 3rd or 2nd trimester abortions…”

[Lila: In India, a more obviously socialist country than the US,  2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are illegal.  The reason is that Indian socialism was always modified for the good by India’s strong religious  and cultural traditions, whereas in the US, religious opinion has been neutered by the control of the media by secular bigots.]

Interviewer: was the mother aware the baby was born alive?

Doctor Clark: Yes, she was, and it was just a bad scene all the way around. I mean what was I supposed to do, smother it? Strangle it?… It was just, what do I do, so I took the coward’s way out and did nothing, and the baby died. As it probably would have anyway.”