| Author | Message | ||
     Kamal Megastar Username: Kamal Post Number: 22474 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 72.94.133.230 Rating: N/A |
sa re ga .. ga re sa .. na punyam .. na paapam .. na soukhyam .. na dukham | na mantro .. na theertham .. na veda .. na yagnah || | ||
| Jcgaru Comedian Username: Jcgaru Post Number: 1401 Registered: 01-2011 Posted From: 75.221.217.65 Rating: N/A |
 | ||
| Kamal Megastar Username: Kamal Post Number: 22469 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 72.94.133.230 Rating: N/A |
baa .. shame on GaGuNaHa na punyam .. na paapam .. na soukhyam .. na dukham | na mantro .. na theertham .. na veda .. na yagnah || | ||
| Jcgaru Comedian Username: Jcgaru Post Number: 1370 Registered: 01-2011 Posted From: 72.100.184.185 Rating: N/A |
sonia baga aadindi kadaa  | ||
| Kamal Megastar Username: Kamal Post Number: 22458 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 64.64.32.4 Rating: N/A |
kurrodiki identity crisis anukunta annai ..  na punyam .. na paapam .. na soukhyam .. na dukham | na mantro .. na theertham .. na veda .. na yagnah || | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 7735 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.59 Rating: N/A |
kluptham ga kashtam.....it's about sequence of events leading to drama of renunciation by mafia......mafia talent ardham kavali ante motham chadavalsindhe...chala detailed ga expose chesadu mafia ni | ||
| Gandhiguevara Hero Username: Gandhiguevara Post Number: 15433 Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 98.210.96.94 Rating: N/A |
Vja bro, kluptham gaa matter cheppavaa? ratri nundi 4 Nazi related movies choosi bhaaram gaa vundhi | ||
| Kimura Comedian Username: Kimura Post Number: 1056 Registered: 07-2010 Posted From: 151.151.16.19 Rating: N/A |
bjp leaders vjavasi laga attack cesi unte.. ee roju manaki ee puppet govt undedi kadu.. | ||
| Siloan Hero Username: Siloan Post Number: 14235 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 132.174.20.41 Rating: N/A |
BJP leaders kooda soniya ni nuvvu target sesinantha seyyaru bedaru... Pulf(12982): jagan is the only ,, repeat only ,, leader that will work for people 24*7*365 .what i am saying .. is .. by denying jagan his position .. the leaders today are allowing people to lose .. pulf(13058):Jagan janam meedha bathikey type kaadhu .. Janam Kosam Bathikey Type .. pulf(13062):chuttooo inni kutralu jarugu thunnaaaa..chirunavvutho premanu panchuthunnaa unnatha samskaari jagan .. pulf(14375): dharmam jagan vaipu undhi pulf(14432): prajalaki jagan emi chesthaadu anedhey naa taha taha .. pulf(15090):excellent job KTR(kcr koduku)..nizamga..frankly ninnu choosthuntey mutchata vesthundhi..all the best | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 7734 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.59 Rating: N/A |
http://vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1674  The Myth of the Renunciation Krishen Kak 13 Mar 2011 âThe Big Lie is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, for a lie so `colossalâ that no one would believe that someone `could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamouslyââ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie, 26/2/11). ââ¦when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to itâ¦â - Joseph Goebbels, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel, Jan 12, 1941. ââ¦people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe itâ¦â â âHitler As His Associates Know Himâ, http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/ text/oss-profile-03-02.html, para 26. The Constitution of India is the defining text of the Republic of India. The Constitution states âThere shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the Presidentâ (Art 74.1) and âThe Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the Peopleâ (Art 75.3). The Union Cabinet is the inner council of the Council of Ministers. The Indian Prime Minister is Dr Manmohan Singh. He heads the Union Cabinet and the Council of Ministers. The buck stops with him. This is the de jure position. âMadam, what Cabinet are you talking about? You direct and everything would be doneâ.[1] It is popularly acknowledged that âMadamâ is Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and that she heads Dr Manmohan Singh. This is extra-Constitutional. She is responsible to no one. No buck stops with her. This is the de facto position in our country.[2] How did this come about? Through the Myth of the Renunciation. In Christian mythology (Luke 1.26-38), as also in Islamic mythology (Koran 3.45-51; 19.16-26), the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she was going to bear a son, even though she was a virgin. Her son was to be called Jesus. Roman Catholics celebrate, nine months before Christmas, this story as the Annunciation. Protestants, however, call this story the Myth of the Annunciation. Nevertheless, this myth is accepted as true by an estimated 2.47 billion or more Catholics and Muslims the world over.[3] There is not an iota of factual evidence in support of the Annunciation. Likewise, in India, we have our Nehru-Gandhi mythology and we have a hagiolatrous myth that is still broadcast and believed by millions not just in India but the world over. This is the Myth of the Renunciation, that âSanta Sonia, our Lady of Renunciation, so graciously handed the reins of power to her chosen subordinateâ¦â[4] There is not an iota of factual evidence in support of the Renunciation. In December 2010, Wikileaks reported Sonia Gandhiâs freewheeling confession to Maria Shriver that was claimed to âput the lie to cocktail party suggestions that she courts Manmohan Singhâs jobâ. No, as too is popularly acknowledged, she doesnât need to court his job. Courtesy the Myth of the Renunciation, she can and does enjoy our countryâs prime ministerâs power and perquisites without any of its responsibility or accountability. A Garrulous Sonia Gandhi Opens Up To Maria Shriver. Maria Shriver, wife of the governor of California and Sonia Gandhi, the most powerful person in India and the head of the ruling Congress party, have a one hour meetingâ¦For her visitors, Mrs. Gandhi is warm, even effusive, admirable, informed far from her normal reserved self, her âItalianâ nature showing through. Without prompting and at her own initiative Mrs. Gandhi then spoke at length about her personal lifeâ¦â¦ In a candid revelation of her personal political stance, Mrs. Gandhi stated that âthe right was becoming strong in India and Congress weak,â tipping her hand and âcompellingâ her to enter politics to protect the Gandhi family legacy. She also revealed that her children were ânot keenâ about the idea, but eventually told her, âwhatever you decide, we will back you.â Mrs. Gandhi was reluctant to provide details regarding her decision to turn down the Prime Ministerâs post after the UPAâs surprise 2004 electoral victory, stating that âI am often asked about this, but tell people that I will write a book someday with the whole story.â She would only say that she âfelt betterâ that someone else became PM and âdid not regretâ her decision. Shriver congratulated Mrs. Gandhi for her resoluteness and described her as âcourageous.â Clearly embarrassed by this adulation, Mrs. Gandhi made no response. She elaborated, at Karan Singhâs insistence, saying that she was under lots of pressure, as the âparty workersâ were âvery upset.â They âcould not understandâ why she, as party President, was not taking up the post, since they had voted for her and won a majorityâ¦â¦ Despite her carefully erected Indian persona, her basic Italian personality is clearly evident in her mannerisms, speech and interests.[5] The Wikileaks report contains all the key elements of the Myth of the Renunciation, cunningly and assiduously constructed and broadcast by our Nehruvian-seculariat. In the Year of Her Lord 2004, Edvige Antonia Albina Maino alias Sonia Gandhi[6] led her Congress Party to a much-debated win in our countryâs general election. Among the first to revel were Italians. The âCinderella of Orbassanoâ was preened as the Empress of India, and there was gloating in what âIndiaâs National Newspaperâ called her ânative townâ: In Orbassano, the mainly blue-collar township where Ms Gandhi grew up, there was jubilation. Major Carlo Marroni, the Mayor of Orbassano told The Hindu: âWe are extremely happy and proud that a daughter of our commune is poised to become the Prime Minister of India...â Claudio Gallo of the Turin-based daily La Stampa said... âWe welcome this development. It means we can hope for more secular policies from the new Indian Government...â.... Guido Rampoldi of the daily La Repubblica told The Hindu in a telephone interview: âWe are very proud of the fact that Ms Gandhi has succeeded and India should be proud too. It shows an openness and maturity on the part of the Indian electorate that would be hard to find anywhere. I cannot, for instance see a woman of Indian origin becoming a head of government in Europe. But of course, sheâs not really Italian any more. Quite understandably, she wants to cut ties with Italy, so as not to offer any ammunition that her enemies could exploitâ¦â[7] From the mouths of Italian horses you have it. They wanted âmore secular policiesâ though neither the Vatican State nor the Italian State extend to Indians/Hindus the kind of civic and political rights the Indian State extends to Italians/Christians. They claimed âsheâs not really Italian any moreâ and âwants to cut ties with Italyâ, though the evidence is so convincingly to the contrary, and the Americans when she met Maria Shriver were certainly not fooled. The evidence of the Indian contribution to the Italian economy through the Nehru-Gandhi connection, the evidence of the Italian contribution to Indian security strategy, the silence of Orbassanoâs Cinderella over the Popeâs 1999 declaration in India to convert us to Catholicism, the evidence of Cinderella fleeing with her children - and the children are Italians under Italian law - to Italian hearths when India was under threat, and so on... But the most telling comment came from Bruno Crimi of Panorama magazine, who covered the Indian elections for it. In the magazine âowned by Italyâs Prime Minister and media magnate, Silvio Berlusconiâ, Crimi crowed: We both have Italian Prime Ministers now... Only, of course, she still wasnât the prime minister. Sonia Gandhi, during her election campaign, had shrilled her pride at belonging to the family that had sacrificed so much, that had sacrificed its lives for the nation. What sacrifice? An ordinary jawan and his family sacrifice more. Consider the facts. If the Nehru-Gandhis died for the nation, then so does any public servant who dies while on duty. The nature or the emotion of the dying does not alter this principle. Sacrificing oneâs life for the nation means going out to die for it - as a jawan does. Not one of the Nehru-Gandhis went out to die - on the contrary, they were heavily protected by jawans against such an eventuality. But a jawan off to war says his farewells first, because he knows - as does his family - that he may not come back. Whose, then, is the real sacrifice? Who, then, really dies for the nation? Now consider what a âgratefulâ nation has given the Nehru-Gandhis for their so-called sacrifices for the nation... Apart from Bharat Ratnas and numerous taxpayer-borne perquisites[8], there is the control over vast areas of prime Indian real estate. In Delhi alone, the family, protected at taxpayerâs cost, occupies, again at taxpayerâs cost, three centrally-located enormously valuable public properties. Through the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation it occupies and controls another enormously valuable piece of real estate; this Foundation has been the recipient of taxpayer largesse; the familyâs private estate in Chattarpur has for years been secured at the taxpayerâs cost; and a sycophantic HRD minister changed the rules of the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts to make Sonia Gandhi its head-for-life, IGNCAâs land alone reportedly being worth Rs 5,000 crores.[9] Now consider what the family of a jawan gets when heâs sacrificed his life for the nation. There is an old story - Defence Minister Jagjivan Ram visited a northern town to distribute sewing machines to war widows. One widow took off her chappal and thwacked the Minister with it, asking if a sewing machine was all her husband had been worth. Okay, they may get more than a sewing machine now, but you get the point. If you donât, consider finally how many acres of prime public land in the Capital are reserved for memorials of the Nehru-Gandhis. And compare to that the handkerchief-sized space under India Gate for jawans whoâve actually died for the country. Note it was the Italians themselves who said India had an Italian prime minister. And she has never broken off her Italian connection - not even in matters of Indian national security. She trusts her Italians more than us Indians.[10] Sonia Gandhiâs election affidavit noted she has a house in Italy - and Italian law will always provide her and her children with a home. And therefore her ânative townâ jubilated. Only, of course, she still wasnât the prime minister. The Nehruvian-seculariat swung into action. âIn the unfolding burlesque on succession to the throne of Delhi, the most enduring and funniest image was that of octogenerian Jyoti Basu, former West Bengal chief minister and veteran communist, rushing forward to push Ms Sonia Gandhiâs candidature for prime ministership... he had voluntarily decided to function as the spokesman for the Gandhi familyâ.[11] Eminent lawyer Shanti Bhushan claimed the Indian Constitution does not distinguish between citizens âon ground of place of birthâ[12], no doubt inadvertently omitting to mention that Mrs. Gandhi did not acquire citizenship under the Constitution but under the Citizenship Act, and the Citizenship Act in its proviso to s.5(e) has âprovided that in prescribing the conditions and restrictions subject to which persons of any such country may be registered as citizens of India under this clause, the Central Government shall have due regard to the conditions subject to which citizens of India may, by law or practice of that country, become citizens of that country by registration.â In other words, under Indian citizenship law, there is a clear stipulation of reciprocity and, from all accounts till then, Italian law did not permit Indians marrying Italians to hold high public office. There were, therefore, clearly in law what Sandhya Jain called âcertain ambiguitiesâ over Sonia Gandhiâs pretensions to prime ministership.[13] There was also the incontrovertible fact that, during security threats to India, Sonia Gandhi had not chosen to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with other Indians in India, but ran away to Italian sanctuary. There was the incontrovertible fact that Sonia Gandhi, in India, as an Italian citizen married to an Indian, and from the Prime Ministerâs House, broke this countryâs electoral and foreign exchange laws.[14] Recall that the President of India himself declared, in his April 18, 2004 address to the nation, that âin a democracy, an important principle is the equality of every citizenâ.[15] If considerations of national security officially debar Indian citizens in certain official positions from marrying foreigners, surely such security considerations apply with the greatest possible force to Sonia Gandhi who by her acts had already shown her loyalty to our country was highly suspect.[16] The Hindu reported the President of India had merely invited Sonia Gandhi âfor discussionsâ[17] Nevertheless, NDTV announced Sonia Gandhi was to be sworn in on May 19, 2004 as prime minister of India. Jubilation in India too. Vande Mata-Rome! But we live, as the Chinese malediction goes, in exciting times! On May 18, 2004, the whole world saw why a handful of White foreigners could rule a subcontinent of Browns â and why a single White foreigner still can. It is not without reason sheâs called the Empress of India. And, yes, sheâs still very much a foreigner. More than 40 years in India, and recall the American confidential assessment of the Italian quite unchanged behind her Indian mukhota. The Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP) met in the Central Hall of Parliament â with non-MPs Mr and Mrs Robert Vadra in the front row - and put on a spectacular display of obsequious servility and mawkish sycophancy. Congress Members of Parliament lined up to grovel and abase themselves before Sonia Gandhi as she sat in regal disdain, haughtily nodding at some especially expressive presentation of vassalage. Mani Shankar Aiyar and Renuka Choudhary led the maudlin tears, as they begged their mallika-e-jahan not to orphan them. Jairam Ramesh scaled the peak of unctuosity by clubbing Sonia Gandhi with the Buddha and with Mahatma Gandhi. Uriah Heep couldâve taken lessons from these MPs.[18] The spirit of Mussolini hovered in the air as the Congress (Indira) exposed for all the world to see its fascisticization into the Congress (Italy). And aptly so, for nothing in Italian law prevented Sonia Gandhi as Indian prime minister also becoming the Italian prime minister. [19] A hagiographical myth was in active creation, scripted by Sonia Gandhi and her children. As Prabhu Chawla wrote of that tamasha that was that CPP meeting, âOn one side...were over 200 Congress leaders, a wailing legion of the suddenly orphaned pleading to the Leader... on the other side. All the while, she maintained eye contact only with the family - son Rahul, daughter Priyanka and son-in-law Robert Vadra - who sat in the first row. Never before had family members of a prospective prime minister attended such a meeting...the privileged three were the only ones she completely trustedâ.[20] It was disgusting and demeaning, this total abandoning of personal and national self-respect before a White European - and I say âWhiteâ advisedly for, âif Sonia Gandhi had been black, had been a person of African origin, this problem would never have arisenâ.[21] Consider how the English-language mainstream media tried to influence our perceptions, presenting assumption as fait accompli: Sonia Gandhi invited to be PM, Sonia Gandhi to be sworn in on May 19, Sonia Gandhi rejecting the prime ministership... Yet none of this was true at all. Sonia Gandhi had only been invited by the President âfor discussionsâ; she had not been invited by him to form the new ministry. How then could she âhumbly decline this postâ when it had still not been offered to her? That she had been elected CPP leader may have entitled her to stake a claim, but that was a far cry from that claim having been accepted. She and her party clearly assumed the President had no Constitutional discretion to exercise in this matter but should function as a Nehru-Gandhi flunkey, as KR Narayanan had[22], and as Zail Singh had too, swearing in Rajiv Gandhi even before the CPP elected Gandhi its leader. Sonia Gandhi and her party and its fellow-travellers assumed that any Indian citizen who questioned her legal eligibility for the post was anti-national; that it was illegitimate, anti-secular, anti-Gandhian and anti-people to raise the issue of her foreign origin - all âa vicious campaignâ, as The Hindu editorially pontificated, in a blanket bracketing of such citizens with âthe sangh parivarâ.[23] Let us start from Sonia Gandhiâs own statement of her inner voice telling her (at least for the previous 6 years) never to aspire to prime ministerial office (highly suspect, as SUS instances more than once) and that she was only listening to this inner voice.[24] Let us try and believe her. Now, her flunkeys announced: 1. She was a renouncer in the true Indian tradition. But how could she renounce what she never wanted and what, in any case, had not been offered to her. And if she truly was a renouncer, how about her renouncing the vast public property and purse she still controlled, and renouncing the 6 crores annually from the public exchequer âto provide her a home and securityâ.[25] That would be the real renunciation, because then sheâd be giving up something she wanted and had.[26] 2. It was âthe peopleâs verdict/mandateâ that she be our prime minister. This assumed that Indian laws did not apply to Sonia Gandhi as, indeed, she herself assumed.[27] Her own electioneering did not project her as a prime ministerial candidate and, in any case, the Congress did not win a majority on its own - it cobbled together one after the elections. But this âpeopleâs verdictâ or âpeopleâs mandateâ â and note, not for her party but for her and her children - is a fabrication of stunning mythicality.[28] If Sonia Gandhi six years earlier had decided she never wanted to be prime minister, why didnât she announce so clearly and unambiguously before the electioneering had begun? Then both her party and the Indian electorate wouldâve known whatâs what. Instead, as Barkha Dutt noted on NDTV, to a question to Sonia Gandhi on her election as CPP leader meaning she became the prime ministerial candidate, she said âaisa hi hota haiâ. If it was the peopleâs verdict that she be prime minister, why was she running away from the maidan-e-jang (the imagery of the battle was her own)? Was this her contempt for the vox populi expressed so weepily by her Partyâs MPs?[29] 3. She was hounded by the BJPâs âvicious attacksâ (this from NDTVâs Mumbai anchor) on her foreign origin. Sitaram Yechury âsaid the main reason why Sonia opted out was the issue of her foreign originâ - and not any inner voice - and she apparently flip-flopped over her decision, with her children helping the allies make her relent, and then she changed her mind again.[30] But why did asking legitimate questions about her legal eligibility - as The Pioneer, May 19, 2004 speculated the President did - become âvicious attacksâ? 4. Finally, Sonia Gandhiâs innocent children told Jyoti Basu that âthey have lost their father, and now they do not want to lose their mother as wellâ.[31] Yet it was their mother herself who had initiated the possibility of such a second loss with her âcoup de toiletteâ against Sitaram Kesri[32], it was still the case when in 1999 she met President KR Narayanan to stake her claim to prime ministership with her mythical claim of âwe have 272 and more are comingâ[33], it was still the case when she began her electioneering in 2004, it was still the case when she and the Congress won in the elections, it was still the case when the CPP on May 15 with her present elected her its leader and prime ministerial nominee, it was still the case when the Congress began patching together a majority with letters of support from the Nehruvian-secular parties to her as prime ministerial candidate of the United Progressive Alliance, it was still the case when the Congress and these Nehruvian-secular parties were on May 16 hosted by her at her residence and unanimously decided she was their prime ministerial nominee, it was still the case when the media broadcast for May 19 her swearing-in as prime minister, it was still the case when she first went to meet the President. It was only after she met the President that the media began to report the Congress contacting the supporting parties for Manmohan Singh as leader. For what happened at Rashtrapati Bhawan we may have to wait for the presidential memoirs, but The Pioneer, May 19, 2004, usefully speculated on a Presidential appreciation of the implications of Article 102 of the Constitution and s.5 of the Citizenship Act on the eligibility of Sonia Gandhi for prime ministership. What is clear is that âthe President applied different standards to Sonia Gandhi and Dr Manmohan Singh. The evidence of it is the appointment of Dr Manmohan Singh. On Wednesday evening at 6 oâclock Dr Manmohan Singh was elected as the leader and at 8.15 p.m. he was given the letter of appointment. The President neither asked him the evidence of majority nor did he ask him about the support...â[34] The CPP had now elected Sonia Gandhiâs nominee as its leader, and he promptly collected the Presidentâs invitation that had been kept ready for him. No discussion, nothing. There had been no such invitation awaiting the previous CPP-elected leader Sonia Gandhi herself when she trotted with her confident claim to the President. He sent her back empty-handed. It was after this that Sonia Gandhiâs children came out with their fears of being orphaned as the factor influencing their mother to change her mind about being prime minister. âJyoti Basu said...that...Sonia Gandhi had been dissuaded from becoming Prime Minister by her children, who fear that she might be killedâ.[35] Priyanka Gandhi later clarified that âher motherâs decision was the response to her inner voiceâ and âsaid she might think about it after seeing the reaction of the party. This further fuelled speculation that the plot may change againâ.[36] âSecurity threat was not the reason for...Sonia Gandhi not taking up prime ministership, according to her son, Rahulâ.[37] Rahul Gandhi said that she âdid what an ideal Indian woman should have doneâ.[38] The English-speaking media projected the innocence of Sonia Gandhiâs children. But âthe Marxists do not believe that Sonia Gandhi was solely guided by her âinner voiceâ in declining to accept the post... [Jyoti] Basu has described her stand as âfunnyâ... âWe have also seen how her son and newly elected MP Rahul Gandhi offered her flowers in the Parliament to congratulate her after being elected leader of the Congress Parliamentary party. Had Rahul and his sister Priyanka any objection to their mother becoming the prime minister, why did not they say so in the beginning? Why did they raise objections at the eleventh hour?â the CPM leaders askâ.[39] Why indeed? So perhaps the children were not so innocent after all but, as the haazri of the Vadras at the CPP meeting showed, they were very much part of the plot. Remember that Pinocchio belongs to their natal tradition. This whole business of Sonia Gandhi and her âinner voiceâ and her âhumbly decliningâ the prime ministership is pure unadulterated naatak-baazi. If Sonia Gandhi is arrogant[40], she has every reason to be - a âcinderellaâ from a village in Italy with the elected representatives of the worldâs largest democracy fawning at her feet, personifying her as our country, deifying her a mother-goddess, all in the best traditions of a Bollywood tear-jerking mythological. It was we natives ourselves begging a White European to remember it is her mission to civilize us. Thus, senior politician and MP Ram Vilas Paswan was âready to sacrifice even [his] life, pledging his life to work under her leadershipâ. Not surprisingly, her fellow-Italian, journalist Paolo Pontoniere, could write proudly that âEuropeans revel in the pleasure of having one of their daughters bringing new hope to another continentâ.[41] Sonia Gandhi says, âMujhe lagata hai ki aaj ki rajniti mein sant bane rahana hi sabse mushkil kaam hai (It appears to me that remaining a saint in politics is the most difficult thing)â.[42] Jairam Ramesh âumbled himself all over again: âA long line of renunciates have dotted India right from the days of Gautama Buddha to Mahatma Gandhi; and, Sonia Gandhi has now joined this pantheon.â[43] Alas, but Sonia Gandhi is no renouncing saint. She hasnât renounced anything at all, neither pelf nor power, both appropriated through the backdoor while her âinner voiceâ answers the front door. Such is the Myth of the Renunciation. Rahul Gandhi said the value that heâd uphold in politics is âTruth. I have seen that in politics, especially in our country, truth has been the first casualtyâ.[44] Truth as a first casualty? As in the Myth of the Renunciation - a lie so `colossalâ that no one would believe that someone `could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamouslyâ. As in the Myth of the Renunciation - âdonât be fooled,â says Rahul Gandhi, âonce a Gandhi, always a politician.â[45] The Renunciation. Fellow Indians, donât be fooled. Itâs a Big Lie. |
