AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        Election of Rashtrapati of India that is Bharath is a solemn, sacred process. For Sonia Gandhi and her coalition partners, it is a 'disposable political procedure'. Known Sonia Gandhi with known Cambridge University qualifications (with known mafia connections in Italy, Germany and Russia for at least two generations, according to Dr Subramanian Swamy) has chosen the practically unknown Prathiba Patil as the contesting candidate for the highest office of the President of India.

        It is now clear even through (!) the organised pseudo- secular mafia of mass media in India that she comes from a family with known and murky antecedents (not very different from that of Sonia Gandhi) with her own brother reported to be involved in a murder case which is the subject matter of a CBI enquiry.

        No one in India or abroad can dispute the fact that Dr Abdul Kalam has been truly a PEOPLE'S PRESIDENT and is loved by all the people of India, irrespective of their caste or colour or creed or religion or faith or age. After Independence in August 1947, we have never had a People's President of the stature of Dr Kalam. If a direct election modelled on the American pattern were to be held today, without the political manoeuveres and machinations of petty and vicious anti-national politicians like Sonia Gandhi, Karunanidhi, Lalu Prasad Yadav and Communist politicians of all shades and hues, Dr Kalam would be re-elected as President with overwhelming majority.

        In any direct election by the people, Prathiba Patil would be shown her true and fitting place in condemnable Indian politics and condemned India's public life.

        The common millions of India (Whether Sonia Gandhi, her servile partymen and her even more slavish coalition members like it or not) today are of the view that Kalam eminently qualifies for national public declaration in perpetuity as a 'gentleman' according to the famous definition of Cardinal Newman (1801-1890) in his book 'The Idea of a University', a series of lectures given in Ireland in 1852:

        'Hence it is that it is almost a definition of a gentleman to say that he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature; like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast — all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at his ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort; he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets everything for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp saying for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny.'

        Now it can be asked as to WHY SHOULD SONIA GANDHI BE AGAINST SUCH A GENTLEMAN 'MINORITY' PRESIDENT AND PEOPLE'S PRESIDENT? A legally irrefutable and politically unassailable answer can be given to this shameful and disgusting question in the following words of Dr Subramanian Swamy

        'Patriotic Indians should thank the President of India for having the courage, by citing a legal hitch, to dissuade Sonia from staking her claim to form the government on 17 May this year. She therefore, despite all the contrived media hype, did not, and could not, become the Prime Minister of 1 billion plus people of India.

        It can now be said that Bharat Mata has been saved from a monumental, devastating, and permanent injury to her national interest and to the patriotic psyche of Indians.

        Therefore, it should be the resolve of every Indian to make any and every effort that can be made in a democracy, to ensure that Sonia is kept permanently out of reckoning for any public office. For those who instinctively understand that imperative, this note has been written to explain the factual basis for this rational determination, and suggest what patriotic Indians can do now to implement that democratic and patriotic resolution.

        My opposition to Sonia Gandhi is not merely because she is Italian—born, although that by itself is a major issue. In other democratic countries, including in Italy, such an issue [of foreign-born aspiring to be head of government] would not even arise at all because the issue has already been settled by incorporating into law that a person cannot hold the highest public office unless he or she is native born.

        In India there is no such law but the President, according my knowledge, has correctly acted on a proviso to Section 5 of the Indian Citizenship Act [1955] which requires the Union Home Ministry to lay down conditions to Indian citizenship acquired by foreigners by registration, condition based on the principle of reciprocity.

        In Sonia Gandhi's case, such of those conditions that apply to Indians on becoming citizens of Italy, would apply to her.

        The President reportedly had communicated to Sonia on the afternoon of 17 May, 2004, that if she insisted on being invited to form the government, he would want first to clarify, on a reference to the Supreme Court, whether in view of this proviso her appointment as PM could be successfully challenged in the court.

        It is fair to assume that this report of the President's decision is correct, since the President had before him my petition dated 15 May, 2004 making just that point— that Sonia Gandhi's citizenship is conditional, and in particular she cannot be the PM legally.

        The President had also given me an appointment at 12.45 pm on 17 May, 2004 to explain my submissions in person, which I did. I also told him that I would challenge such an unconstitutional appointment in the Supreme Court just as I had in 2001 when Jayalalitha was illegally sworn in as Chief Minister by the Tamilnadu Governor'

        'I also cited to the President a 1962 Allahabad High Court case which held that this provision in the Citizenship Act was binding and lawful.

        The nation by the stalling of Sonia becoming Prime Minister of India, has thus got an unexpected but temporary reprieve, a reprieve received not only because her citizenship of India by registration is not equal to one by birth even by Indian law, but a reprieve more because of the national security risk that was averted.

        To comprehend that risk, we must however first understand who Sonia Gandhi really is and what kind of danger she, her family and her friends in Italy, hold for India's national security. Very little is known about the Mainos' murky past, and the little that we are told about Sonia are lies. In other words, Indians do not know who Sonia really is or what she represents.

        Even for an Indian born citizen, we find it difficult to know a person's true background, but for a foreign-born it is extremely hard because of the remoteness of the place and the language barrier for most people, in this case—Italian.

        This note is thus an aide d'memoir of certain verifiable facts that taken together constitute the danger that Sonia Gandhi represents for the nation. And that is the real Sonia and what she represents.'

        Now to come to the family background of Pratibha Patil. There is an ongoing CBI investigation on a criminal case, a cognizable offence, of the murder of the husband of Rajni Patil who has accused Pratibha Patil's brother and also accused Pratibha Patil herself of shielding her brother. There is also another criminal case reported involving the default of a loan by a sugar factory reportedly owned by Pratibha Patil. Is it not morally incumbent on Pratibha Patil to voluntarily withdraw her candidature and inform those who have filed the nominations on her behalf today (23 June 2007)? Article 58 prescribes the Qualifications for election as President of India. The key clause is that the person should be qualified for election as a member of the House of the People. Pratibha Patil has to declare the assets owned by herself and by members of her family, a procedure required under law to be followed by her,, if she is to be eligible for contesting as a candidate for the House of the People.

        A prominent anti-Hindu national daily of Chennai, dating its origin to the pre-Christian era, has suggested that our gentleman President and People's President Dr Abdul Kalam should have gracefully withdrawn from the current contest. The same daily has not given similar advice to Pratibha, despite recent disturbing disclosures by the mass media about her family background.