Fwd: How she illegally took over the Kumbakonan Math

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: swamijyoti
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:12:13 -0500
Subject: How she illegally took over the Kumbakonan Math
To: swamijyoti@gmail.com


http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/

HOW SHE ILLEGALLY TOOK OVER
THE KUMBAKONAN MATH

A quick glance at the contents:
============================================
'They forced me out of the Math': Mathadhipathi
'Tamil Nadu: India's Nazi State': Hindu Conference of Canada
She has declared a war against the Kanchi Math: Punj
Her Police are terrorizing the devotees at Kalavai
Her Police acting beyond law
The cunning ways of her police
'There was not even an iota of truth in the charges
made by the police': Jr. Acharya
Her police say they have evidence
The "black sheep"
* * *
JAYA'S BIAS AND ACT OF VENDETTA'
(Tit bits from the public opinion, as reflected in the Newspapers)
* * *
OUR READER'S REACT
* * *
Appendix:
The Karnataka Government patronizing the harvesting of souls
Muslim fishermen are thankful to Krishna Temple
A Glaring Omission of Hindus contributions to Tsunami Victims
Preaching Islam while soliciting funds from General public
Grave danger posed by the radical Islam in our neighborhood
First Hindu News Portal Launched
============================================


--

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/
http://www.vivekanandagospel.org/AwakeArise.pdf

Fwd: India now one of top FDI destinations: AT Kearney survey

January 21st

amazing. even with the congress and communists in power!

or is it because these guys know that this is the best chance for the
mncs to make out like bandits, as indicated by the pharma companies'
coup on the patent ordinance? it's a small matter of greasing the
right palms, which are always ready to sell the motherland for 30
pieces of silver. mir jafar and jaichand live on.

FDI confidence survey, 2004

China remains the top destination for foreign investment, according to
an annual survey by A.T. Kearney, a management consultancy. America
comes second, followed by India, which has risen from 6th place a year
ago. India now ranks second, after China, as a location for foreign
investment in manufacturing. For the first time, Japan is ranked in
the top ten. The survey is based on ratings from big firms of the
countries they favour for foreign investment.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3577722

the Economist bitches that the patent ordinance hasn't done enough

January 21st

this is the position i would have expected the nytimes to take as
well: that india has not BOGU'd enough for their pleasure. the
economist is living up to its classic NATO, atlanticist bias.

the following is premium content from the economist, so i am only
including excerpts so as to protect their copyright.


Patently unclear
Jan 20th 2005
From The Economist print edition


A crucial new intellectual-property regime disappoints

INDIA'S emergence as an economic powerhouse was supposed to take
another big step forward this year with the implementation of a new
regime for protecting patents. The weak old regime long deterred
foreign firms from setting up in India to use the country's ample
supply of educated workers to develop new products. Foreign drug
firms, in particular, looked forward eagerly to the new patent
protections that India was obliged to introduce this year to meet the
requirements of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Alas, when India's
government duly issued an ordinance (presidential decree) on patents
in late December 2004, foreign firms (and some enlightened Indian
ones) were almost as disappointed as the anti-WTO protesters around
the world who had long opposed stronger patent protection.

....

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), one of the world's biggest drug firms, has long
aspired to do much more of its drug development in India. In 2003 it
even formed a partnership with Ranbaxy Laboratories, one of India's
leading drug firms, to identify new drugs and conduct early-stage
clinical trials. But the weak legal regime severely limited what the
partnership could do.

Yet GSK says it is disappointed with India's new patent regime. It
wants legislation to back up unambiguously the ordinance. But the
Communist Party of India (Marxist)—one of the backers of the otherwise
mostly market-oriented government—has decided to oppose the new
legislation when it comes up for debate in Parliament in February.

...

And even a good law would still have to contend with India's
inefficient bureaucracy and legal system. With over 12,000
applications already filed with the patent office and the new team of
evaluators, it may take at least 18 months for the first product
patent to be issued.

WHILE WE SLEEP, NYT FIGHTS FOR INDIANS

January 21st

the nyt has never been known to be friendly to india; their
correspondents in the recent past have included the most irritating
barbara crossette.

this conversion to india's cause at this late hour smells a little
fishy. has someone figured out the angle here?


---------- Forwarded message ----------


NYT slams UPA govt, its patents ordinance

The editorial virtually accuses govt of playing into
the hands of the multinational pharma lobby

NAVIKA KUMAR

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 19 While Indian parliamentarians
are busy in the coming Assembly elections in three
states, and domestic politics takes up national
platforms, it was left to The New York Times to take
up India's cause at the global forum. In an editorial,
''India's choice'', on January 18, the American daily
made a scathing attack on the Patents Ordinance
promulgated just a few days ago by the government. The
editorial virtually accuses the Indian government of
playing into the hands of the multinational
pharmaceutical lobby, with a last ray of hope of
getting this ''fixed'' when the Bill comes up for
discussion in Parliament during Budget session.
''Heavily influenced by multinational and Indian
drug-makers eager to sell patented medicines to
India's huge middle-class, the decree is so tilted
toward the pharmaceutical industry that it does not
even take advantage of rights countries enjoy under
the WTO to protect public health,'' says the
editorial. India signed the WTO agreement on
intellectual property in 1994 and was required to
institute patents on products by January 1, 2005.
While the previous NDA government introduced the
Patents Bill in Parliament, it never came up for
debate. It fell into the domain of the present UPA
government to meet the product patent deadline of
January '05. The NYT's fears are not only for Indians
who could now face the spectre of more expensive
drugs, but for ''patients in 200 countries'' for whom
generic knockoffs of AIDS drugs made by Indian
manufacturers ''have brought the price of
antiretroviral therapy down to $140 a year from
$12,000.'' Commerce Minister Kamal Nath, however, sees
the criticism as a ploy against the government. ''I'm
confident of what I've done and the law we have framed
so I don't care what anybody else says,'' he says. But
Opposition slam the way the Ordinance has been
handled. ''I strongly believe that the issue of
patents never ought to have been decided through an
Ordinance,'' says BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who, as the
NDA's commerce minister, presented the Patents Bill
originally. ''This government dragged its feet on the
issue between May to December and post-Parliament,
presented a fait accompli in the form of the
Ordinance,'' he says. The NYT states that India has
become the world's supplier of cheap AIDS drugs
because it has the necessary raw materials and ''a
thriving and sophisticated copycat drug industry made
possible by laws that grant patents to the process of
making medicines, rather than to the drugs
themselves.'' The editorial says the new Ordinance
''will effectively end the copycat industry for newer
drugs.'' The NYT specifically criticises the Patents
Ordinance which makes obtaining a compulsory license
''slow and difficult'' for Indian companies, which,
''with each application would face a fight from
multinational drug firms and the governments that do
their bidding.'' Kamal Nath says ''the Rules are being
put in place and any loopholes will be addressed
through that.'' The NYT also criticises two provisions
that, it says, ''industry lobbyists managed to
insert'' which go beyond the WTO rules. These refer to
the Ordinance's effect limiting ''efforts to challenge
patents before they take effect'' and its ''vague''
rules for ''evergreening''— companies extending their
patents by switching from a capsule to tablet, for
example, or finding a new use for the product.
Pfizer's S Ramakrishna, senior director, corporate
affairs, says: ''The NYT editorial stokes unfounded
fears. The fact is that most AIDS drugs and
retrovirals that the article talks of are pre-1995
drugs which do not fall under the patent regime.''

INDIA'S CHOICE
The New York Times
Jan 19, 2005
For an AIDS patient in a poor country lucky enough to
get antiretroviral treatment, chances are that the
pills that stave off death come from India. Generic
knockoffs of AIDS drugs made by Indian manufacturers -
now treating patients in 200 countries - have brought
the price of antiretroviral therapy down to $140 a
year from $12,000.
That luck may soon run out. India has become the
world's supplier of cheap AIDS drugs because it has
the necessary raw materials and a thriving and
sophisticated copycat drug industry made possible by
laws that grant patents to the process of making
medicines, rather than to the drugs themselves. But
when India signed the World Trade Organization's
agreement on intellectual property in 1994, it was
required to institute patents on products by Jan. 1,
2005. These rules have little to do with free trade
and more to do with the lobbying power of the American
and European pharmaceutical industries.
India's government has issued rules that will
effectively end the copycat industry for newer drugs.
For the world's poor, this will be a double hit -
cutting off the supply of affordable medicines and
removing the generic competition that drives down the
cost of brand-name drugs.
But there is still a chance to fix the flaws in these
rules, because they are contained in a decree that
must be approved by Parliament. Heavily influenced by
multinational and Indian drug makers eager to sell
patented medicines to India's huge middle class, the
decree is so tilted toward the pharmaceutical industry
that it does not even take advantage of rights
countries enjoy under the W.T.O. to protect public
health.
In November 2001, members of the World Trade
Organization agreed that countries can issue
compulsory licenses to permit generic production of
patented drugs without the patent holder's agreement
in order to protect public health, at home or abroad.
But under the Indian decree, getting a compulsory
license would be slow and difficult; each application
would face a fight from multinational drug firms and
the governments that do their bidding. India should
adopt laws that expedite compulsory licenses,
including allowing challenges to proceed after
production begins instead of holding it up. In
addition, India must close an important loophole
affecting the sick overseas: under the current rules,
Malawi, for example, could not import from India an
inexpensive version of a medicine that is not under
patent in Malawi. This needs to be changed.
Industry lobbyists managed to insert two noxious
provisions in the decree that go well beyond the
W.T.O. rules. The decree would limit efforts to
challenge patents before they take effect. Also, it is
uncomfortably vague about whether companies could
engage in "evergreening" - extending their patents by
switching from a capsule to tablet, for example, or
finding a new use for the product. This practice, a
problem in America and elsewhere, extends monopolies
and discourages innovation.
While some drugs - those that existed before 1995 -
will always be off patent in India, some widely used
drugs are at risk. So are new generations of much more
expensive AIDS drugs that will soon be needed
worldwide as resistance builds to current medicines.
If the decree is not changed before Parliament
approves it, it will be very difficult for India to
supply them. India's parliamentarians must keep in
mind that this arcane dispute is actually a crucial
battleground for the health of hundreds of millions of
people in India and worldwide.



________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online
Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony

Pedophilia, Sri Lanka, tsunami?

January 16th, 2005

Question from a reader:

I tend to agree with your assessments... however it has occurred to
me that even more so..that the 'wrath' if it is such... is also a wake
up call concerning the hardly ever mentioned sex trade that is rampant
in many of the areas that were affected. Especially Sri Lanka where it
is known to be the highest rate of paedophelia against young boys in
the world... What are your thoughts about this?

Letters to the Editor: Bush's Policy on Pakistan @ Los Angeles Times

January 16th 2005


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-general15jan15,1,17576.story?coll=la-news-comment-letters
Bush's Policy on Pakistan @
Los Angeles Times
January 15, 2005

Re "Just Another General," editorial, Jan. 9: It is about time that a
newspaper has finally taken a stand against Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf's illegitimate regime.

A man who has come to power through a military coup and then
spuriously justified his presidency by rigging two elections is no
friend of democracy.

I find it ironic that Washington invades countries and spends billions
of dollars just to "spread democracy," yet overlooks Pakistan's
dictatorship. I agree 100% with your profound statement that "the best
thing for Pakistan now would be for him to let the [Pakistan People's
Party] leader, Benazir Bhutto, back into the country."

Democracy is at a halt in Pakistan, and for Pakistan, South Asia and
the world to move forward, it must take the step toward restoring
democracy.

Shafqat Tanweer

Co-Chairman, Pakistan
League of America
Washington
*

In your editorial, you point out that Musharraf has taken billions in
American aid and there is very little progress to show for it.

Pakistani madrasas continue to teach hatred of non-Muslims. Abdul
Qadeer Khan remains free after spreading nuclear arms know-how to
Korea, Iran and Libya. Very little progress has been seen in
eliminating Al Qaeda leaders sheltered in Pakistani territory. And
Pakistan-supported terrorists continue to infiltrate and kill people
in the Indian state of Kashmir.

On the other hand, Joshua Muravchik, in his article "The Birth Pangs
of Arab Democracy" (Commentary, Jan. 9), expresses optimism about
progress of democracy in Arab countries because of American pressure.
Why is America exempting the Pakistani dictator from the same
pressure? Why is the American public quiet about the billions given
away to Pakistan?

Maneck N. Bhujwala
Huntington Beach
*

Your editorial is another indication of the failure of President
Bush's approach to foreign policy. It is clear to most that Pakistan
is not a friend to the U.S. and is, in fact, supporting insurgents,
threatening its neighbors and building a nuclear stockpile complete
with long-range missiles.

Bush, in his obsession with Iraq, paid $3 billion of taxpayers' money
to Musharraf to look the other way while he proceeded with his Iraq
agenda.

Musharraf is a military dictator of the worst kind. This is a shameful
example of bad foreign policy.

Martin Harrington
Thousand Oaks

Fwd: Freedom fighter: one who fights against Bharat

Freedom Fighter: One who fights against India
SWARAJ THAPA

Economic Times SATURDAY, JANUARY 15, 2005 01:57:01 AM]

NEW DELHI: Freedom fighters or anti-nationals? It was after a heated
debate that the Union Cabinet yesterday finally ruled that the 4,000
odd Communists, who not only participated in the armed struggle to
liberate Hyderabad but persisted with the agitation against the Indian
government, were freedom fighters.

The issue found its inclusion in the agenda of the Cabinet after the
Left parties, especially the CPI, made a strong push for giving due
recognition to these fighters, mostly Communists, who took part in the
Telengana armed struggle from 1946 to 1949.

These persons were identified to be included in the list of freedom
fighters in 1997 during the tenure of Union home minister Indrajit
Gupta, who had announced that they would get pensions at par with
those who participated in the movement led by the Congress.

The list was initially drawn by CPI leader Rajeshwar Rao.

However, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it appears, was in a quandary
as the previous NDA government had rejected the proposal on the ground
that they were not freedom fighters but had in fact, worked against
the freedom struggle.

The BJP, in fact, had even come out with booklets describing them as
anti-nationals and the then Andhra Pradesh BJP chief Vidyasagar Rao
had written to then union home minister LK Advani on the issue.

Shedding light on the subject in the meeting yesterday, union I&B
minister Jaipal Reddy, who was also a member of the UF government,
told his cabinet colleagues that though the Communists did intend to
persist with the arms struggle even after the liberation of Hyderabad,
they dropped the agitation subsequently.

However, since they had fought together alongside others from the
Congress against the seventh Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan, their
contribution in the struggle to free Hyderabad could not be negated.

With this argument carrying the day, it was eventually decided to
include Communists in the list of 11,000 previously sanctioned by the
government.

The 4,000 odd additions, who are now entitled to pensions and other
benefits like railway concessions, will cost the exchequer Rs 20 crore
anually.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-991036,curpg-2.cms