Religious Terrorism - Is it present?

 

Emotions are running high in India following the Pahalgam incident. This attack on civilians by religious extremists stands among the most heinous acts in recent times. While some hypocrites might claim that terrorism has no religion, how else can one describe an act where civilians are targeted, interrogated about their religion, and even forced to strip to confirm circumcision? How much lower can humanity fall? Calling them "cowards" would be an understatement—they are far worse.

Nevertheless, India must respond with caution. Across social and electronic media, where sensationalism thrives, emotions are surging. Many voices are demanding war, halting of Indus water supply, and more. However, people must realize that governance—especially involving international borders—is very different from watching a movie.

Let’s review the sequence of events:

• Was Kashmir truly prepared for democratic processes, given that religious terrorism has plagued it for over 30 years, leaving an entire generation unaware of its history?
• Why did the Supreme Court impose a deadline for establishing a democratic government when conditions were still volatile? Perhaps the Court should focus on clearing its massive backlog of pending cases first.
• Kashmir had just begun to return to normalcy. After the abrogation of Article 370, residents started experiencing real inclusion, contrasting with the alienation caused by the so-called "special status."
• Tourism was flourishing, and economic conditions were improving.
• This progress alarmed certain politicians who had long exploited Kashmir's special status, siphoning off funds for personal gain at the expense of the public.
• Meanwhile, as Kashmir was healing and public sentiment was shifting positively, Pakistan found itself mired in serious crises.
• Inflation was at an all-time high; citizens struggled for basic meals; the economy was collapsing; armed rebellions plagued two of Pakistan’s four provinces; the government’s popularity plummeted; Balochistan’s unrest intensified; and despite imprisonment, the opposition leader’s party gained traction.
• Since the 1971 split, Pakistan is facing one of its gravest internal threats of fragmentation.
• Military confrontation is now seen as a solution.

History shows that nothing unites people like war. The Pakistan Army is acutely aware of this. Therefore, provoking India was a calculated move to unify its population, distract from domestic failures, garner sympathy, and dismiss logical thinking.

A small-scale war could conveniently address these internal problems, making the Pahalgam attack appear deliberate. Although Islamabad denies involvement, it’s implausible that such a major terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir occurred without support from Pakistan’s military establishment. Despite seeing India's strong responses to the Uri and Pulwama strikes, Pakistan’s Army Chief, Gen. Asim Munir, still chose to risk confrontation. This cannot be overlooked. The attack was meticulously timed, coinciding with Kashmir's growing tourism and improving security.

How is Pakistan tied to this? Recall Gen. Munir's recent remarks:

"Our forefathers believed that we were different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life—religion, customs, everything. That was the basis of the Two-Nation Theory," said Munir on April 16.

This was a thinly veiled message, perceived as a signal to Pakistan’s terror networks. Within a week of that speech, the Pahalgam attack occurred, during which victims were questioned about their religion and asked to recite the Kalima. It is too coincidental to ignore.

Now, consider the logic behind sparing women and children. Was it an act of mercy? Certainly not. Had they been killed too, who would remain to narrate the terror? Witnesses are needed to spread fear, discourage tourism, and recruit misguided youths for acts of violence—all crucial to the terrorists' sabotage strategy.

While Kashmir was under Presidential rule, such incidents were rare. But with the reinstatement of a State Government, terrorism resurfaced—a message we must heed.

Could this attack happen without local support? Definitely not. Local involvement is evident. For instance, the tour operator led tourists into restricted areas against government advisories. This angle must be thoroughly investigated.

Should India respond diplomatically? Absolutely—but with strategic care. Emotional outbursts and fake news on social media would only worsen matters. Stopping the Indus water supply, for instance, must be handled with tact and legal groundwork, not rash actions inspired by films.

Indians must avoid overreacting online. Let the government and armed forces act judiciously. Emotional responses risk isolating India globally. We must remember: India is not Israel, and we face internal as well as external adversaries. Political parties, driven by vote banks, may exploit any misstep.

Surgical strikes aren't an everyday option. Caution, patience, and international support are crucial. India must not fall into Pakistan’s trap. Despite knowing they are ill-prepared for war, Pakistan’s provocations are aimed at forcing India into a costly distraction.

Our leadership understands these dynamics, and we must trust that they will steer the nation wisely. Let them strengthen the internal security and no lapses or biases in this is the need of the hour. 

Congress, Corruption & its Chronology - National Herald, AJL and YIL

 

What is the National Herald?

The National Herald was launched in 1938 with the slogan “Freedom is in peril, defend it with all your might.” It served as a medium for India’s freedom fighters to express their thoughts during the independence struggle. Founded by Jawaharlal Nehru and other leaders, the newspaper was published by Associated Journals Limited (AJL).

At the time, Nehru was sidelined in the Congress party after Subhash Chandra Bose defeated Mahatma Gandhi’s candidate to become Congress President. The National Herald soon ran into financial trouble in the early 1940s. Struggling under British rule, it suffered low circulation. Nehru famously vowed to sell his house to pay staff salaries rather than let the paper shut down. He also took jabs at wealthy media owners like Mr. Birla, saying, “Hamein baniyagiri nahiin aataa” (I lack business acumen).

Back then, the paper had 5,000 Congress worker-shareholders, but by 2008, that number had dropped to just 1,057. Daily circulation fell below 5,000 copies. Eventually, Nehru’s great-grandson closed the publication. The National Herald, widely seen as the Congress party’s mouthpiece, ceased operations in 2008 with Rs 90.21 crore in debt but still owned real estate assets worth an estimated Rs 2,000 crore — today valued at over Rs 5,000 crore.

What is the National Herald Case?

In 2012, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy filed a complaint accusing Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and other Congress leaders of fraudulently taking control of AJL. He alleged they acquired properties worth Rs 2,000 crore by paying only Rs 50 lakh. These properties include Delhi’s Herald House and properties in Mumbai and Lucknow, valued at around Rs 661 crore. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) claims AJL used these assets commercially, despite receiving them from the government at nominal rates for running a newspaper. The alleged “proceeds of crime” total Rs 998 crore.

In 2018, the government terminated AJL’s lease and sought to evict it from Herald House, citing the lack of news publication. However, the Supreme Court later put a stay on this action.

A chargesheet filed by the ED in the Rs 2,000 crore case names Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, as well as Congress overseas unit chief Sam Pitroda. The first court hearing is scheduled for April 25. If proceedings move forward, the accused will have to appear in court.

How Did the National Herald ‘Scam’ Unfold?

• In 2010, the Congress party gave AJL an unsecured, interest-free loan of Rs 90.25 crore to clear its debts.

• Normally, a company in debt would sell its assets to pay dues, but AJL did not do so.

• AJL owned property worth around Rs 800 crore, including a Delhi office valued at over Rs 90 crore.

• Instead of selling assets, operations were shut down.

• Later in 2010, Young Indian Limited (YIL) was formed as a non-profit by Congress loyalists Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda.

• Within a month, Sonia and Rahul Gandhi joined YIL’s board and acquired 76% of its shares (38% each), while Dubey and Pitroda exited.

• Though registered as a charitable organization, YIL had no public record of charitable activities.

• The Gandhis, through YIL, paid Rs 50 lakh to Congress and assumed control of the Rs 90 crore loan owed by AJL.

• Essentially, AJL now owed YIL instead of the Congress.

• YIL then acquired 99% of AJL’s shares by classifying the loan as unrecoverable and transferring it to YIL.

• Swamy alleged this transfer occurred despite YIL having no income to pay Rs 50 lakh.

• AJL passed a resolution to issue shares to YIL, which diluted the stake of over 1,000 previous shareholders to just 1%.

• As a result, AJL became a subsidiary of YIL, transferring control of valuable properties to YIL.

• Notable shareholders like Shanti Bhushan and Justice Markandey Katju objected, claiming they weren’t informed about the share transfer and citing violations of company law.

• Congress lawyers claimed all shareholders were notified and only Swamy, a non-shareholder, raised objections.

• Swamy’s case relied on a PIL angle, arguing the properties were originally given to AJL for journalistic purposes, not commercial use.

• In 2014, a magistrate criticized Congress, stating that YIL was a sham to convert public money for personal use.

• The ED closed the case in January 2015 but reopened it in August the same year after Swamy’s persistence.

• In late 2015, Sonia and Rahul were granted bail by the Patiala court.

• Their request to quash the case was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2016.

• Amid the controversy, Rahul Gandhi relaunched the National Herald in 2017 as a weekly and digital publication.

• Political parties are legally barred from extending loans for commercial activities.

• Effectively, the Gandhis gained control of properties worth over Rs 5,000 crore by paying only Rs 50 lakh, earning more than the Rs 90 crore debt in rental income.

These events are currently under investigation by the ED, which alleges that the real goal was to unlawfully acquire AJL’s assets and generate further “proceeds of crime.” If found guilty, Sonia and Rahul Gandhi could face up to seven years in prison.

Whatsoever, it is the people of India who were made a jackass. These so-called leaders loot right under the nose of its people and these people trust such leaders is the irony!