India! I dare you to be rich

Category Archive: India

Rajdeep Sardesai hoisted by his own petard in New York. Sorry, Sardesai, YOU are guilty of assault. Period.

The matter is open and shut. Rajdeep "started it". He MUST have called the person in yellow kurta an "asshole", thereby receiving the expletive back in return, which prompted his anger and led to him thrusting BOTH his hands aggressively on the yellow kurta man and CLEARLY assaulting him.

I couldn't care less about Rajdeep Sardesai, but this is important for another reason – and I'll come to that separately.


Someone provided me a link to the following video:

At around 7 minutes the crowd is as pro-Modi as you often get in India. Rajdeep should be used to such things. But the actual abuse and actual violence was CLEARLY initiated by Rajdeep. He should have left if he was not happy with the crowd, although one can't second guess him.


The man in the yellow kurta wrote:

"I called him "NewsTrader No.1". This seems to have made him lose his mind: He removed his jacket, and walked over to me (this is the part in the zee news video) and started verbally abusing me ("arsehole" and other threat-cum-abuse). I was surprised at hearing the abuse and his threatening body language given his ever-cool studio self. I retorted with the same epithet. This led to his turning around and attacking me – grabs my collar and shoves me (guess its his privilege in his un-Modified India). I was left with no choice but to push him back.

I would urge people to note 4 things:
1. Rajdeep indulges in unprovoked tarnishing and demeaning of the Indian PM on foreign soil and Indians living there 
2. Rajdeep starts the verbal abuse / intimidation
3. Rajdeep starts the physical assault
4. Rajdeep turns around and spins victimhood – 'frenzied Modi fans abuse him'"

Continue Reading

Foreign courts and governments should stop discussing Modi’s past. It is none of their business.

The other day, Tony Abbot gave a "clean chit" to Modi. Now, a US court has issued summons against him.

Like I wrote here (when he was CM Gujarat), there is a thing called sovereignty.

I strongly oppose any attempt to file cases against Modi in foreign courts – or by such courts to take cognisance of complaints against him. And as elected PM of India he must be given FULL recognition of his credentials everywhere, including in India. There is a thing called legitimacy. He has comprehensive legitimacy as the PM of India. 

That doesn't make him right, though. He was directly implicit in the 2002 riots and I retain all my reservations about him. But these are a domestic matter for India and Indians to consider through their political/ democratic/ legal process. None of the business of USA or anyone else. (That doesn't imply that anyone is required to give him a "clean chit" like Abbot tried to do. Just give him the treatment of PM of India in all its forms and shapes. No need for any country to officially comment on his past.)

Yes, India's justice system is in shambles, and Modi has gotten away with serious crimes. But let Indians fix this issue.They have the capacity and power to do so through the democratic and parliamentary process. As elected PM he doesn't speak for himself but for the entire country of India

Continue Reading

I’ve been forced by Indian law to BLOCK one of my own blog posts. Join me in bringing liberty to India.

Last night I received a notice from H S P Singh, Asst. Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, EOW: Crime Branch, Delhi Police. 

I was asked to remove one blog post and one Facebook post. The post of January 2012 (I'm not joking: it is something I wrote over 32 months ago!) contained a strong criticism of a Delhi High court judge who cited CHINESE SYSTEMS (and, presumably, precedents) for blocking Indian websites. [See Indian Express news item here].

I first decided to question the cryptic order I had received, since I had merely expressed a strong opinion condemning such an anti-liberty approach by an Indian judge. 

So this is what I wrote:


Dear Sh Singh

Thanks for your email. I'm afraid, though, that I don't understand the basis on which you've sent me this email.

1) May I get a copy of the complaint? 

2) May I know under what Indian law am I not allowed to express my opinion regarding a matter reported in an Indian newspaper? Am I not allowed to THINK about the implications of such news reports?

3) What's defamatory about my challenge of Justice xxx reported statement in which he cites CHINESE LAW AND PRECEDENTS as the basis of his actions? "Like China, we will block all such websites". In totalitarian China there is no free speech but India has constitutional protections on free speech. Indian judges – to be respected by the people of India – need to follow Indian laws – or cite liberal precedents. India is a liberal republic, as the debates in the Constituent Assembly will attest. Please ask the complainant to show me on what basis he cited Chinese law. 

It is my considered opinion that Justice xxx has deeply insulted India, Indian traditions of freedom, and Indian laws by citing China as the basis of his decision/s. What was the point of getting independence from the British if India has to follow Chinese totalitarian approaches in India? Are we a satellite of China? Indians need and deserve FREEDOM, not oppression.

If Justice xxx apologises to the people of India for his deeply obnoxious statement and changes it to: "I will implement Indian laws and judiciously block any website that Indian laws require, subject to the very strong Constitutional protections afforded to all Indians" then I'll withdraw my remarks and remove my blog post. I'd be delighted if Justice xxx desires to fight for INDIAN FREEDOM, FOR THE FREEDOM OF INDIANS TO THINK AND TO SPEAK, not help promote a Chinese oppressive totalitarian regime in India. Please see the clear commitment to free speech in the Sone Ki Chidiya total reform agenda available here:

4) By thy way, how does this complaint come under your jurisdiction (Cyber Crime cell), anyway? Please cite the specific law under which you have taken cognisance of Justice xxx's complaint. Please also explain to me the process by which you inquired into this matter and provide me with a full copy of your investigation report so I can determine whether you have formed a proper basis for your direction to me. I will also appreciate a speaking order from your end, with full details of why you are directing me to "immediately block the link". Since I've never received such directive from anyone in India in my whole life (I resigned from IAS to fight corruption and misgovernance in India) and I don't know precisely what my legal options are in this case, I'd also be grateful if you can send me information regarding any legal options I have, to challenge your order.

5) Btw, I have no idea who has created the website xxx. This website, as you note, defames me. There are at least a few other websites in which defame me or oppose me vigorously. That is fine. Everyone is entitled to their view. No one can stop anyone from thinking and expressing their opinions, whether pleasant or otherwise. I do not waste my precious time chasing up such people. You will need to undertake your due diligence to identify that web site's owner and write to him/her separately.

I'm copying this email to a few people so everyone knows I've been directed by a senior Indian official to stop expressing my views in favour of freedom of speech and against Chinese totalitarianism being applied in India. I'm sure many Indians will be interested in knowing whether someone can strongly oppose an insult to the Indian Constitution, and a demand by an Indian judge to apply Chinese totalitarian approaches to Indians.

Please note that I strongly affirm my commitment to comply with Indian laws – even though I'm only an Overseas Citizen of India at the moment. I am also a senior leader of the Swarna Bharat Party, and fight for the liberty of all Indians, and against all oppression and corruption. I will support your fight against anything that harms India's interests. Should I find your investigation and speaking orders sufficiently clear and persuasive, I'll shut down this blog post of January 13, 2012. The fact that this post has been there for so long (2 1/2 years) suggests there is no real immediacy to comply with your directive, so I seek a prompt response from you clarifying all these points above – before deciding to comply with it with urgency.


Sanjeev Sabhlok 
IAS 1982 batch, resigned in 2001 to fight corruption and misgovernance
Senior Leader of Swarna Bharat Party (registered with Election Commission of India)
Executive Director India Policy Institute
Author, Breaking Free of Nehru and Discovery of Freedom


Thereafter I received strong support from someone so I wrote the following:

Thanks for your support, xxx. I do hope the press picks this up in India and USA. This is a big and long debate India needs to have. Every year, our liberties are being curtailed, one step at a time. 

It is shocking that s.66A of the information technology act is so barbaric and anti-liberty.

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

I'm not sure whether what I wrote was "grossly offensive" in any way – in fact, the judge said something grossly offensive – citing China's totalitarian regime as being suitable for the Constitutional liberal republic of India. But there is no other term in the Act which the police could have considered cause-worthy. Surely what I wrote was not menacing in any way. Calling for impeachment of a judge who wants to use Chinese precedents in India is an attempt to seek redress to constitutional remedies. It is not menacing. And what I wrote did not use any false information (s.66A(b)) – unless the judge claims that Indian Express misrepresented his words – in which case Indian Express ought to be cited (if at all!). 

This issue ("grossly" offensive) might be the only legal bone of contention in this case. I will review the police report and assess their logic in this case. 

But the idea that something "grossly" offensive can't be written and published is such a huge denial of basic freedom of speech. Without the right to cause (non-violent) offense, there can be no freedom of speech. We must wake up the press across the world to this draconian Indian law which wants to undo India's ENTIRE FREEDOM MOVEMENT.


Later I spoke with a senior Indian lawyer and expert who has fought valiantly against attempts to curb free speech. Based on advice received I decided to "cave in". I learnt taht this is a fight I cannot win. The ENTIRE SYSTEM is determined to DESTROY free speech. No argument in favour of human rights, basic freedoms, works in India. 

So within a few hours of my earlier message/s I wrote to the ACP informing him that I've decided to BLOCK MY OWN BLOG POST!  Better to fight this politically. LET THESE DRACONIAN LAWS BE CHANGED

So I wrote to the ACP:

Dear Sh Singh

Under duress and compulsion of the Indian laws and the many misrepresentations and harrassments Indians are regularly subject to by those who wish to block Indians from thinking and speaking their mind – even for the liberty of Indians  – I have decided to comply with your coercive directive and have removed the said blog post and Facebook post. 

As indicated, I have no control over the other link: xxx

I was very angry when I wrote the post, and may today use different language to get the same point across. It is now 2 1/2 years since I wrote that and don't wish to spend time on this particular issue, now. I would like us, instead, to change India's SYSTEM.

I will continue to wage a battle against all restrictions on freedom of speech in India through the political process, in which I hope you will join me. Ravindranath Tagore sought a Heaven of Freedom but we are now happy for our judges to promote the Chinese way to oppress our people. That is not consistent with our freedom struggle and constitutional protections. 

Please read the Sone Ki Chidiya agenda at and join the Swarna Bharat Party ( which was registered in June 2014.

I am reproducing the current version of our position regarding free speech:

Freedom of speech is the fixed star of liberty. Without it no other liberty exists. We would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. A mature democracy insists on absolute freedom of expression. It is improper for any group to impose its ‘morals’ on another so long as there is no direct harm being caused by those others. This freedom includes citizens’ right to peaceful protest – to the extent public order is not adversely affected.
We will foster citizen’s rights to absolute free speech. The only restriction to speech should relate to civil liability for libel, direct threats or direct incitement of violence, and reasonable restrictions on speech for appropriateness of audience (e.g. time-based limitations on TV programming).

To achieve such levels of freedom in India:

i. We will introduce relevant Constitutional amendments. We will assure ourselves, as Indians, the same absolute prohibition on government prevention of free speech that citizens of the USA enjoy through their First Amendment. This is an absolute right without ambiguity. For instance, when Lillian Gobitis Klose refused to salute the U.S. flag as an act of conscience, Justice Robert Jackson’s said: ‘If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.’

ii. We will review laws about national symbols and flag to bring them into consonance with freedom of speech. The rights of citizens – who express their dissent in peaceful ways – are more important and significant than the rights of a nation to protect its symbols. Symbols are one thing, freedom of conscience of the individual is absolute. India must not be slave to symbols, no matter how precious.

iii. We will repeal all laws that curtail freedom of speech (including IPC s.153A and s295A and s.66 of the IT Act that make certain online comments an offence or permit bans and censorship).

iv. We will revoke all bans on books and movies except for those involving libel and direct threats or direct incitement of violence. Further, where necessary, suitable classifications for appropriateness of audience will be provided for. We will also examine ways to democratise broadcasting services (TV, radio) on payment of market determined fee for spectrum.

v. The colonial provisions of sedition and blasphemy are inconsistent with free speech. We will amend the sedition provision (section 124A IPC) to check the recurring misuse of sedition by state authorities against political malcontents. The amendment will incorporate the Supreme Court’s interpretation in 1962 that, no matter how much the accused spreads 'disaffection' against the government, sedition can't be invoked unless he incites people to violence.

vi. Consistent with free speech, there is no requirement of any Censor Board in India. All that is need is a rating agency (that could be a film industry body) which rates films for suitability of viewing by age. Adults Indians do not need any the solicitous concern of any other Indian to tell them what they can watch and what they cannot. Such an arrangement assumes there is someone (a ‘grand-daddy’ of all of us) in India who can view what others can’t. If such person does not is fall into depravity or violence by viewing the film (before it is censored), it is preposterous to suggest that other Indian adults will depraved or violent if they do so. Let every Indian be held responsible for any violent actions they undertake. We do not want a nanny state.

vii. We are dedicated to greater internet freedom. The Internet offers a communications system uniquely free from government intervention. We will remove regulatory barriers to internet innovation, and prevent interference with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice video data and mobile payment systems. We object to any move and toward governance of the internet by any governmental or intergovernmental organization. 


I'm letting a few people know about this, and will also make note of this coercive withdrawal of my views, on my web log (blog). 




There is no point losing time in fighting a case in which I'm guaranteed to lose. The law is subject to the most SUBJECTIVE interpretation and has no avenue for appeal.

Instead, I need to continue working through the Sone Ki Chidiya agenda

That I've "caved in" is clear evidence that something is really wrong in India. Things are pretty hopeless for Indians.

Only a political movement can fix it. 

Join me in bringing liberty to India.


I think we need to CHANGE THE SYSTEM. Nothing less will do.

Continue Reading

Some Indian state governments have made it VERY hard to lodge RTI applications (treasury challan!)

Leave it to India to DESTROY the good intent of reformers.

Someone in India had the (good) idea to create a right to information. The fee was kept at Rs.10, which is around 20 Australian cents – presumably to make it EASIER to obtain information.

But the CORRUPT Governments of India didn’t like it one bit.

First thing they did was to block access by OCIs. Overseas Indian Citizens are told that they have ALL rights as Indian citizens except the right to vote/ contest elections. But this BASIC right is NOT available to them. I could spend 10 years in India as permanent resident (OCI is equivalent to lifelong residency visa) but I could never lodge RTI to get information of critical interest to me.  What a joke.

Second, State governments were permitted to vary the mode of payment.

Some, like Himachal, have made it payable ONLY by cash and Treasury Challan.

Now, to get a TC made is the most difficult thing in the word (I know, I was Deputy Commissioner). You first have to physically travel to the DC office, then stand in a long line, then pay Rs.10 and then get the TC. Total opportunity cost for some people could well be over Rs.25,000 per day, excluding transportation costs. Or you have to pay by cash. Can one send Rs.10 by mail? Will someone not steal it? I don’t know. This is ridiculous.

I notice that J&K has prohibited the use of non-judicial stamp paper so creating a huge problem for people.

This is the list of different modes of payment accepted by State governments [Source]

State Mode of payment
Arunachal Pradesh Treasury challan in head of account “0070-other Administrative charges
Assam, Goa Demand draft/ cash/ banker’s cheque
Daman & diu Challan form
Delhi, Meghalaya Demand draft/ cash/ banker’s cheque/ postal order
Gujarat Cash/ demand draft/ pay order/non judicial stamp paper
Haryana Cash/ treasury challan
Himachal Pradesh Treasury challan
Karnataka Indian postal order/ D.O./ bankers’ cheque/ pay order/ cash/ treasury challan
Kerala Demand draft/ cash/ banker’s cheque/ pay order/ court fee stamp/ challan
Maharashtra Demand draft/ cash/ banker’s cheque/ money order
Madhya Pradesh Cash/ treasury challan
Mizoram Treasury challan/ cash/ banker’s cheque
Orissa Cash/ court fee stamp/ challan
Pondicherry Cash/ demand draft/banker’s cheque
Punjab Cash/ demand draft/ cheque/ treasury challan
Rajasthan Demand draft/ cash/ banker’s cheque
Sikkim Bank receipt
Tamil Nadu Demand draft/ cash/  Banker’s cheque
Tripura Cash
Uttar Pradesh Cash/ demand draft/ banker’s cheque/ Indian postal order
Uttaranchal Demand draft/ cash/ banker’s cheque
West Bengal Court fee

Why not make it EASIER TO PAY?

No, for that would mean people could get access to RTIs.

Further, there is the most hopeless information given on various government websites re: how to lodge RTI. Deputy Commissioner Haridwar has NO information re: whom to pay, how to pay. So also Deputy Commissioner Solan. I have spent two hours searching the internet (e.g. State government websites, etc.). There are no forms, no simple instructions.


Shame on corrupt India.

This is PURE Third Word behaviour.

Continue Reading

Ramdev lied blatantly. On what basis did he claim that Modi will bring back black money in 100 days?

BJP acknowledge that Ramdev played a big role in Modi’s victory. But he took the country for a big ride. Total lies.

We all know that Ramdev lied blatantly to me.

He protected a BJP candidate from punishment for use of black money (he then lied to the TV that he had not said anything secretly).

I now notice that a few days before the BJP candidate incident, he had lied to the whole of India about Modi’s bringing back black money in 100 days. How much? LAKHS OF CRORES OF RUPEES OF BLACK MONEY. [Source]

He confirmed this lie on his Twitter account:

See spare image of this tweet.

The man misled the whole of India about Modi. He misled India about black money (he himself ACTIVELY PROTECTS the use of black money by BJP).

The country will not forgive such blatant lies.

Continue Reading

Preliminary draft RTI to Ministry of Food Processing Industries – for public comment

And the next draft RTI for comment:

CPIO address

Shri SK Singh
Under Secretary
Ministry of Food Processing Industries
Panchsheel Bhawan
August Kranti Marg
New Delhi-110049
Tel No. 011-26493224,

(b) Subject matter of the information request:

Information about the land, funding, management and activities of Patanjali Food and Herbal Park Pvt. Ltd. Uttarakhand operated under the banner of Ramkishan Yadav (popularly known as Baba Ramdev) and various trusts and companies operated under his banner, including what can be called the Patanjali trusts (such as Patanjali Yogpeeth Trust Divya Yoga Mandir Trust and Bharat Swabhiman Trust) and companies owned or managed by such Truasts and his brothers Dev dutta and Ram Bharat, brother-in-law Jasdev Shastri, Acharya Balakrishna and Swami Muktananad or through others.

(c) The period to which the information relates:

2005 to date.

(d) Specific details of information in less than 500 words: Details may be attached on additional A4 size paper if required.

Patanjali Food and Herbal Park Pvt. Ltd. Uttarakhand (henceforth called “Food Park”) received Government approval of Rs. 50 crores on 27 March 2009, with Rs.45 crores released to date, according to records on the website of the Ministry of Food Processing Industries.

I would like to seek the following documents in relation to the Food Park:

1) Copy of the business case/s that supported the approval of Rs. 50 crores.

2) Copy of details of land and ownership of land of the Food Park (including specific plot numbers and names of owners).

3) Copy of Government approval for use of the land for purposes of the Food Park.

4) Copy of the Government’s final approval letter dated 27.3.2009.

5) Copy of reports submitted by the Food Park to the Government of India.

6) Copy of documents relating to the names of companies operating in the Food Park. It is understood from the Times of India that Patanjali Ayurveda Limited is the largest concern with a paid up capital of 41 crore [Source:]. Copy of documents relating to the names of the directors of these companies, including any proof of income of these directors.

7) Copy of any investigations or inspections conducted regarding compliance of the Food Park with the conditions imposed for the grant, in particular, whether the companies that are operating in the Food Park are genuinely independent companies, or whether these are merely shell companies basically owned by Baba Ramdev, his relatives or Acharya Balakrishna and Swami Muktananad.

8) Copy of any investigation into the business practices of the Food Park, particularly in relation to practice of dodging taxes and failing to disclose income through use of further shell companies and trusts to move profits out of the system.

Continue Reading