DEFALCIFICATION OF HISTORY OF INDIA/BHARAT

'Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance.' - Dr. Subramanian Swamy

In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic invaders. But on the contrary,unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the country capitulated to become 100 per cent Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80 per cent Hindu.

The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.

The accepted history of no country can be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.

The UPA has succeeded in persuading more state governments to accept the NCERT texts. A report on Monday (January 5, 2009) said 12 more state governments have accepted to teach NCERT texts in their schools.

For the last two weeks the Organiser is carrying a series of articles on the NCERT textbooks prescribed for students at the primary, secondary and higher secondary schools. We have found these books written with a peculiar mindset, to denationalise and deculturise the young Indian. These books fail to make the children aware of their true heritage. These books seem to distort even India's freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi's role and try to divide the society into different caste and class segments. Their idea is to convince the children that India as a nation came to exist only after August 15, 1947.

We request the parents, teachers, students and scholars to join this academic exercise to expose the shenanigans behind promotion of these books in Indian schools. ?Editor

The identity of India is Hindustan, i.e., a nation of Hindus and those others who acknowledge with pride that their ancestors were Hindus. Hindustan represents the continuing history of culture of Hindus. One?s religion may change, but culture does not. Thus, on the agenda for a national renaissance should be the dissemination of the correct perception of what we are. This perception has to be derived from a defalsified history. However, the present history taught in our schools and colleges is the British imperialist-sponsored one, with the intent to destroy our identity. India as a State is treated as a British-created entity and of only recent origin. The Indian people are portrayed as a heterogeneous lot who are hopelessly divided against themselves. Such a ?history? has been deliberately created by the British as a policy. Sir George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, wrote to the Home Office on March 26, 1888 that ?I think the real danger to our rule is not now but say 50 years hence?.. We shall (therefore) break Indians into two sections holding widely different views?.. We should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened?.

After achieving Independence, under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and the implementing authority of the anglicized ICS, revision of our history was never done, in fact the very idea was condemned as ?obscurantist? and Hindu chauvinist by Nehru and his ilk.

The Imperialist History of India
What is the gist of this British imperialist-tailored Indian history? In this history, India is portrayed as the land ?conquered? first by the ?Dravidians?, then by the ?Aryans?, later by Muslims, and finally by the British. Otherwise, everything else is mythical. Our history books today exhibit this obsession with foreign rule. For example, even though the Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb is about 150 years, which is much shorter than the 350 year rule of the Vijayanagaram empire, the history books of today hardly take notice of the latter. In fact the territory under Krishna Devaraya?s rule was much larger than Akbar?s, and yet it is the latter who is called ?the Great?. Such a version suited the British rules who had sought to create a legitimacy for their presence in India. Furthermore, we were also made to see advantages accruing from British rule, the primary one being that India was united by this colonialism, and that but for the British, India would never have been one country. Thus, the concept of India itself is owed to the plunder of colonialists.

In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic invaders. But on the contrary, unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the country capitulated to become 100 per cent Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80 per cent Hindu.

These totally false and pernicious ideas have however permeated deep into our educational system. They have poisoned the minds of our younger generations who have not had the benefit of the Freedom Struggle to awaken their pride and nationalism. It has thus to be an essential part of the renaissance agenda that these ideas of British-sponsored history of India, namely, (1) that India as a State was a gift of the British and (2) that there is no such thing as a native Indian, and what we are today is a by-product of the rape of the land by visiting conquerors and their hordes and (3) that India is a land that submitted meekly to invading hordes from Aryan to the English, are discarded.
Falsification of Chronology in India?s History
The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.

The customary dates quoted for composition of the Rig Veda (circa 1300 B.C.), Mahabharat (600 B.C.), Buddha?s Nirvana (483 B.C.), Maurya Chandragupta?s coronation (324 B.C.), and Asoka (c.268 B.C.) are entirely wrong. Those dates are directly or indirectly based on a selected reading of Megasthenes? account of India. In fact, so much so that eminent historians have called if the ?sheet anchor of Indian chronology?. The account of Megasthenes and the derived chronology of Indian history have also an important bearing on related derivations such as the two-race (Aryan-Dravidian) theory, and on the pre-Vedic character of the so called Indus Valley Civilization.

Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called ?Sandrocottus?. He was stationed in ?Palimbothra?, the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika. The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available. However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian).

The founder of the Mauryas, however, is not the only Chandragupta in Indian history, who was a king of Magadh and founder of a dynasty. In particular, there is Gupta Chandragupta, a Magadh king and founder of the Gupta dynasty at Patliputra. Chandragupta Gupta was also not of ?noble? birth and, in fact, came to power by deposing the Andhra king Chandrasri. That is, Megasthenes? Sandrocottus may well be Gupta Chandragupta instead of Maurya Chandgragupta (and Xandremes the same as Chandrasri, and Sandrocryptus as Samudragupta).

In order to determine which Chandragupta it is, we need to look further. It is, of course, a trifle silly to build one?s history on this kind of tongue-gymnastics, but I am afraid we have no choice but to pursue the Megasthenes evidence to its end, since the currently acceptable history is based on it.

In order to determine at which Chandragupta?s court Megasthenes was ambassador, we have to look further into his account of India. We find he was at Pataliputra (i.e. Palimbothra in Megasthenes? account). We know from the Puranas (which are unanimous on this point) that all the Chandravamsa king of Magadh (including the Mauryas) prior to the Guptas, had their capital at Girivraja (or equivalently Rajgrha) and not at Pataliputra. Gupta Chandragupta was the first king to have his capital in Patliputra. This alone should identify Sandrocottos with Gupta Chandragupta. However some 6-11th century A.D. sources call Pataliputra the Maurya capital, e.g., Vishakdatta in Mudrarakshasa, but these are based on secondary sources and not on the Puranas.

Pursuing Megasthenes? account further, we find most of it impossible to believe. He appears to be quite vague about details and is obviously given to the Greek writers? weakness in letting his imagination get out of control. For example, ?Near a mountain which is called Nulo there live men whose fee are turned back-wards and have eight toes on each foot.? (Solinus 52.36-30 XXX.B.) ?Megasthenes says a race of men (exist in India) who neither eat or drink, and in fact have not even mouths, set on fire and burn like incense in order to sustain their existence with odorous fumes?..? (Plutarch, Frag. XXXI). However, Megasthenes appears to have made one precise statement of possible application which was picked up later by Pliny, Solinus, and Arrian. As summarized by Professor K.D. Sethna of Pondicherry, it reads:

?Dionysus was the first who invaded India and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanished Indians. From the days of Dionysus to Alexander the Great, 6451 years reckoned with 3 months additional. From the time of Dionysus to Sandrocottus the Indians reckoned 6452 years, the calculation being made by counting the kings who reigned in the intermediate period to number 153 or 154 years. But among these a republic was thrice established, one extending?..years, another to 300 and another to 120. The Indians also tell us that Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except for him no one made a hostile invasion of India but that Alexander indeed came and overthrew in war all whom he attacked.?

While there a number of issues raised by this statement including the concoction that Alexander was victorious in battle across the Indus, the exactness with which he states his numbers should lead us to believe that Megasthenes could have received his chronological matters from none else than the Puranic pundits of his time. To be conclusive, we need to determine who are the ?Dionysus? and ?Heracles? of Megasthenes? account.

Traditionally, Dionysus (or Father Bachhus) was a Greek God of wine who was created from Zeus?s thigh. Dionysus was also a great king, and was recognised as the first among all kings, a conqueror and constructive leader. Could there be an Indian equivalent of Dionysus whom Megasthenes quickly equated with his God of wine? Looking through the Puranas, one does indeed find such a person. His name is Prithu.

Prithu was the son of King Vena. The latter was considered a wicked man whom the great sages could not tolerate, especially after he told them that the elixir soma should be offered to him in prayer and not to the gods (Bhagavata Purana IV.14.28). The great sages thereafter performed certain rites and killed Vena. But since this could lead immediately to lawlessness and chaos, the rshis decided to rectify it by coronating a strong and honest person. The rshis therefore churned the right arm (or thigh; descriptions vary) of the dead body (of Vena) to give birth to a fully grown Prithu. It was Prithu, under counsel from rshi Atri (father of Soma), who reconstructed society and brought about economic prosperity. Since he became such a great ruler, the Puranas have called him adi-raja (first king) of the world. So did the Satpatha Brahmana (v.3.5 4.).

In the absence of a cult of soma in India, it is perhaps inevitable that Megasthenes and the other Greeks, in translating Indian experiences for Greek audiences, should pick on adi-raja Prithu who is ?tinged with Soma? in a number of ways and bears such a close resemblance to Dionysus in the circumstances of his birth, and identify him as Dionysus. If we accept identifying Dionysus with Prithu, then indeed by a calculation based on the Puranas (done by DR Mankad, Koti Venkatachelam, KD Sethna, and others), it can be conclusively shown that indeed 6,451 years had elapsed between Prithu and a famous Chandragupta. This calculation exactly identifies Sandrocottus with Gupta Chandragupta and not with Maurya Chandragupta. The calculation also identifies Heracles with Hari Krishna (Srikrishna) of Dwarka.

This calculation must be necessarily long and tedious to counter the uninformed general feeling first sponsored by Western scholars, that the Puranas spin only fair tales and are therefore quite unreliable. However, most of these people do not realise that most Puranas have six parts, and the Vamsanucharita sections (especially of Vishnu, Matsya, and Vagu) are a systematic presentation of Indian history especially of the Chandravansa kings of Magadha.

In order to establish these dates, I would have to discuss in detail the cycle of lunar asterisms, the concept of time according to Aryabhatta, and various other systems, and also the reconciliation of various minor discrepancies that occur in the Puranas. Constraints of space and time however, prevent me from presenting these calculations here.

However, on the basis of these calculations we can say that Gupta Chandragupta was ?Sandrocottus? c.327 B.C. His son, Samudragupta, was the great king who established a unified kingdom all over India, and obtained from the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras their recognition of him. He also had defeated Seleucus Nicator, while his father Chandragupta was king. On this calculation we can also place Prithu at 6777 B.C. and Lord Rama before that. Derivation of other dates without discussion may also be briefly mentioned here: Buddha?s Nirvana 1807 BC, Maurya Chandragupta c. 1534 BC, Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 BC.

The European scholars have thus constructed an enormous edifice of contemporary foreign dates to suit their dating. A number of them are based on misidentification. For instance, the Rock Edict XIII, the famous Kalinga edict, is identified as Asoka?s. It was, however, Samudragupta?s (Samudragupta was a great conqueror and a devout admirer of Asoka. He imitated Asoka in many ways and also took the name Asokaditya. In his later life, he became a sanyasi). Some other facts, which directly contradict their theories, they have rather flippantly cast aside. We state here only a few examples ? such facts as (1) Fa-hsien was in India and at Patliputra c. 410 AD. He mentions a number of kings, but makes not even a fleeting reference to the Gupta, even though according to European scholars he came during the height of their reign. He also dates Buddha at 1100 BC. (2) A number of Tibetan documents place Buddha at 2100 BC. (3) The Ceylonese Pali traditions leave out the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras from the list of Asoka?s kingdoms, whereas Rock Edict XIII includes them. In fact, as many scholars have noted, the character of Asoka from Ceylonese and other traditions is precisely (as RK Mukherjee has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts.

The accepted history of no country can be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.

The time has come for us to take seriously our Puranic sources and to re-construct a realistic well-founded history of ancient India, a history written by Indians about Indians. Such a history should bring out the amazing continuity of a Hindu nation which asserts its identity again and again. It should focus on the fact that at the centre of our political thought is the concept of the Chakravartian ideal ? to defend the nation from external aggression while giving maximum internal autonomy to the janapadas.

A correct, defalsified history would record that Hindustan was one nation in the art of governance, in the style of royal courts, in the methods of warfare, in the maintenance of its agrarian base, and in the dissemination of information. Sanskrit was the language of national communication and discourse.

An accurate history should not only record the periods of glory but the moments of degeneration, of the missed opportunities, and of the failure to forge national unity at crucial junctures in time. It should draw lessons for the future generations from costly errors in the past.

In particular, it was not Hindu submission as alleged by JNU historians that was responsible for our subjugation but lack of unity and effective military strategy.

Without an accurate history, Hindustan cannot develop on its correct identity. And without a clearly defined identity, Indians will continue to flounder. Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance.

Why Godse Killed Gandhi???

GANDHI WAS SHOT TO SAVE HINDU AGAINST HUMILIATION-

The acts of anti HIndu called " MAHATMA" , whose execution was explained by NV Godse
"Brothers! Our mother land has been cut into pieces. The eagles have torn her skin into bits.
Hindu women are being raped in the middle of the road. How long can we tolerate this? It’s a shame that lakhs of Hindus live like refugees in their own country. Women being raped burn my heart.
...

Gandhi started his fast; the Hindus put their weapons down. I still remember that day.
A poor Hindu told Gandhi, ‘I am putting down my weapons because I don’t want your death on my conscience but I am staying alone with my family in the Muslim area.
That night, before leaving Hyderabad I visited his home. The whole household was screaming, weeping, his only eight-year-old son had been killed by the Muslims. He had no weapon to defend himself.
He threw his son’s body on my lap and said, “Take his blood to your Mahatma. Tell him, if he goes on fast again, he can finish it by drinking not orange-juice but my son’s blood.”
I could not say anything. Gandhi was the Father of my Nation. For a moment, I was tempted to pull out the Muslims from their homes and chop them down.
But I controlled myself. Violence for self-defense is justified; otherwise it is an ill-cultured act. I returned to where Gandhi was staying but he had already left by car.
Of course, there would have been no point in meeting him… he would only have prayed for both the killer and the victim." - Nathuram Godse.
(<<Our mother land has been cut into pieces>>
It was not a systematic well supervised, clean partition separating Muslims and Hindus in a clean, orderly way, sans mob violence.)
http://www.imrajeev.com/why-godse-killed-gandhi/ -Details is here-

Sixty one years after the assassination of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, a ‘mahatma’ to many but really a cunning politician who had mastered the art of manipulating the Indian National Congress and offering simplistic solutions to the most complex problems, apart from coercing others to toe his line by abandoning food, the story of his murder continues to elicit both curiosity and passion. He was not the first leader to be felled by an assassin’s bullet, nor is he the only eminent Indian, or South Asian for that matter, to fall victim to an elaborate murder conspiracy.

But Gandhi’s assassination was different. Not only his killers were Hindu, they killed a man who had by then come to be regarded at home and abroad as an “apostle of peace” and symbolized the unique doctrine of ‘non-violence’. In those early days of freedom, it was unthinkable that anybody would dare raise a finger, leave alone a gun, at Gandhi. Yet Nathuram Vinayak Godse did the unthinkable, with more than a little help from Narayan Apte, Vishnu Karkare, Gopal Godse, Madanlal Pahwa and Digambar Badge. Godse assassinated Gandhi on January 30, 1948, approaching him during the evening prayer, bowing, and shooting him three times at close range with a Beretta semi-automatic pistol. Immediately after this, he surrendered himself to police. Nathuram Godse, Apte and their accomplices look remarkably relaxed during the trial, unconcerned about the possibility of being sentenced to death – eventually Godse and Apte were hanged; Karkare, Gopal Godse, Pahwa were sentenced to life imprisonment. They never regretted their deed.

Those were terrible days. Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan were struggling to keep body and soul together. Many of them had lost their loved ones in the partition riots — women were raped in front of their husbands and children; young girls were abducted; men were disemboweled; trains arrived laden with dead bodies; people fleeing marauders were set upon with ferocious brutality. Madanlal Pahwa, a young refugee, Malgonkar writes, “reached a place called Fazilka, in Indian Territory, and discovered that another refugee column in which his father and other relatives had set out, had fared much worse. They had been attacked by Jihadi mobs: ‘Only 40 or 50 had survived out of 400 or 500…’.” Delhi was flooded by nearly one million refugees, all of them desperately looking for food and shelter. They were distraught and traumatized, unable to figure out why their lives had been turned upside down in so gruesome a manner. Nor could they understand the rationale behind protecting Delhi’s Muslims. What left them aghast was Gandhi’s insistence that Hindu and Sikh refugees should be sent back to Pakistan and Muslims who had left India be brought back. It didn’t make sense. Nor did the vicious blood-letting that followed. Meanwhile, Pakistan had launched its mission to smash and grab Jammu & Kashmir and was demanding that India hand over Rs 55 crore, its share of the cash reserve inherited from the departing British colonial Government.

After independence Gandhi used to start Satyagraha on every issue which went directly against the interest of India. Gandhi started hunger strike against sending of troops to Kashmir after Pakistani invasion. He was in favour of ahinsha Satyagraha against Pakistani invaders. In west Punjab, lakhs of Sikhs were killed and their body dispatched by train. In reaction to this, Sikhs started to retaliate here. Gandhi started hunger strike again to prevent it.

The proverbial last straw was Gandhi’s threat to go on a fast to force the Government of India to accept Pakistan’s demand of Rs 55 Crore. In all fairness, it needs to be recalled that Jawaharlal Nehru was opposed to the idea: He famously declared that giving the money to Pakistan would mean providing it with “sinews of war”. The old man was not listening: In the end, Gandhi had his way although people were aghast. But did this gross act of injustice to the people of India and the callous disregard for the sentiments of millions of refugees — half-a-million people perished in the violence, 12 million were rendered homeless — justify Nathuram Godse’s action? What inspired Narayan Apte, son of a well-known historian and Sanskrit scholar, to decide on January 13 (the day Gandhi declared he would go on a fast to press Pakistan’s demand for Rs 55 crore) that he must turn into a killer? What was Madanlal Pahwa’s role in the conspiracy? And why did Badge turn approver?

Godse is often a misunderstood character. He is referred to as a Hindu fanatic. It is often hard to understand Godse because the Government of India had suppressed information about him. His court statements, letters etc. were all banned from the public until recently. Judging from his writings one thing becomes very clear – He was no fanatic. His court statements are very well read out and indicate a calm and collected mental disposition. He never even once speaks ill about Gandhi as a person, but only attacks Gandhi’s policies which caused ruin and untold misery to Hindus. Another interesting point to note is that Godse had been working with the Hindu refugees fleeing from Pakistan. He had seen the horrible atrocities committed on them. Many women had their hands cut off; nose cut off, even little girls had been raped mercilessly. Despite this Godse did not harm even single Muslim in India which he could easily have. So it would be a grave mistake to call him a Hindu fanatic.

Then what was the motive behind Godse’s act??? Nathuram Godse was a learned man, very sharp and intelligent – editor of “Agrani” (one of the most famous newspaper of that time – with Nana Aapte). In his last editorial of “Agrani” which he changed overnight – he said “Gandhi must be stopped – at any cost” and he justified why Gandhiji’s assassination was not only inevitable but also a delayed action and that should’ve happened LONG AGO.

He knew exactly what he is going to do. In Nathuram’s Words – “Assassination is never as easy as picking up a rifle and pulling the trigger, assassination is never an accident. Yes, murder could be an accident but not assassination. In this case of Gandhi, it could never be…”

Did he tamper with an important era of history?? He said – “I differ with the word era. It could be a page, a leaf of history. Certainly not an era. If we don’t turn this page today, the rest of the pages of the history of our nation will remain unwritten, blank…”

By seeing the nature of the assassination in public space and Godse’s act of turning himself over to the Police, we can see that Godse did not do this for personal reasons. He very well knew that he would be hanged and his name would be disgraced as Gandhi was considered a saint. And again Godse could have ran away and escaped punishment. But he did the reverse. He called a police officer and courted arrest. Before we proceed it would be wise to understand the backdrop of the assassination.

The central government had taken a decision — Pakistan will not be given Rs 55 Crores. On January 13 Gandhi started a fast unto death that Pakistan must be given the money. On January 13, the central government changed its earlier decision and announced that Pakistan would be given the amount. On January 13, Nathuram decided to assassinate Gandhi.

Also according to one source, after the state of Pakistan was formed administrative problems started to crop up. Therefore Pakistan came up with a proposal to link East Pakistan (the present day Bangladesh) and West Pakistan. According to the plan a road (you could say an area) 10 km wide would be linking the east division with the west. Now the RSS activists feared that if Pakistan requested Gandhi to sanction such a proposal then Gandhi would readily agree and the Mahatma’s would be the final word as he was the father of the nation. They knew that Gandhi was Pakistan’s best lobby so they had him eliminated through Godse. I wonder what would have happened if we had allowed a road to be built across our country. I just can’t imagine.

In the Hindu Rashtra daily dated 9/7/1947, Godse had given the following message to the fellow Indians. “Brothers! Our mother land has been cut into pieces. The eagles have torn her skin into bits. Hindu women are being raped in the middle of the road. How long can we tolerate this? It’s a shame that lakhs of Hindus live like refugees in their own country. Women being raped burn my heart.”

He warned Gandhiji “Gandhiji! By approving the Pakistan partition, you have stabbed the nation. Unless you change your activities, you must face harsh consequences. We consider the dividers of our nation as traitors our nation.”

In Nathuram’s words – “I don’t refute Gandhi’s theory of non-violence. He may be a saint but he is not a politician. His theory of non-violence denies self-defence and self-interest. The non-violence that defines the fight for survival as violence is a theory not of non-violence but of self-destruction. The division of the nation was an unnecessary decision. What was the percentage of the Muslim population as compared to the population of the nation? There was no need for a separate nation. Had it been a just demand, Maulana Azad would not have stayed back in India. But because Jinnah insisted and because Gandhi took his side, India was divided, in spite of opposition from the nation, the Cabinet. An individual is never greater than a nation. But Gandhi has stared considering himself greater than the nation.

We never opposed a Muslim prime minister. In a democracy you cannot put forward your demands at knife-point. Jinnah did it and Gandhi stabbed the nation with the same knife. He dissected the land and gave a piece to Pakistan. We did picket that time but in vain. The Father of our Nation went to perform his paternal duties for Pakistan! Gandhi blackmailed the cabinet with his fast unto death. His body, his threats to die are causing the destruction — geographical as well as economical — of the nation. Today, Muslims have taken a part of the nation, tomorrow Sikhs may ask for Punjab. The religions are again dividend into castes; they will demand sub-divisions of the divisions. What remains of the concept of one nation, national integration? Why did we fight the British in unison for independence? Why not separately? Bhagat Singh did not ask only for an independent Punjab or Subhash Chandra Bose for an independent Bengal?

At the time of Partition, when Suharawady surrendered only due to political pressure, but only Suharawady, not his followers…they went on with the massacre. Gandhi started his fast; the Hindus put their weapons down. I still remember that day. A poor Hindu told Gandhi, ‘I am putting down my weapons because I don’t want your death on my conscience but I am staying alone with my family in the Muslim area. That night, before leaving Hyderabad I visited his home. The whole household was screaming, weeping, his only eight-year-old son had been killed by the Muslims. He had no weapon to defend himself. He threw his son’s body on my lap and said, “Take his blood to your Mahatma. Tell him, if he goes on fast again, he can finish it by drinking not orange-juice but my son’s blood.” I could not say anything. Gandhi was the Father of my Nation. For a moment, I was tempted to pull out the Muslims from their homes and chop them down. But I controlled myself. Violence for self-defence is justified; otherwise it is an ill-cultured act. I returned to where Gandhi was staying but he had already left by car. Of course, there would have been no point in meeting him… he would only have prayed for both the killer and the victim.

I am going to assassinate him in the open, before the public, because I am going to do it as my duty. If I do it surreptitiously, it becomes a crime in my own eyes. I will not try to escape, I will surrender and naturally I will be hanged. One assassination, one hanging. I don’t want two executions for one assassination and I don’t want your involvement, participation or company. (This was for Nana-Apte and Veer Savarkar as they were against Gandhi’s policies too; Godse wanted to assassinate Gandhi all by himself and took promise from Nana Apte that he will continue helping Veer Savarkar in rebuilding India as a strong free nation.)

On January 30, I reached Birla Bhavan at 12 pm. Gandhi was sitting outside on a cot enjoying the sunshine. Vallabhbhai Patel’s granddaughter was sitting at his feet. I had the revolver with me. I could have assassinated him easily then, but I was convinced that his assassination was to be a punishment and a sentence against him, and I would execute him. I wanted witnesses for the execution but there were none. I did not want to escape after the execution as there was not an iota of guilt in my mind. I wanted to surrender, but surrender to whom? There was a good crowd to collect for the evening prayers. I decided on the evening of January 30 as the date for Gandhi’s execution.

It was 4.45 pm when I reached the gate of Birla Bhavan. The security staff at the gate was scrutinising the crowd entering and I was a little worried about them. I mingled with a small group of people and sneaked inside. It was 5.10 pm when I saw Gandhi and his close associates coming to the prayer place from his room inside. I approached the passage from where he was likely to climb the steps of the lawn, in such a way that I was covered by a few people.

Gandhi climbed the steps and came forward. He had kept his hands on the shoulders of the two girls. I wanted just three seconds more. I moved two steps forward and faced Gandhi. Now I wanted to take out the revolver and salute him for whatever sacrifice and service he had made for the nation. One of the two girls was dangerously close to Gandhi and I was afraid that she might be injured in the course of firing. As a precautionary measure I went one more step ahead, bowed before him and gently pushed the girl away from the firing line. The next moment I fired at Gandhi. Gandhi was very weak, there was a feeble sound like ‘aah’ (There are proof that Gandhi did NOT say “Hey Ram” at that time – it’s just made up stuff) from him and he fell down.

Those who were close to me saw the weapon in my hand. They rushed away from the spot. Gandhi had fallen to the ground, I was standing and the crowd had formed a ring around us.

After the firing I raised my hand holding the revolver and shouted, ‘Police, police’. For 30 seconds nobody came forward and I scanned the crowd. I saw a police officer. I signalled to him to come forward and arrest me. He came and caught my wrist, and then a second man came and touched the revolver… I let it go…”

Trial and execution

Following his assassination of Gandhi, he was put on trial beginning May 27, 1948. During the trial, he did not defend any charge and openly admitted that he killed Gandhi. On November 8, 1949 Godse was sentenced to death for the murder. Godse’s legal team was savaged by critics for not introducing considerable evidence that their client was mentally unbalanced and/or manipulated by others. Among those calling for commutation of the death sentence for both defendants were Nehru and Gandhi’s two sons who felt that the two men on trial were pawns of RSS higher-ups and, in any case, executing their fathers’ killers would dishonour his memory and legacy which included a staunch opposition to the death penalty. Godse was hanged at Ambala Jail on November 15, 1949, along with Narayan Apte, the other conspirator. Savarkar was also charged with conspiracy in the assassination of Gandhi, but was acquitted and subsequently released. Godse stipulated that his ashes were not to be deposited in a body of water according to Hindu dictates, but rather were to be held in storage until they could be deposited in The Sindhu after Pakistan had been reunited with India. For years, his brother kept Godse’s ashes over his fireplace and held an annual salute to “the hero martyrs” on the anniversary of the assassination.

Yes! I Killed Mohandas Gandhi and I am Glad I Did It!

That is what Gopal Godse says. Gopal Godse spent 18 years in prison for his role in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. His brother and one other conspirator were hanged by the neck until dead.

But it was all worth it, says Gopal Godse. Gopal Godse proudly recounts his role in plotting the assassination of Mohandas K. Gandhi in 1948.

Thank from Rajiv Ranjan Ji.

WRONG HISTORY- How Imperial Britain's Racist India ‎Still Persists.The Greatest Cover-Up in History ?

This article is from Huntington Post.Posted by Abhey Singh.
"Many hundreds of years before the coming of the English, the nations of India had been a collection of wealthy and highly civilised people, possessed of great language with an elaborate code of laws and social regulations, with exquisite artistic taste in architecture and decoration, producing conceptions which have greatly influenced the development of the most progressive races of the West." Henry Mayer Hyndman, 20th Century British politician.
"Indian philosophers' subtleties make most of the great European philosophers look like schoolboys." T. S. Eliot, British playwright.
"So far as I am able to judge, nothing has been left undone, either by man or nature, to make India the most extraordinary country that the sun visits on his rounds. Nothing seems to have been forgotten, nothing overlooked." Mark Twain, American author.
A primary indicator of the success of any civilisation is its economic standing, which often directly impacts the quality of social justice, human development, polity, governance, as well as achievements in science, innovation and the arts. By this vital yardstick alone, India has been the most successful nation in recorded history.
According to the painstaking calculations of Cambridge University economic historian, Angus Maddison, India was the world's largest economy for the majority of the 1,700 years before the entrenchment of the British East India Company.
India had accounted for as much as 33% of global GDP - more than three times that of the whole of Western Europe combined - with even a GDP per capita often exceeding that of Britain. During the eras of loot, war and colonisation that preceded the British Raj, the 'Indian way' remained largely intact and as a result, India was still the second largest economy in the world, briefly overtaken by her giant sister civilisation, China (which was also subsequently brought to her knees by Imperial Britain).
"India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or Asia. She had great merchants, businessmen, ship building - nearly every kind of manufacture known to the civilised world was already in India". Rev J. T. Sunderland, American Christian minister.
By 1700, India was again the world's largest economy, accounting for 24.4% of global GDP, more than that of the whole of Europe combined, and almost ten times the size of Britain's economy, whose growth had already began benefiting from 'trade' with India, China and Africa. By the time of independence, a socially, economically and industrially devastated India's share of global GDP had plummeted to a mere 4.2%.
"A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today." Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India.

By independence, the world's leading ship building, metallurgy and textiles industries had been systematically decimated (and subsequently cloned in Britain); a society with a system of mass education was now almost fully illiterate; and callous Imperial policies led to a population explosion that India is still grappling with today.

One of the most macabre manifestations of the malevolent intent and unequivocalineptitude of British rule - which is still shamefully projected as 'benevolent' and 'efficient'- was the genesis of mass poverty and famine throughout what is now called the 'developing world'. Tens, of millions of people in India - and hundreds of millions throughout the colonised world - died from starvation alone during such 'Victorian holocausts'.

"..I was filled with astonishment and indignation at the apparently conscious and deliberate bleeding of India by England throughout a hundred and fifty years. I began to feel that I had come upon the greatest crime in all history." William Durant, American historian.

One of Mahatma Gandhi's principle grievances against the British was not merely that of Britain's presence in India - he even accepted allegiance to the Crown. Instead, it was how Britain had systematically dismantled painstakingly nurtured Indian systems of administration, food and water management, industry, grassroots economic prosperity, education and social cohesion.

"When the British came, there was, throughout India, a system of communal schools managed by village communities. The agents of the East India Company destroyed these village communities. Instead of encouraging education, the Government encouraged drink." William Durant.

Starving children in Africa, malnourished villagers in India, despotism in the Middle East and the corruption, gender crimes, illiteracy, social decay and destitution that afflicts more than half of humanity are the real and overwhelming legacies of colonial rule.

It is of no irony that virtually all former British colonies, from Kenya to India, and Egypt to Pakistan, have been cursed with almost identical Imperial footprints; the same set of existential problems, the same Victorian social character, and the same wholly disingenuous post-colonial narrative.

In this context, and given her relative size, India's achievements since independence are particularly astounding given the scale of the existential threats that she faced in 1947, and the fact that she has pursued a path which she ostensibly first gave to the world - democracy. Despite the ugly headlines that dominate our view of an India that is still recovering from the direct impact of colonial rule, the country has lifted more than half a billion people out of poverty, malnutrition and illiteracy and achieved rapid strides in science, technology and the arts.

Graduates from Indian universities such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and Management (IIM) are of the most prized in the world; a disproportionate number of Silicon Valley start-ups, Intel's Pentium chip, the USB stick, Google search algorithms, Hotmail and fibre optics are just some of the major new economy contributions derived from the exacting standards of Indian education (US Ivy League universities have been back-up options for Indians who have failed to gain admission to an IIT or IIM).

A national ID system that was considered too complex and costly to develop for Britain's 60 million people, is being swiftly implemented in an India of 1.2 billion people; electronic voting, which we are still grappling with in Britain, was first implemented in India in the 1980s, with all-electronic voting having been in place for a decade. Whilst a hypocritical London of diesel-powered taxis pompously lectures New Delhi and Beijing about the environment, India has diligently enforced natural gas-powered taxis, buses and auto-rickshaws for almost two decades; and whilst much of Britain still wastes precious food and desists from recycling, India has an intricate but effortless system of door-to-door recycling derived from an ancient respect for the environment.

India is today one of the largest private sector investors and employers in Britain, and Indian aid to Africa is centred on the development of health, education and communication infrastructure, as opposed to the economic exploitation and patronising heavy-handedness that still defines European approaches to 'engagement' with an Africa that we comprehensively devastated in the first place.

"India, which has just announced that it will do what Britain could not do - send a space probe to Mars - is now a country with more technological prowess than our own. Its economic progress has been remarkable." Theodore Dalrymple, English writer & psychiatrist.

Astonishingly, this is still only the prelude of India's revival. The country is on track to accomplish in just one century what the United States and Europe took up to threecenturies to accomplish in the modern era, and in the case of post-Roman Britain, the best part of 1,500 years. Moreover, India's resurgence is devoid of the military or forced economic colonisation of any other nation or people.

According to various studies, including by PwC, Knight Frank and Citi Private Bank, India is again expected to become the world's largest economy within the next few decades, barely a century after independence.

Unlike the historical blip of short-termist, aggressive and iniquitous Western economic dominance, India is once more expected to sustain its economic pre-eminence over centuries, by virtue of the inherent wisdom of a socio-economic system that is defined by high savings ratios, a long-term approach, compassion for the poor, a strong protection of the interests of labour, and a far more benign style of leadership and management - all of which are counterintuitive to Western economic and management logic.

"God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the West. The economic imperialism of [England] is today keeping the world in chains. If [a country as large as India] took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts." Mahatma Gandhi.

In next week's final instalment, I will address some of the most commonly perpetrated myths about British rule in India, as well as explain my motivation in writing this series. I will end this piece with a quote that exemplifies how the resilience, ingenuity and capability inherent in deep rooted Indian value systems also imbue humanity, compassion and emotion at their very core (the same qualities that incidentally - and very wrongly - give the impression that Indians are meek walkovers):

"It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in the self-destruction of the human race. At this supremely dangerous moment in history, the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way." Dr. Arnold Toynbee, British Historian.

macaulay minute
indians were more literate prior to arrival of the british-in-india--a-historical-perspective

PSEUDOSECULARISM IN INDIA PLUNGING INDIA BACK TO 1700'S CENTURY.

Faces of Indian Secularism-Article based on facts.HINDUS ARE WORST ENEMY OF HINDUS.

Hindus have practiced ‘secularism’ right from the Vedic time. The concept of separation of state from religion is well documented not only in Ramayan and Mahabharat but also in Puranas and other Vedic scriptures. Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma), being a pluralistic religion, has always been tolerant to other religious beliefs. The Hindu traditions have always maintained that other religious faiths like Christianity and Islam could exist without competing with each other. However, the Semitic religions have not accepted the Hindu views claiming that their God is the only true creator and theirs are the only true religions.

This is borne out of the fact that thousands of years ago Hindus provided shelter to the Jews and the Zoroastrians (Parsis) when they were persecuted in their own countries. In the same manner, the Syrian Christians and the Muslim Arab traders were welcome by the Hindus several centuries ago.

But ignoring this historical truth, some of the Indian leaders led by Jawaharlal Nehru at the time of India’s independence imported the word ‘secularism’ from Europe. On November 17, 1953 Nehru wrote to the then President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad: “The Hindu is certainly not tolerant and is certainly narrower minded than almost any person in any country except the Jew.” The result of his hatred towards Hindus was mainly responsible for the introduction of Articles 29 (Protection of interests of minorities) and 30 (Right of Minorities to establish and administer educational institutions) in the Constitution which have defeated the very essence of secularism.

When it was decided to restore the temple of Somnath entirely funded by the devotees, Nehru objected to it and tried to stop Dr. Rajendra Prasad from attending the opening ceremony claiming that it was anti-secular even though not a single penny came from the government’s coffer. But the same secularist Nehru was responsible for the Haj bill in 1959 which subsidizes the Mecca pilgrimage of the Muslims. The cost of this subsidy works out to more than Rs. 1,000 million per year.

Rajiv Gandhi following in the foot steps of his grand father and mother, bent backward to woo the Muslims by passing a law reversing the Supreme Court judgment on the Shah Bano case. The victims of this secular law are the Muslim women who can be divorced by their husbands without providing for any adequate maintenance allowance to them.

The word ‘secular’ was missing in the Indian Constitution till Mrs. Indira Gandhi, late Indian Prime Minster, got it inserted into the constitution by bringing the 42nd amendment in 1976 to suite her political purpose Though the Indian Constitution did not specifically mention the word ‘secular’ before 1976, Nehru and other Congress leaders proclaimed India as a secular country. But at the same time they legalized separate laws (articles 29 & 30) for different communities strictly based on their religions instead of one common law for all its citizens irrespective of their religious beliefs. Thus, they negated at one stroke the very spirit of secularism.

Let us look at the absurdity and hypocrisy of the Indian secularism by citing a few examples below.

• While all major Hindu temples are controlled and supervised by the states and the money donated by Hindus in temples goes straight to the state exchequer, Muslims and Christians are allowed to run their institutions without any supervision from the state. The recent reports show that hardly 20% of Hindu donations to temples are used for temple support and the rest are used by the states for other uses including supporting the minority institutions.
• The Indian Government subsidizes the Haj travel by the Indian Muslims even though the Supreme Court has disapproved such subsidy. The Christian church recently claimed similar subsidy for traveling to Jerusalem and the government agreed to it. While both subsidies come out from the exchequer, similar subsidies are not granted to Hindu pilgrims going to Mansoravar or other revered Hindu holy places.
• Minorities can open educational institutions without any government permission and are allowed to reserve 50% of the institutions’ seats for their religious followers without any quota restrictions. However, Hindus are allowed to open educational institutions, with or without government grants, only after the approval of the government and cannot reserve any seats for Hindus and have to follow strictly the government’s quota system.
• Even though the article 44 of the Constitution clearly states that “The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code through out the territory of India”, the Indian politicians have foiled all attempts to enact such law in order to appease the minorities. The Supreme Court’s repeated reminders to the government to enact the common law have been completely ignored.
• Educational trusts of minority religions are easily given Income Tax exemptions under Section 80 G of the Income Tax Act. But whenever Hindu institutions like Ved Pathsalas apply for such income tax exemption, they are denied on grounds that they are communal.
• Whereas the Congress party having alliances with Muslim League, MIM, MQM and PDP is considered ‘secular’, BJP is considered ‘communal’. Even rabidly communal Muslim and Christian parties are called secular.
• Muslims and Christians have the ‘right’ to convert the poor and illiterate Hindus and Tribals but as soon as some of these converts are reconverted, they are called ‘communal fascists’ and ‘religious chauvinists’ by the secularists.
• While the announcing the quota for Muslims on the basis of religion by the Indian Government is not communal but talking about massacre and ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Jammu & Kashmir is called communal.

The Indian secularists argued that MF Husain had the right to paint Hindu Goddesses nude (pornographic depiction) because it was a matter of aesthetics. But when asked in ‘Aap ki Adalat’ (Sept. 8, 2004) why he did not apply the same ‘aesthetics’ to icons of Islam, he refused to answer the question. The same secularists will not extend this principle to the Danish Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad. The message is that Hindus should remain tolerant even if their gods and goddesses are portrayed in the pornographic manner but the Muslims have the right to complain about the visual portrayal of their prophet.

In India ‘secularism’ has become synonymous with radical ‘anti-Hinduism. While the Islamic youth terrorist organization, SIMI is considered by the secularists as innocent because they are fighting for justice and therefore any ban on it is unfair and wrong. But the Bajarang Dal, VHP and RSS are called dangerous ‘saffron’ Hindu terrorist organizations and hence they should be banned.

The Indian variety of secularism has also some serious national security implications. In order to appease the minority community, the Indian Government and the ‘secular’ cabal discourage any rational discussion on the issue of Islamic terrorism in India.
In spite of the Supreme Court verdict to hang the Islamic terrorist, Afzal Guru, for the Parliament attack, the government has been dragging its feet for many years by not carrying out the sentence for the sake of vote-bank politics. Several Islamic terrorist acts have taken place in India during the last few years resulting in massacre of hundreds of innocent men, women and children. But the Indian government has in most cases failed to take any concrete action against these terrorists because of its minority appeasement policy. As a matter of fact, there have been well-coordinated efforts by the Congress and its Communist/leftist allies to prevent the security agencies from going after the terrorists with the help of secular media. This has emboldened the terrorists to carry out terrorist acts with impunity, knowing fully well that the Indian state is soft on terrorism. Pakistan and China are using the Indian secularism to destabilize the country.

The Nehruvian secularism over the last sixty years has spread into the vast spectrum of the Indian society. Besides the Congress and its regional allies, the Communists and leftists parties have been in the forefront in advocating and practicing the ‘pseudo-secularism’ as a part of their vote-bank politics. In order to substantiate this falsehood, they have recruited the Marxist historians who have mastered the Goebbelsian art of lies, deceit and distortion by fabricating the Indian history. Under the grab of secularism, an unholy alliance has taken place between Communists, Muslims and Christians to denounce Hinduism and its culture. Of course, Islam considers secularism as an absolute evil but it suits their agenda of portraying negatively the majority Hindu community.

Other followers of the Indian secularism are the English media editors, journalists and TV anchors, the products of Christian missionary and other English schools, who treat everything Indian, particularly Hinduism, with contempt. They suffer from the colonial hangover and inferiority complex which are reflected in their bias and distorted writings and broadcasting against the Hindu society. Most of them are also closely associated with the Communists, Muslims and Christians,

Many intellectuals and elite of the Indian society have also been affected by the virus of secularism. They are the products of the Macaulayite English education who have been brainwashed to disown and denounce their own faith, culture and traditions. After all, Macaulay’s main objective was to “create a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinion, in morals” and undoubtedly, he has succeeded beyond anyone’s imagination.
This phony secularism is tearing the entire nation apart by creating conflicts between the majority Hindu community and minorities. Besides, it has led to mass conversion of Hindus and Tribals by the Christian evangelists which have completely changed the demographics of the North Eastern sates. Some of these states are already asking to secede from the Indian union. Another threat to India’s security comes from the influx of the illegal Bangladeshis who are allowed into the country freely by the vote-bank politicians using the tool of secularism. It has resulted in massive demographic changes in Assam, West Bengal and UP which will have grave consequences in future for the stability and integrity of the Indian state.

If this unprincipled and dishonest form of secularism is allowed to continue any further in India, it will not be too long before India will be Balkanized like Yugoslavia at the behest of the anti-India forces from within and abroad. The time has come to abandon the current anti-national and anti-Hindu secularism and follow the path of true secularism as advised by Dr. Radhakrishnan, former President of India who said: “No group of citizens shall arrogate to itself rights and privileges which is denied to others. No person shall suffer from any form of disability or discrimination because of his religion…The religious impartiality of the Indian state is not to be confused with secularism or atheism. Secularism has been defined in accordance with the ancient religious traditions of India”.

NEHRU WAS A TRAITOR OF FREE INDIA.KASHMIR PROBLEM GENERATOR

Macaulay +Brown English-RAJA RAMMOHAN RAI devastates Indian Education System -India needs to rise again

Macaulay , a education crusader as in Columbia education library. He devastated Indian Education system to almost extinction. India needs to rise again to lead its principles before what it was 2000 yrs ago to not only teach its self but lead the world again.

columbia university -proof

Anti-Hindu Raja Rammohan Roy switched to English education system by discontinuing Hindu system of education !
Raja Rammohan Roy received billions of rupees from the British for causing damage to Hindu Dharma and for its distortion. His father was a scholar who had knowledge of ‘Veda-shastra’ and had mastery over Sanskrut language. His mother was a devotee of Srikrushna and a virtuous woman. She never used to have food before 4.00 p.m. every day. They had three children. Rammohan was the eldest. He learnt Sanskrut and ‘Dharma-shastra’ from his father. He went to Kashi for further studies where he became a Pundit. He was very brilliant in studies and learnt even English and Persian along with Sanskrut. Due to his intelligence, he developed access to British Governor. The British Government had sanctioned a huge amount for ‘Veda-Pathashalas’ and for learning Sanskrut; under which Hindus’ ‘Shada-darshan’, ‘Veda-vidya’ and Sanskrut literature was to be taught.
Rammohan wrote the following letter to the Governor – "Close down all these ‘Veda-Pathashalas’, Sanskrut etc. and use the money to teach your western science to Hindus. Bring professors from Europe who will teach science and mathematics etc. Stop the pointless teaching of Sanskrut, Vedanta and Judiciary." This made the British Government very happy as Rammohan had adopted the same policy as that of the British, of taking Hindus away from their Dharma. The British started imparting education as per English system instead of Sanskrut, with the help of Rammohan. Decline of Hindu started from that unfortunate day.

SONIYA GANDHI ,VATICAAN,ROME AGENT, CORRUPT AND ITS VATICAN MISSION TO DESTROY INDIA

KNOW ABOUT SONIYA GANDHI AND RAHUL
VIDEO-LINK
bofors money gone to soniya's sister-bofors scams

Daily bhaskar comn article sonia planned Indira Rajiv Assassination
REAL IDENTITY OF SONIYA VINCI

Indira Gandhi wanted to remove Satwant Singh from security duty but Sonia persisted on keeping him.

It was her bodyguard Satwant Singh who later shot Indira Gandhi.

Sudarshan added that another point that further implicates Sonia Gandhi is that she took a critically injured Indira Gandhi to All India Institute of Medical Sciences instead of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital , which is nearer.

''It was only after Rajiv Gandhi took oath did she let the news of Indira’s death out."

Rajiv was suspicious

Sudharshan claims that Rajiv was suspicious of Sonia's actions and even wanted a separation however he added that before he could do so, Sonia planned his assassination too.

It was on Sonia’s demand that Rajiv Gandhi did not get Z plus security during the Shriperumbudur meeting.

कांग्रेस पार्टी और खुद सोनिया गांधी अपनी पृष्ठभूमि के बारे में जो बताते हैं , वो तीन झूठों पर टिका हुआ है। पहला ये है कि उनका असली नाम अंतोनिया है न की सोनिया। यह बात इटली के राजदूत ने नई दिल्ली में 27 अप्रैल 1973 को गृह मंत्रालय को लिखे एक पत्र में जिसे कभी सार्वजनिक नहीं किया जाहिर की थी। इसके अनुसार सोनिया का असली नाम अंतोनिया ही उनके जन्म प्रमाणपत्र के अनुसार सही है। सोनिया ने इसी तरह अपने पिता का नाम स्टेफनो मैनो बताया था। स्टेफनो नाजी आर्मी के वालिंटियर सदस्य तथा दूसरे विश्व युद्ध के समय रूस में युद्ध बंदी थे। कई इतालवी फासिस्टों ने ऐसा ही किया था। सोनिया दरअसल इतालवी नहीं बल्कि रूसी नाम है।

सोनिया के पिता रूसी जेलों में दो साल बिताने के बाद रूस समर्थक हो गये थे। अमेरिकी सेनाओं ने इटली में सभी फासिस्टों की संपत्ति को तहस-नहस कर दिया था। सोनिया ओरबासानो में पैदा नहीं हुईं , जैसा कि सांसद बनने पर उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत बायोडाटा में लिखा गया है। उनका जन्म लुसियाना में हुआ था । वह सचयह इसलिए छिपाने की कोशिश करती हैं ताकि उनके पिता के नाजी और मुसोलिनी संपर्कों का पता न चले साथ ही उनके परिवार के संपर्क इटली के भूमिगत हो चुके नाजी फासिस्टों से द्वितीय विश्वयुद्ध समाप्त होने तक बने रहने का सच सबको ज्ञात न हो जाए। लुसियाना इटली-स्विस सीमा पर नाजी फासिस्ट नेटवर्क का मुख्यालय था ।

तीसरा सोनिया गांधी ने हाईस्कूल से आगे की पढ़ाई कभी की ही नहीं, लेकिन उन्होंने 2004 के लोकसभा चुनावों के दौरान रायबरेली में चुनाव लड़ने के दौरान रिटर्निंग ऑफिसर के सम्मुख अपने चुनाव नामांकन पत्र में उन्होंने झूठा हलफनामा दायर किया कि वे कैम्ब्रिज यूनिवर्सिटी से अंग्रेजी में डिप्लोमाधारी हैं। इससे पहले 1989 में लोकसभा में अपने बायोग्राफिकल में भी उन्होंने अपने हस्ताक्षर के साथ यही बात लोकसभा के सचिवालय के सम्मुख पेश की थी। बाद में लोकसभा स्पीकर को लिखे पत्र में उन्होंने इसे मानते हुए इसे टाइपिंग की गलती बताया।

सत्य यह है कि श्रीमती सोनिया गांधी ने कभी किसी कालेज में पढाई की ही नहीं। वह पढ़ाई के लिए गिवानो के कैथोलिक नन्स द्वारा संचालित स्कूल मारिया आसीलेट्रिस गईं, जो उनके कस्बे ओरबासानों से 15 किलोमीटर दूर था। उन दिनों गरीबी के चलते इटली की लड़कियां इन मिशनरीज में जाती थीं और फिर किशोरवय में ब्रिटेन ताकि वहां वो कोई छोटी-मोटी नौकरी कर सकें। मैनो उन दिनों गरीब थे। सोनिया के पिता और माता की हैसियत बेहद मामूली थी और अब वो दो बिलियन पाउंड की अथाह संपत्ति के मालिक हैं। इस तरह सोनिया ने लोकसभा और हलफनामे के जरिए गलत जानकारी देकर आपराधिक काम किया है, जिसके तहत न केवल उन पर अपराध का मुकदमा चलाया जा सकता है बल्कि वो सांसद की सदस्यता से भी वंचित की जा सकती हैं। यह सुप्रीम कोर्ट की उस फैसले की भावना का भी उल्लंघन है कि सभी उम्मीदवारों को हलफनामे के जरिए अपनी सही पढ़ाई-लिखाई से संबंधित योग्यता को पेश करना जरूरी है।

सोनिया गांधी ने इन तीन झूठों से सच छिपाने की कोशिश की। इसके पीछे उनके उद्देश्य कुछ अलग थे। सोनिया गांधी ने इतनी इंग्लिश सीख ली थी कि वो कैम्ब्रिज टाउन के यूनिवर्सिटी रेस्टोरेंट में वैट्रेस (महिला बैरा) बन सकीं। वे विद्यार्थी राजीव गांधी से पहली बार 1965 में तब मिली जब राजीव् रेस्टोरेंट में आये। राजीव लंबे समय तक अपनी पढ़ाई के साथ तालमेल नहीं बिठा पाये इसलिए उन्हें 1966 में लंदन भेज दिया गया , जहां उनका दाखिला इंपीरियल कालेज ऑफ इंजीनियरिंग में हुआ। उस समय सोनिया भी लंदन में थीं। उन्हें लाहौर के एक व्यवसायी सलमान तासिर के आउटफिट में नौकरी मिल गई। तासीर की एक्सपोर्ट-इम्पोर्ट कंपनी का मुख्यालय दुबई में था लेकिन वो अपना ज्यादा समय लंदन में बिताते थे। आईएसआई से जुडे होने के लिए उनकी ये प्रोफाइल जरूरी थी।

राजीव माँ इंदिरा गांधी द्वारा भारत से भेजे गये पैसों से कहीं ज्यादा पैसे खर्च देते थे। सोनिया अपनी नौकरी से इतना पैसा कमा लेती थीं कि राजीव को लोन उधार दे सकें। इंदिरा ने राजीव की इस आदत पर 1965 में गुस्सा जाहिर किया था श्री पी. एन. लेखी द्वारा दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट में पेश किये गये राजीव के छोटे भाई संजय को लिखे गये पत्र में साफ तौर पर संकेत दिया गया है कि वह वित्तीय तौर पर सोनिया के काफी कर्जदार हो चुके थे और उन्होंने संजय से जो उन दिनों खुद ब्रिटेन में थे और खासा पैसा उड़ा कर कर्ज में डूबे हुए थे से मदद हेतु थे अनुरोध किया था।

उन दिनों सोनिया केवल राजीव गांधी ही नहीं, बल्कि माधवराव सिंधिया और स्टीगलर नाम का एक जर्मन युवक भी सोनिया के अच्छे मित्रों में थे। माधवराव की सोनिया से दोस्ती राजीव की सोनिया से शादी के बाद भी जारी रही। 1972 में एकरात दो बजे माधवराव आई.आई.टी. दिल्ली के मुख्य गेट के पास एक एक्सीडेंट के शिकार हुए और उन्हें बुरी तरह चोटें आईं । उसी समय आई.आई.टी. का एक छात्र बाहर था। उसने उन्हें कार से निकाल कर ऑटोरिक्शा में बिठाया और साथ में घायल सोनिया को श्रीमती इंदिरा गांधी के आवास पर भेजा जबकि माधवराव सिंधिया का पैर टूट चुका था और उन्हें इलाज की दरकार थी। दिल्ली पुलिस ने उन्हें हॉस्पिटल तक पहुंचाया। दिल्ली पुलिस वहां तब पहुंची जब सोनिया वहां से जा चुकी थीं।

बाद के सालों में माधवराव सिंधिया व्यक्तिगत तौर पर सोनिया के बड़े आलोचक बन गये थे और उन्होंने अपने कुछ नजदीकी मित्रों से अपनी आशंकाओं के बारे में भी बताया था। कितना दुर्भाग्य है कि वो 2001 में एक विमान हादसे में मारे गये। मणिशंकर अय्यर और शीला दीक्षित भी उसी विमान से जाने वाले थे लेकिन उन्हें आखिरी क्षणों में फ्लाइट से न जाने को कहा गया। वो हालात भी विवादों से भरे हैं जब राजीव ने ओरबासानो के चर्च में सोनिया से शादी की थी , लेकिन ये प्राइवेट मसला है , इसका जिक्र करना ठीक नहीं होगा। इंदिरा गांधी शुरू में इस विवाह के सख्त खिलाफ थीं , उसके कुछ कारण भी थे जो उन्हें बताये जा चुके थे। वो इस शादी को हिन्दू रीतिरिवाजों से दिल्ली में पंजीकृत कराने की सहमति तब दी जब सोवियत समर्थक टी. एन. कौल ने इसके लिए उन्हें प्रेरित किया , उन्होंने सोवियत संघ के चाहने पर इंदिरा जी से कहा कि यह शादी भारत-सोवियत दोस्ती के वृहद सम्बन्ध में बेहतर कदम साबित हो सकती है।

सोनिया गाँधी उर्फ़ ANTONIA MAINO का भारत को बर्बाद करने का षड्यंत्र जिसमे उसकी बहनें भी शामिल जरुर पढ़ें और शेयर करें !

सीबीआई ने सोनिया गाँधी के बहन के खिलाफ भारतीय पुरात्व और दुर्लभ चीजों की तस्करी के केस दर्ज किया था . लेकिन जाँच करने वाले चार अधिकारियो का या तो डिमोशन कर दिया गया या उन्हें हटा दिया गया

इटली मे सोनिया गाँधी के जन्म स्थान अल्ब्सनो मे स्थित उसकी बहन के स्टोर "गणपति " का बिजनस कार्ड .. इस स्टोर मे भारत से स्मगलिंग करके बहुमूल्य चीजे बेचीं जाती है

इटली मे सोनिया गाँधी के जन्म स्थान अल्ब्सनो मे स्थित उसकी बहन के स्टोर "गणपति " का बिजनस कार्ड .. इस स्टोर मे भारत से स्मगलिंग करके बहुमूल्य चीजे बेचीं जाती है.

अब सोनिया गाँधी का इससे भी बड़ा फ्राड क्या हों सकता है ? इसने 1983 मे भारतीय नागरिकता के लिए आवेदन दिया फिर इसका नाम 1980 के वोटर लिस्ट मे कैसे शामिल हों गया ?देखिये कितनी झूठी है ये सोनिया . आज ये आपने आपको भारतीय बताती है लेकिन आज भी ये इटली की नागरिकता के लिए हर १० साल मे आवेदन देती है ..और ये अपना असली नाम हम भारतियो से छुपाती है .

मित्रों सोनिया गाँधी और उसके पूरे खानदान के काले कारनामो को जानने के लिए इटली के जाने माने पत्रकार जोविय्र मोरो की लिखी किताब द अल सारी रोजो " द रेड साडी " जरुर पढे .. भारत मे ये किताब प्रतिबंधित है लेकिन आप इसे पोस्ट से इटली से मंगा सकते है . The-Red-Sari

भारत की नीच, दोगली और दलाल मीडिया खामोश है जबकि इटली की मीडिया ब्रेकिंग न्यूज़ में आगस्टा वेस्टलैंड हेलीकॉप्टर डील में सोनिया गाँधी और अहमद पटेल के द्वारा कमिशन खाए जाने के सुबूत मिलने को दिखा रहा है |
इटली के सभी टीवी चैनेलो और अखबारो में आज सोनिया गाँधी और अहमद पटेल छाए हुए है ... इटली के अखबारों ने सोनिया गाँधी और अहमद पटेल के द्वारा इस सौदे के दलाल और फेनोनिका कम्पनी के मालिक को लिखी चिठ्ठी छापी है .. एक चिठ्ठी में अहमद पटेल लिखते है की मैडम अमेरिका में इलाज के दौरान आपसे मिलेंगी .एक चिठ्ठी खुद सोनिया ने लिखी है और कहा है की आप परेशान मत हो ये सौदा आपको ही मिलेगा —

ये गाँधी खानदान असल मे विदेशी ताकतों का जासूस है जो धीरे धीरे इस देश को खोखला करना चाहता है .. ये रिपोर्ट किसी मामूली अखबार मे नहीं छपा है बल्कि "द हिंदू " मे छपा है .

देखिये इस मक्कार और महा झूठी महिला ने लोकसभा को अपने बारे मे तमाम झूठी बाते बताई थी 
Rahul Gandhi real last name is vinci- RAHUL VINCI( NO GANDHI)
SONIYA GANDHI WANTS TO CREATE VATICAN COUNTRY IN INDIA- LINK -WIKILEAKS