Orissa Congress Chief is Partially Correct: Congress Leaders Sabotaged the Congress

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

By openly alleging that some of the Congress leaders have sabotaged the party in election, President of Orissa Pradesh Congress Committee Sri Jayadev Jena has conceded defeat even three weeks before the EVMs are to come to the counting tables. He is partially correct; because he has limited his allegations only to some unidentified Congress leaders of Orissa, whereas it is the central leadership of Congress that has sabotaged the Congress in Orissa again.

This election had tremendous possibilities of victory for the Congress. Everywhere there was a strong undercurrent against Naveen Patnaik. By orientation, people of Orissa are averse to the communalist BJP. Hence BJP was not supposed to benefit from the undercurrent against Naveen. On the other hand, none of the other parties – mostly, personal attires of Pyari Mohan Mohapatra (Orissa Jana Morcha), Soumya Ranjan Patnaik (Ama Odisha), Aira Kharavela Swain (Utkal Bharata) – and left parties with no serious approach to the election, were not expected to win. So, it was only the Congress that could have acquired most of Orissa Assembly seats this time.

But for Sonia Gandhi, Naveen was not to be defeated. Like every time since Naveen Patnaik has occupied Orissa, the so-called high command of Congress has sabotaged the electoral prospects of Congress in Orissa. Members of the Congress Party in Orissa are yet to decode this mystery.

Riding on sympathy wave on death of Biju Patnaik, a wave that, in fact, in order to show his magnanimity as chief Minister, J. B. Patnaik had created by eulogizing on the man whom people had disdainfully thrown into the dustbin of time, Naveen had given such a misrule, that, the people had started repenting for having him elected.

The astute politician J. B. Patnaik, in his new avatar as PCC chief, was quite efficiently and effectively steering the campaign against malfunctioning of the BJD-BJP government and many members of the cabinet, who had founded the BJD, were also getting disillusioned and irritated over the preening prince of Bijudom.

The situation had become so anarchic that the whole of Orissa was rising against Naveen.

At that juncture, Pyari Mohan Mohapatra had come to his rescue.

He had advised Naveen to dismiss some of his ministers, notwithstanding them being founder members of BJD, by giving an impression to the public that they were dismissed on grounds of corruption.

This single trick gave a new twist to public thinking on Naveen Patnaik, as they compared Naveen’s action against his close colleagues on allegations of corruption with J.B.Patnaik’s corruption-raj wherein fellows like Indrajit Ray and Basant Biswal were given full protection. This had immediately turned the rising public aversion to Naveen Patnaik into strong public admiration for him.

Yet, his conduct as Chief Minister was too deficient to fetch for him a fresh mandate.

POSCO had already put its eyes on Orissa by then; and for Sonia-led Congress, in that context, continuance of Naveen in the Chief Minister’s chair was more important than victory of its own candidates.

Congress high Command ensured defeat of the Congress in Orissa, not only by jettisoning J.B. Patnaik from the leadership of the province, but also by giving tickets to tainted fellows whom Naveen had dismissed on grounds of corruption.

In order to help Naveen rule the roost, Congress High Command had then appointed a lightweight Jayadev Jena as PCC Chief and used fellows like the Madhya Pradesh scrap Digvijaya Singh to damage whatever semblance of determination was still alive in Orissa PCC leaders to fetch victory for their Party.

Naveen recaptured power, simply because, there was no real opposition to him from the Congress.

However, when the lightweight Jayadev Jena, sans any ability to know how deep was Congress high command’s secret agenda to keep Naveen in the Gadi of Orissa, succeeded in bridging the gap between rival groups of the party and a new hope for success of Congress was discernible in the political horizon, he was suddenly replaced with K.P.Singhdeo, to save the people from the tyranny of whose family, the Congress Party spangled with the Communists in freedom movement, had made spellbinding sacrifices, Baisnab Patnaik absorbing the bullets and Baji Raut entering into martyrdom.

Promulgating himself as “soldier of Sonia Gandhi”, Singhdeo created such a climate that the election was lost to the Congress, when it was sure to win, had Jayadev Jena not been removed.

The Congress members and admirers were shocked to the core; but none of them could dare to confront the central leadership with this reality.

It was clear that KP was killing the Congress.

Howsoever feeble, voice against imposition of her “soldier” by Sonia on members of the Pradesh Congress gathered audible proportion and lest the secret agenda of Sonia to help the POSCO agent in power in Orissa get exposed, hoodwinking assurances were given to Orissa Congress members that no more the leadership would be imposed from above.

They were told to elect their own President and the process started from the block level.

But when the process had reached the final stage and only the PCC President was to be elected, it was clear to the Congress high command that Lalatendu Bidyadhar Mohapatra was sure to win. His election as PCC Chief was sure to be most disadvantageous to Naveen.

So, at the last moment, just before the election of the PCC chief, a Sonia emissary stymied the election and shepherded the PCC members to adopt a resolution authorizing Sonia Gandhi to decide who should head the PCC.
And eventually Sonia appointed Niranjan Patnaik to head the PCC.

Patnaik, though a seasoned politician, had also no idea that any strong campaign against Naveen was not to please Sonia to whom the South Korean POSCO was not to be displeased.

Jagdish Tytler was used to destroy the effect of the spectacular rally Niranjan had organized after taking over the PCC reign. Lest the rally be viewed as appropriate expression of mass resentment against Naveen’s misrule and a turning point in favor of the Congress, Tytler instigated enthusiasts to make force-entry into the Assembly, even as anti-Congress agent provocateurs were in their notorious best. Despite this, the legislative wing of the Congress was very ably exposing the Naveen misrule and to cite an instance, had devastated Naveen in the matter of pulse scandal. Sonia sent Tytler again to leash the legislative wing and to the utter frustration of every Congress MLA, their just steps against Naveen were forced to be withdrawn.

And, when election 2014 was due, Niranjan was discarded to revive Jayadev Jena as PCC chief!

Situation was made so sour that the Leader of Opposition Bhupinder Singh had to leave the Congress at the verge of election to seek an asylum in the camp of Naveen!

This site has all along exposed the motive of the Congress High Command based on circumstantial evidences. There are many disquisitions in these pages on this subject. But I would like you to peruse the following essays to get necessary glimpses of how the central leadership of Congress has continuously sabotaged the Orissa Pradesh Congress to ensure safe continuance of Naveen Patnaik in power. Jayadev Jena will specifically gain if he wants to find out who has really sabotaged the Congress in Orissa. Here are the essays:

Congress is confused
Elections ahead: Congress versus Congress in Orissa

Congress in suicide mode: Bizarre business in Orissa politics

Congress emerges as a party of contradictions in Orissa
Agents of foreign interest flock together: Congress denies tickets to active opponents of Naveen
Election of PCC Chief stopped since Lulu would be disadvantageous to Naveen
Tytler’s visit was meant to suppress the legislative conscience of CLP members

Plutocracy_a Specimen is Orissa: Study it and get ready for a revolution

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Orissa is reduced to a state of inanition by Naveen Patnaik inasmuch as more than half a crore, at least 5,967,215 persons as per the list of beneficiaries under Public Distribution Scheme, are suffering from continuous slow starvation, who just thrive on subsidized rice at the rate of Re.1 per kg; when as many as 63,759 persons are identified as paupers having not even this abysmally little purchasing power to have rice at Re.1, for which they are given the rice they need free of cost under the Annapurna scheme. “This initiative” confesses the State government “helps to mitigate the maladies of hunger, deprivation and poverty. AAY scheme specifically caters to the need of the poorest of poor people living in urban & rural areas, who face difficulties to buy essential commodities even at a relatively lower price”.

When UNDP puts the figure of poor in Orissa at 15.32 million based on data of 2009-10, a CLAP project finding on “State of Children in Orissa” shows that, the State has the “highest percentage of Infant Deaths and Neo-Natal Deaths among the States of India. The IMR for the State is 83 per 1000 live births. The Neo-Natal Mortality is 61 per 1000 live births. 54.4% born in Orissa are underweight. 20.7% of Children below 3 years of age are severely underweight and another 54.4% are moderately underweight”, attributing this sordid reality to severe malnutrition and continuous slow starvation.

In such a State, against 147 Assembly seats, 217 multimillionaire (crorepati) candidates, have been fielded by non-Communist political parties, who have also fielded 324 declared criminals, most of whom are charged with serious crimes like murder, attempt to murder and rape.

In Naveen babu’s regime, Orissa was blackened through mandate 2009 with 18 MLAs and 3 MPs who could not be punished, as criminal cases against them continued to limp, because prosecution did not dare to pursue those cases in right earnest.

This happens in plutocracy where mafia rules the roost.

In plutocracy corrupt politicians whom people really hate get elected because elections become Hobson’s choice. And in this process they use the administration and machinery of election like the Election Commission in the Center and Chief Electoral Officers in States. This technique is glaringly evident in Orissa.

The ruling party here is named after Biju Patnaik, more a mafia than a democrat. All officially instituted welfare projects are named after the same Biju Patnaik which is a ruling party design to keep the voters too dazzled to differentiate between the Biju Janata Dal and Biju-named projects. As a result, BJD appears as the provider of their welfare, though all the Biju-named projects are created with and funded by the State exchequer.

A fare and non-plutocratic election machinery – the EC, India and CEO, Orissa – should have banned all advertisements in media and mention in electioneering of every official project named after Biju since the very day of commencement of preparation for election, if Orissa voters were to use their unbiased, unprejudiced, uninfluenced, free wisdom in casing their votes.

I had pointed out the malady much earlier on 5 March 2014 and 9 April 2014, but it did not happen.

Over and above this, several instances of heavy cash being carried in vehicles engaged in electioneering of ruling and non-communist parties, as located by stray officials sans any punitive action, indicate to what extent the election is made undemocratic, which proves that, the election which our innocent people believe to be a democratic process of their mandate, has become a plutocratic phenomenon, where they elect their enemies only as their representatives.

These plutocratic politicians do not allow their voters to know even their election manifestos.

bjpAs is well known, the BJP, which is aspiring to capture India by exploiting people’s wrath against Manmohan Singh-Sonia misrule, had not issued its manifesto till closure of electioneering in Orissa for the first phase of election. When it released its manifesto, the total copies thereof were only 1000 when Orissa has a total of 2.88 crore voters.

bjdThe BJD had no more copies of manifesto than what was necessary for release to the Press. It disdainfully disobeyed the election law to print the numbers of the copies of the manifesto which it circulated only to members of the Press at Bhubaneswar. We did not get a copy of BJD manifesto in any of its electioneering camps and none of its slogan-raisers or campaigners candidates could give us a copy either, which establishes that the ruling party of Orissa had no scheme of equipping the people with the election manifesto.

congressThe Congress had limited its manifesto to 10,000 copies as against 2.88 crore voters of Orissa too, when its offshoot Ama Odisha had printed only 500 copies. aop

So, for all these non-Communist parties, planting candidates in all/almost all the Assembly constituencies of Orissa, seeking of mandate on the basis of manifesto carried no meaning. They have made the election a farce and a medium of plutocracy in the guise of democracy, and nothing else.

Read the scenario and find the specimen of plutocracy in Orissa and be ready to fight against whosoever forms the next government with such treachery and foul play, if you really love your motherland and wish it stay a democracy.

A violent class war is inevitable, as from now on, plutocracy will tighten its grip to further imperilment of the poor, perishing under slow starvation and silently suffering the ignominy of thriving on Re.1 per kg rice.

Your post-election responsibility is to try to forestall the violent class war by building up a non-violent revolution to force the government(s) to put a ceiling on private property, so that concentration of wealth in hands of a few shall stop and corruption caused by unlimited avarice of the rich and aspirants for richness would shrink to obliteration and enough funds shall be available for all round development of all Indians.

Get ready.

Gang of Giriraj Singh could not have infested India had Congress heeded to CPI advice of 1942

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The Communist approach to 1942 Quit India call has remained an enigma to many even today. While supporting the preamble of the August Resolution of the All India Congress Committee, all the 13 Communist members in the AICC had, as per Party decision, opposed the operational part thereof so tellingly that, even though the amendment they wanted had failed, Mahatma Gandhi had, in his concluding speech, congratulated the Communists for their courage of conviction. The Communists had insisted that the decision should be addressed “to achieve all-in national unity for the purpose of forging mass sanctions to secure the end of British domination and the installation of a Provisional National Government and with this end in view to make an earnest effort to effect agreement and joint front with the Muslim League.”

This approach had evolved on deep study of the global situation vis-à-vis India. When the first phase of the war (September 1939 t0 22 June 1941) with USA-backed-Anglo-French ‘Allies’ in one side and German-Italian-Japanese fascist ‘Axis’ on the other side, notwithstanding which side wins, was to give victory to imperialism, the 2nd phase, precipitated by Hitler Germany’s malicious attack on the Soviet Union, had become a people’s war against fascism.

This war, however, was offering a great opportunity for emancipation of the peoples all over the world from autocratic dictatorial exploitation based on fascist terror. So the peoples were to gain their real freedom if fascism was defeated on the basis of united action of the peoples against the fascist forces in the second war.
This particular approach was most relevant to India as the mischief of some of the Congress top brass and Congress financiers had already drove a menacing wedge into its population comprising the Hindus and the Muslims, the naked picture of which is available to us in Pandit Motilal Nehru’s 1926 letter to his son, that forms a highly referable part of the book ‘A Bunch of Old letters’ published by Jawaharlal Nehru.

Unity of all the Indians, particularly of both the Hindus and Muslims as the major segments, and participation in the war as one people, was essential for safety of the territory of India on achieving her independence.
But the Congress played to the tune of the fascists and by the strength of majority in AICC, rejected the amendment advanced by the Communists and executed the foresightless resolution that ultimately, after the war, divided the people and precipitated partition of India, the ancient land of knowledge and humanitarianism, on communal lines, that still continues to deny emancipation to the people as bloody fascists have gathered unrestrained strength to even fight elections armed with brutal fascism to the extent of openly threatening to throw out into Pakistan whosoever opposes Narendra Modi!

The correctness of the 1942 stand of the Communist Party of India has been fully proved by political independence of India in 1947 and liberation of China in 1949 and also by emergence of socialist states belonging to the peoples that gave birth to a new era. This was possible only because of victory over fascism that had weakened imperialism by the end of the war. Had the Communists’ advice to join the peoples of the world in the war as an united people against fascism been heeded to by the Congress in 1942, fascism in India could have been completely extinguished by August 1947 and the pack of Giriraj Singhs could not have raised their fangs of fascism and the country could have been saved from capitalistic terror.

The passionately patriotic appeal of the Communists to the Congress not to discard the historic responsibility of uniting the people of India with the peoples of the world then fighting fascism, instead of pushing the country into chaos by a Quit India call to the British when it was in war against fascism, attracts our attention in the pages of “Forward to Freedom” (February 1942) published by the underground headquarters of Communist Party of India.

In clarifying the Communists’ stand, it notes, “There has been a shift within the vicious circle of stalemate itself, from the policy of Gandhian negation to a policy of political inaction. The compromising tendency of the national bourgeois leadership expresses itself in waiting for imperialism to make a move. Their reformist tendency expresses itself in not even thinking of a mobilization of the people. The national leadership leaves the nation without a lead, without a direction, without a course of action that will enable the nation to realize its destiny through its strength, through its own action”

This speaking piece of Communists’ collective wisdom, expressed through the pen of the legendary P. C. Joshi, unequivocally says, “We Communists opposed the slogan of National Government during the imperialist war. We advocate now as the only way out for the nation during the people’s war. This is so because of the different aims of the war in two periods, because of the changed objective reality.

“Formation of a National Government will mean the exact opposite to what it meant during the imperialist war. Then it would have been a Government of National Surrender, today it will be a Government of National Advance. A National Government during the peoples’ war enables the Indian people to tell the peoples of the world: We have brought India into your war, because it is our war too.”

Had the Congress leadership heeded to these words of political wisdom evolved in the underground headquarters of the Communist Party of India in 1942, the people of India, as a whole, could have joined that war against fascism. And, had it been so, and had a National Government in India been possible during the period of that war, the country would never have fallen in the trap of the “Malaviya-Lala gang” that Birla was funding, as Motilal Nehru had informed his son in 1926 (Jawaharlal Nehru, A Bunch of Old Letters, 1958, p.47) as well as the British bureaucrats; and partition of India could not have occurred and the occasion would never have come for fascists in hot pursuit of power to threat the Indians that do not subscribe to their notorious design with banishment from their motherland.

Reaching the crux and locating the soft threads of patriotism and responsibility for the peoples in the fabric of politics is not always easy. Yet, it is a patriotic necessity that whosoever loves India must try to fulfill.

My Pride as an Indian did not allow me to vote

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

I did not vote yesterday. My pride as an Indian did not allow me to vote, because thereby plutocracy could have earned my approval, when I have been opposing it to the best of my ability.

I am happy that, many people are not voting. Most of them are averse to voting, because by voting, they are not getting any good government. In fact, plutocracy never gives a good government.

People mistake plutocracy as democracy, as both the systems are based on votes.

In plutocracy, political parties are led by the rich; the rich and/or agents of the rich get fielded as candidates by the parties of the rich; elections legally become too expensive for the poor to aspire for a seat in any house of representatives, as a result of which only the rich or the agents of the rich represent the poor and on capturing power, act against the poor, as governance under such representatives is set to support and serve only the rich, not the poor. The rich take to their ownership the natural resources of the nation by using the state power; displace people from their habitats and life-sustaining lands for private industries and the rich by using state terror; loot the exchequer for multiplication of their properties while throwing tiny amounts like orts at people in the grassroots in the name of their welfare; force the workforce to digest the ignominy of thriving on subsidized cereals like a-rupee-per-kg-rice, on a bid to survive slow-starvation. And they continue to do this by planting a set of the rich and or agents of the rich against another set of their own, making election a Hobson’s choice that continues the rule of the rich.

This plutocratic design is to be defeated.

And, it can be done, only if the method of occupying power by the rich – the elections – is shunned.

Communists’ Contribution to India’s Independence: A few words

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

In the history of India’s freedom movement, the 1942 ‘Quit India’ call of Gandhiji is to stay forever a turning point that ended the role of Gandhian non-violence in the struggle for independence.

Even if not deliberate, it was an act of failure on the part of Gandhiji and his blind yes-men in the Congress Party to read the motive behind ‘Operation Orient’ that had metamorphosed into the machination of fascist design aimed at engulfing India before it become a free nation.

“What was the grand fascist plan in 1942 which they called Operation Orient?” Pursuing this question, Dilip Bose in his well documented disquisition captioned ‘1942 August Struggle and The Communist Party of India’ has informed.

“Japan had occupied Rangoon by 8 March 1942 and was waiting for the other prong of the fascist wing to advance through Stalingrad to India via Persia and Afghanistan. Today we know in detail that this “Operation Orient” failed because the heroic Red Army fought almost a superhuman battle to block the German Nazi Army at Stalingrad. The fiercest battle took place at Stalingrad between November 1942 to the 1st week of February 1943 when Field Marshal Von Paulus of Germany surrendered to the Red Army. Therefore, August 1942 was taking place exactly when Stalingrad battle was taking place in full fury.”

Thus, it was essential for the people of India to rise up as a nation against fascism and it was essential for the Congress to lead the nation in this regard, as “the progressive forces of the world are now aligned with the groups represented by Russia, Britain, America and China” to quote the resolution of the Congress Working Committee held in December 1941 at Bardoli.

But the rash call of Gandhiji to the British to quit India, with the most unscientific support of Congress top brass to the said call not only deserted the collective wisdom expressed in Bardoli, but also denied the Indians to be one with the forces fighting “the grand fascist plan”.

While supporting the preamble of the Quit India resolution that aimed to “defend India and resist aggression with all the armed as well as the non-violent forces at its command, together with Allied Powers”, the Communists opposed the operative part of the resolution concerning the “struggle” aspect, because, the envisaged ‘struggle’ in the prevailing context could mean a struggle against the allies against fascism.

Britain being one of the allies, the Quit India call at that juncture was to provoke the British to repress the Indian leadership for staying unperturbedly addressed to the war. In Communist perception, that was to render the necessary leadership unavailable to Indians in the peoples’ war against fascism.

In fact, in an open letter dated 26 July 1942 addressed to the Congress leadership, it had raised the question: Is it not plain enough that to start your ‘struggle’ is just to play the game of the imperialists and the bureaucrats? What will happen if and when you start the struggle?

“They will quietly put you and thousands of active Congress workers inside jails and sanctimoniously declare that it is their unfortunate duty to be able to save India from the fascist invaders.

“They would have divorced you from contact with the people who need you and every patriot in their own midst more than ever before. It is your historic responsibility to organize our people for national resistance. And here you will leave them leaderless and at the mercy of the mad bureaucrats”, the letter had warned.

This exactly had happened.

There was “wholesale arrests of the Congress leaders” by the end of the night of August 9, 1942, which Gandhiji had to indicate in his letter to Viceroy Linlithgow, dated 23 September 1942.

In this situation of sudden absence of leadership, with passion for freedom having already been ignited, the people of India suffered the worst of repression and torture in the hands of the British imperialists and bureaucrats.

Within four months from August 9, according to statement of the Home Member in the Central Assembly, 60,229 persons were arrested, 18,000 detained under Defence of India Regulation, 1630 were injured in firing by the police and military that had also killed 940 Indians in encounters.

In admitting the loss occurred by not heeding to the Communists’ advice, though advancing a face-saving statement, the Congress in its 1945 bulletin captioned ‘The Struggle and After’, had to say, “The earnest appeal made by the AICC at its last meeting held on August 8, 1942 for creating conditions necessary for full cooperation with the United Nations in the cause of world freedom was ignored and the suggested attempts to solve the Indian problem by negotiations were answered by the government by an all-out attack on the Indian people and by subjecting an unarmed India to many of the horrors which accompany an invasion.”

However, the history stands witness to how in absence of Congress leadership it is the Communists that had led the post August 9 ‘revolution’ for freedom that overwhelmed the brutal repressions unleashed by the British with the supreme sacrifices, a tiny sample of which has been quoted supra from the statement of the Home Member in the Central Assembly, forcing the imperialists to seriously think of leaving India.

What was at best a ‘struggle’ in the plan of the Congress, was transformed into an indomitable ‘revolution’ by the Communists and, in fact, August 9 is not known as ‘August Struggle’, but is known as ‘August Revolution’.

And, this most heroic phase of India’s revolution for freedom was not based on Gandhian non-violence.

Be it Baishnav Pattanayak’s armed attack on citadel of Shankar Pratap – the tyrant royal ally of the British – at Parjang in Dhenkanal or RIN revolt at Bombey, every instance that really expedited independence after the expected incarceration of the Mahatma and all his men in the Congress following the August resolution, was radically violent, sharpened by the concept and support generated and given by the Communists.

If erudition inspires one for progress, it may be gainful to peruse the pages of history of India’s freedom movement post August 9, 1942 to know how sharp and specific was the Communists’ strategy to expeditiously expel the British from our soil.

In fact, the last phase of Indian freedom movement that had expedited our independence, was led by the Communists, not by the non-Communists.

Reflecting this reality, after the British had to quit India, the Manchester Guardian had noted in an editorial on 11 October 1947, “It may be hard to disentangle whether the British action was based on high principle or on a less glorious desire to retreat to shelter before the storm broke”.

British Labor Minister A. V. Alexander had written on July 18, 1946: “I am certain, we should have faced a position of uprising and of bloodshed and disturbances in India and with a future military commitment that no one could at present overcast”.

This was official admission of the British that the aggressive phase of Indian freedom movement that had forced the British to quit was not the non-violent movement led by Gandhiji, but the brave war of patriotism the Communists had ignited and guided and waged against imperialism.

When Viceroy Lord Linlithgo had written on August 16, 1942 that the Communist Party of India was “practically lining up with the Congress”, the Government’s report on the 1st Party Congress of CPI, (Bombay 1943) had noted that the Communist Party was “solely interested in the speedy and violent overthrow of British rule in India”, as it’s paramount aim was “liberation from imperialist enslavement”.

See the Advertisements of Naveen Patnaik; See the Reality

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The Sun was cutting through Bhubaneswar, the Capital City of Orissa, with its piercing rays.

Public Works Department was repairing a government quarter through a contractor.

With the 3 months old child on her flanks, a mother was toiling to earn her food for a day.

And, Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik was launching his electioneering with blowing the conch of his success!

Narendra Modi: The issue is human rights of his wife

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

What would be the response of Election Commission to allegation of Congress against Narendra Modi in matter of his affidavit on his marital status is a politico-administrative action to watch.

But on the basis of confession of Mr. Modi that he has married and abandoned his wife after two months of marriage, the issue is human rights of his wife.

Conjugal rights of a married person is a vital part of his/her human rights. Mrs. Modi’s conjugal rights are totally violated as Modi has abandoned her after two months of marriage.

For violation of human rights of any member of human society, the society has always insisted upon action against contravener of human rights and the Human Rights Commission has also taken action.

Therefore, the BJP’s assertion that marriage being a personal matter of Modi, the nation has nothing to worry, is not tenable.

It is a fit case for National Human Rights Commission to initiate action against Modi on the basis of his confession in the public that after two months of marriage he has abandoned his wife, such abandonment having shattered Mrs.Modi’s human rights as a married woman.

Forgery on Gopabandhu’s Will: Cuttack District Judge Office looks like its breeding bed! Orissa High Court should look at it

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Article 227 of the Constitution of India has given the power of superintendence over all the Courts of a State to the State’s High Court. Therefore, I urge upon the High Court of Orissa to look at what has happened in the office of the Cuttack District Judge in the matter of the State’s most precious document – the last Will of Utkalmani Pundit Gopabandhu Das. The said office of judiciary looks like a breeding bed of forgery.

People’s faith in judiciary will be lost if influential persons freely tamper with or replace an original Will with forged ones and/or escape law by using the fake/forged Will in legal forums by projecting the same as the certified copies thereof granted by the District Judge.

The offense is too serious to be ignored

 I have discussed in these pages why I suspect that Gopabandhu’s last Will has been suppressed or destroyed by Radhanath Rath, a servant of Gopabandhu, who thereafter had eventually grabbed the editorship of his co-founded paper -The Samaja – after manufacturing a forged Will of Gopabandhu with the help of Lingaraj Mishra; and how the Servants of the People Society (SoPS) has taken over the Samaja to its ownership by using the same forged Will.

In order to reach the reality, I had tried to legally obtain a certified copy of Gopabandhu’s Will, projected as probated by the District Judge of Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 42 of 1928. I had filed the application for the certified copy on 21 August 2013, which was registered as Copy Application No. 353A.

As the same did not fetch any result till 7 April 2014, despite meeting the District Judge in his chamber several times, the President of Utkalmani Newspaper Employees Association Sri Deviprasanna Nayak, deeply affected by the question raised in these pages over authenticity of ownership of Samaja, in order to know the truth, used RTI to know of the whereabouts of the Probated Will of Gopabandhu.

In answering to the RTI query, the Asst. Public Information Officer-cum-Sheristadar, District Judge Court, Cuttack has informed that “the Will of Pundit Gopabandhu Das probated in Misc. Case 42/1928 is not available” as the said Will “has been sent to the Office of the District Judge, Berhampur and received by the Sheristadar of the said Office on 02.04.1936.” After release of this RTI information, I was informed by the Dist. Judge Office that my application for copy of the Will has already been rejected on finding that the same is not available.

This information makes the situation more intriguing, as I have found out in course of research that the same office of the District Judge, Cuttack has issued a certified true copy of the probated Will on 9.1.1996 to an applicant, which has been used in a case. We have located, at the typing stage of this copy, there was attempt to tamper with the text. When either the Comparer or the Certifying officer located the tampering, the same was undone by applying white paint on the intentionally and wrongfully typed portion and thereafter, on the white paint, the correction, as per the text of the probated copy of the Will preserved in the records of the District Court, was inscribed.

When the Will is “not available” in the office of the District judge, Cuttack since 2.4.1936, as it has been “sent to the Office of the District Judge, Berhampur and received by the Sheristadar of the said Office” on that date, because of which my application dated 21 .08.2013 for a certified copy of the Will has been rejected in April 2014 after at least a 8 months long search, how could the said District Judge issued a stamped certified copy of the Will on 9.1.1996, bearing the attempted tampering and correction therein?

Was it then manufactured in the District Judge Office?

This question needs be looked into by the High Court of Orissa, along with who had tried to tamper with the text thereof, which had been foiled by the District Court.

A further point that deserves attention is that, on 20.9.1930, a copy of the forged Will was generated in the Cuttack District Judge office with rubber stamps of the Court affixed thereon, with notes discernible on its page that says, the same is copied to Book No IX at Serial No.15.

The rubber-stamped copy does not carry the signature of the District Judge who granted the probate.

When this rubber-stamped copy shows that it was “filed on 15th December 1928 and was prepared on 20.9.1930, another copy of the Will, used by the SoPS as certified copy of the Will in the High Court of Delhi, shows that the same was probated on 7.9.1929 and copied on 28.2.1954.. If the Will of Gopabandhu is not available in the Office of the District Judge, Cuttack since 2.4.1936, where from this so-called true copy dated 28.2.1954 also emanated?

More intriguing is the fact that the tampering attempted on 9.1.1996 on the copy of the Will tallies with the copy of the forged Will dated 28.2.1954 filed by Servants of the People Society before the Delhi High Court in Suit No.152/96.

Radhanath Rath was ruling the roost in the Samaja in 1996. He knew that he and Lingaraj Mishra had forged the Will, He also knew that, the forged copy of the Will he was using, was not a stamped certified copy, therefore, has no evidentiary value. But having benefitted so immensely by using the forged Will, he was not daring to tell the Delhi High Court that the copy of the Will placed before it by the SoPS was not the copy of the probated Will, even though SoPS was using that copy of the forged Will against him in Suit No. 152/96.

On the other hand, SoPS had manufactured the copy of the forged Will on 28.2.1954 to meet the requirement of Audit Bureau of Circulation for membership. Establishment of ownership was necessary to become a member of ABC. But the forged copy of the Will that Rath had procured in 1930 was not traceable at that time. Therefore, on 28.2.1954, the forged copy was again manufactured from the handwritten copy of the forged will preserved by Rathanath Rath. It tallies eith the handwritten copy of the forged Will published later in Samaja on 7.7.1986.

In his last part of life,Rath not only handed over the Samaja management to his son-in-law Padarabinda Mohapatra, but also handed over editorial responsibility to his daughter Manorama Mohapatra by arranging her induction into hierarchy of SoPS through manipulations. This ignited conflict between him and the SoPS. He knew that Gopabandhu had never given the samaja to SoPS. It was he and Lingaraj Mishra who had forged the will to grab the Samaja under cover of SoPS. So, he dissolved the Board of Management of Samaja which the SoPS had created. SoPS challenged him in the Delhi High Court using the forged copy of the Will Rath had created on the solid assumption that Rath cannot challenge the said Will in that Court.

But, the SoPS also knows that copy of the Will it had filed in the Court was a copy of the forged Will. Elsewhere in these pages, it would be seen that after death of Gopabandhu, SoPS had asked Lingaraj Mishra to take over the Sayabadi Press as per the Will of Gopabandhu. The Executive of SoPS had not asked Mishra to take over Samaja, because it was known to it that Gopabandhu had not bequeathed to it the Samaja as it was common a common venture of Satyabadi Panchasakha and spiritually the property of the people of Orissa. The handwritten copy of the forged Will published in the Samaja of 7.7.1986 has notes on its margin about implementation of the Will. When it is noted against Para 6 containing Gopabandhu’s desire to make over the Press to SoPS the margin note says that the Press is made over against receipt, there is no note on the para 7 that contains the forgery. So, SoPS is unambiguously conscious of the forgery Rath and Lingaraj Mishra had done through the copy of the Will they had manufactured. Yet, it had submitted the forged copy of the Will manufactured on 28.2.1954 for use in ABC membership as a document in its case against Radhanath Rath assuming that the forgery shall not be exposed by Rath as he himself was its architect.

Yet, the fact that this forged copy was not in stamp paper but in plain paper with rubber stamp of the court illegally used, was making the plentiffs fidget. SoPS was apprehensive that the Delhi High Court, while hearing the case, may insist upon production of the Certified Copy on stamped paper. So, a fresh attempt was made to generate a copy of the forged Will on a stamped paper. After obtaining an order for the certified copy, SoPS had gained over the Court typist to prepare the copy on stamp paper with court fee affixed from copy of the forged Will in their hand and get it stamped as certified true copy. But to dismayof SoPS,the certifying officer compared the typed copy with the copy of the probated Will preserved in the Book IX at serial 15 and found the foul play. The typist had to apply white paint on the text so wrongfully typed and then on that white paint, had to type the true version of the probated Will as copied to Book IX. Then the corrected copy was authenticated.

This authenticated copy could have exposed the forgery of the Will in the copy SoPS had submitted in the High Court and could also have led to punishment for the crime of forgery. Hence the certified stamped copy was abandoned by SoPS and landed in our hand during research.

High Court of Delhi could not reach the stage of examining the document filed by SoPS including the forged copy of the Will dated 28.2.1954. When SoPS was reluctant to expedite the hearing of its case lest the forgery be known, to its great relief Radhanath Rath died. On 1.5.1998 it filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking leave not to press the case as Rath had died and the SoPS had come to compromise with other defendants. Thus they have avoided punishment for using a forged Will and have been using the same forged Will to continue their illegal grip over the Samaja.

This question needs be looked into by the High Court of Orissa.

In course of our investigation we have also found that the Will of Gopabandhu was probated on two different dates – 20.9.1930 and 7.9.1929 in the same probate case bearing No.42/1928?

How this was possible is a question the High Court of Orissa should look into.

It is baffling that the probate order dated 7.9.1929 covers a Will that it mentions as “Amend Will”.

Pundit Gopabandhu had died after dictating his Will to Radhanath Rath, as per eye-witness accounts of Pundit Nilakantha Das. The Will probated on 20. 9. 1930 as per stamped certified true copy dated 9.1.1996 is written by Lingaraj Mishra. Yet again, the Will probated on 7.9.1929 is written by the same Lingaraj Mishra. How could the District Judge in the same 42/1928 case grant probate to the “Amend Will”, when the Will filed on 15.12.1928 was kept pending till 20.9.1930?

This question needs be looked into by the High Court of Orissa.

The point to be noted is that, if at all the Will probated on 7.9.1929, was the Will dictated by Gopabandhu in his death bed, he had not amended the will after his death. So the “Amend Will” doesn’t deserve any credence. Was it real and really probated? This question needs be looked into by the High Court of Orissa.

Both the avatars of the Will being not the same, the District Judge office of Cuttack has played the role of a breeding bed of forgery, at the behest of its beneficiaries – Radhanath Rath, Lingaraj Mishra and Servants of the People Society.

This is a serious offense against the people of Orissa.

The High Court of Orissa, being the Court of superintendence, should immediately take cognizance of this matter and institute a time-bound inquiry to find out the truth and to take action against everybody- alive or dead – if forgery is ascertained and to ensure that the people of this State are not left in the lurch to bear with judiciary’s suspected role in forgery of this type.

This is really urgent.

EC must not act haphazardly: If use of Padma word by Tirkey is bad, why BJD as a contesting party has not been banned?

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Election Commission has instructed Dillip Tirkey not to use the “Padma” word in depicting the Padma Shree he has been decorated with, while projecting his suitability as a candidate before the voters of Sundergarh from where he is contesting for the Lok Sabha.

It is a legally correct step and we fully endorse it.

But what about Biju Janata Dal?

The “Biju” word should have been dropped from the said party as it is contesting for both the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha when almost all welfare programs that influences the voters are named after Biju, the father of the present Chief Minister who has contrived this mischief to mislead the voters and bag their votes. Had BJD not dropped the Biju name, it should have been banned, as all most all welfare programs and public places and institutes are named after Biju.

Look at the mischief:

Biju KBK Yojana,

Biju Setu Yojana,

Biju Gajapati Yojana,

Biju Kandhamal Yojana,

Biju Krusak Kalyan Yojana,

Biju Gramya Bidyut Yojana,

Biju Saharanchal Bidyutikaran Yojana,

Biju Yuva Sashaktikaran Yojana,

Biju Gramina Magana Swasthya Sibira Yojana.

These and suchlike welfare programs founded and funded by Orissa Government are mischievously, willfully, calculatedly and intentionally named after Biju Patnaik by his son Naveen Patnaik who has misused his chief minister position to make his party – Biju Janata Dal – be viewed by the voters as synonymous with welfare. This is the worst political misappropriation of the State exchequer, and the most harmful arsenal created to damage electoral wisdom, the like of which is never to be found in India.

On March 5, we had attracted the attention of the EC to this hazardous mischief under the caption: Election Commission now must ban operation of all Orissa Projects named after Biju Patnaik, as projection thereof was bound to mesmerize and mislead the voters.

The EC has not acted responsibly in this case. All these state projects named after Biju are being projected in massive advertisements and election rallies. Voters are unable to differentiate between Biju Janata Dal and Biju named welfare projects.

So, it is clear that in banning use of “Padma” word by Tirkey while not banning welfare projects named after Biju when the party named after him is seeking mandate, the EC has been working haphazardly and against the very spirit of fair election.

Issue of ownership: Samaja newspaper employees seek clarification from SoPS on exposures in ORISSA MATTERS

L.P.Pattanayak

ORISSA MATTERS has exposed how the Servants of the People Society (SoPS) has hijacked Utkalmani Pandit Gopabandhu Das’ famous newspaper The Samaja to swindle its fabulous earnings by using a forged Will. It has become clear by the ORISSA MATTERS reports available together at savethesamaja.com that SoPS has no legitimate ownership over the paper.

As the SoPS has never dared to counter the allegation, worried employees of the Samaja through their trade union – Utkalmani Newspaper Employees Association – have attracted attention of the Chairman and members as well as the Trustees of SoPS to this exposure in in their letter No. 15/GS/2014 dated 24.3.2014.

Signed by Devi Prasanna Nayak, President and Subash Chandra Singh, General Secretary of the Union, the letter notes, “Even as the members of our Union are extremely worried over the litigations ffecting Servants of the People Society in internal tussles, we are in deep quagmire over the issue of ownership of the Samaja where we are employees.

“We are giving you the link to a website styles savethesamaja.com, wherein, over and above the publications in orissamatters.com depicting serious exposures and raising serious questions on legitimacy of SoPS as owner of the Samaja are being published/ have been published.

“On behalf of the members of our Union, we request you to please peruse the articles in thia website and come out with a clear picture of the ownership over the Samaja, as otherwise employer-employee relationship being in stake, we the workers are in and bound to be in highly injurious predicament”.

SoPS is yet to answer.