INDIAN INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH INTO TRUE HISTORY

 

NEWSLETTER NO. 38 OF 16 FEBRUARY 2002

 

1. NEWS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS

 

1.1 Rationalism of Veer Savarkar ( in English )

 

Shree Godbole has started work on an English version of his book in Marathi. So far he has completed the 1st draft of The Prologue / Preface and Parts I to VIII. Our friend Pandit Ramakrushnayya of London has undertaken the most difficult and important task of checking the draft and making valuable suggestions for improvements. Godbole's original intention was to finish the entire works by February 2003. However, due to certain unexpected unfortunate events the work has been delayed and is now expected to be ready by July 2003.

 

 

1.2 Film on Veer Savarkar

 

At last the film on Veer Savarkar in Hindi was released in Hindusthan on 30 November 2001. We heard from many friends who saw the film that it has been very well done. Our hearty congratulations to famous music director Sudheer Phadake and all others involved in its production.

 

1.3 This is Nathuram speaking

 

Nathuram Godse shot and killed Mahatma Gandhi on 30 January 1948. His story has never been fully told. Above play was written some 15 years ago. There were some shows on stage in Maharashtra and in America. But, as expected Congressites made such a fuss about it that the play was banned by Government of Maharashtra. We were informed in October 2001 that the High Court of Mumbai has lifted the ban. We do hope that the play is translated into English for worldwide publicity.

 

1.4 Events of 11 September 2001 and after

 

On 11 September 2001 some Muslim Fundamentalists hijacked two planes belonging to United Airlines and crashed them into the World Trade Centre in New York. The twin towers collapsed killing some 7,000 people working in the buildings as well as 400 firemen who rushed to their rescue. All the passengers on board the planes and the hijackers also died. ( on 30 November 2001 the twin towers toll was below 3,500  including 76 Britons)

 

The news shook the world. Third hijacked plane crashed and damaged Pentagon in Washington. Osama Bin Laden who had been hiding in Afghanistan is the chief suspect for the suicide attacks. America took revenge on the perpetrators. We have a lot to learn from this tragedy and its aftermath. Here are our observations.

 

WHAT AMERICANS DID ELSEWHERE

 

* It is natural to feel sorry for the innocent American civilians who were killed. But what was America doing all these years? They have been helping suppressive regimes to kill innocent civilians all over the world. As long as American interests were served ordinary Americans turned a blind eye to such massacres. This has happened in countries of Central and South Americas. America has always supported dictatorial governments who treat native Indians like dirt. America never bothered about the human rights of those people.

 

* America was implicated in the assassinations of a number of world leaders in the 1960s and 1970s - although US law was changed in 1975 to ban the CIA from killing foreign heads of state. In 1960 CIA agents killed Patrice Lumumba, leader of Congo. They tried to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba several times, in 1961 Rafael Trujillo of Dominican Republic was shot dead by US backed rebels. In 1963 Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam was killed in a US backed coup.

 

Worst of all in 1973, a US backed uprising toppled Salvador Allende, Chile's left-wing (but democratically elected) president. Allende was killed in the fighting and Right-wing General Augusto Pinochet was installed in his place. And who is credited with this nasty work? Head of CIA, Mr George Bush, father of present US president George W Bush

(Metro 24 September 2001).

 

* When America has no qualms in carrying out such violent acts abroad, why should not the same happen to them in their country? As you sow, so shall you reap. We must think and NOT get carried away by emotions.

 

 

IMMIGRATION POLICY OF AMERICA

 

* We should feel sorry to the extent that many Hindus (including Sikhs) died in this incident. Otherwise, we must say that the Americans paid for their arrogance. Their immigration officers in Mumbai are just as rude and obstinate as their British counterparts. Here are some examples

 

Case I

 

We want to go to America

 

Why?

 

My son's wife is expecting a baby.

 

So?

 

We want to help her.

 

America is not a third world country. We have all the up to date facilities. We do not need your help. Visa refused.

 

Case IA ( similar to above )

 

We will grant visa to your wife, but not to you. What business have to got to be in

America

Case II

 

We want to go to America

 

Why?

 

I have two sons who are settled in America. We want to visit them.

 

How old are you?

 

Fifty-four

 

We do not think you are a genuine visitor. You are seeking job in America under the pretext of visiting your sons. Visa refused.

------------------------------

Case III

 

We want to go to America.

 

Why?

 

My wife wants to see her sister. I have retired from service and my son and daughter are married in India.

 

We do not think you are a genuine visitor. Permission refused.

 

These are true cases and not fictitious.

 

But, when it came to the hijackers, there was no questioning. Hijackers were easily allowed in by American Immigration authorities. Of the hijackers who launched the terrorist attacks passed through Britain in 2001. Several of them were here as recently as 3 months ago, raising the suspicion that the plot could have been hatched in U.K. They were abroad each of the four hijacked flights.

 

More than half of the 19 hijackers appear to have been Saudi nationals -  and Mr bin Laden is himself a Saudi, though long since deprived of citizenship.

[So, how did he travel? who supplied him the travel documents? ]

 

 

FAILURE OF THE INTELLIGENCE GATHERING AUTHORITIES

 

* What the F.B I does not know is precisely when the 11 terrorists arrived in the U.K. Such was the level of planning for the coordinated hijackers that it is more than likely that they arrived on fake passports and have, over the years, assumed several different identities. Cloned credit cards and mobile phones may also have been used and the complexities of Arab names to the untrained Western eye has also made the police's task that much harder.

 

The presence of the hijackers in Britain was conclusively established from documents and financial records, including credit cards, found at addresses in Florida and California. The reality is, however, that levels of intelligence about Islamic terrorism are desperately low in the U.K and officers are only now beginning a desperate game of catch-up.

 

(This could have been avoided if Britain had not been watching with disinterest, the Muslim terrorist activities in India, many of whom were recruited and trained here and have permanent residence here. And this fact was well publicised in British papers)

 

* The failure of British intelligence to keep track of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in this country drew angry criticism. M.I.5 chiefs are said to have allowed terror groups to operate in Britain in the belief that they could be easily tracked and their networks identified. But critics say that in practice the service did not keep tabs on Middle Eastern terror suspects and granted them what amounted to a licence to operate.

 

By the time Stella Rimington quit as head of M.I.5 in 1996, it is said to have been out of touch with Middle Eastern terror groups, who had used asylum seeker routs to put agents into Britain, and placed and recruited operatives among the large numbers of Middle Eastern students welcomed by British universities.

 

A key point in the breakdown of British intelligence is said to have been kidnapping of 18 Western tourists in Yemen in December 1998, of whom four were killed in a rescue operation. At the centre of the affair were British trainee terrorists.

 

The incident, according to M.I.5 critics, showed that the service ' hadn't a clue ' about what was happening. There have been complaints from intelligence services in France, Israel and Egypt that Middle Eastern terrorists have been using Britain as a planning base. Explosions on the Paris Metro are said to have followed instructions from London.

 

( Daily Mail 24 September 2001 )

--------------------

 

ROLE OF PAKISTAN

 

Roger Howard reported for Daily Mail on 24 September 2001

'Will the secret enemy within Pakistan get its finger on the nuclear trigger?'

 

The role of The Inter Service Agency (ISI) at this vital time should be to do the bidding of the government. In particular, it should be to rein in the savage and potentially destabilising activities of the country's armed militia - many paradoxically funded, armed and trained by the ISI as part of its primary concern to drive India from 'occupied' Kashmir. But don't count on it. Although the ISI has been deeply involved in attempts to persuade the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden, it has always supported the Kabul regime it did so much to build. One reason for the ISI's pro-Taliban bias is the conviction that, with a friendly regime in Moslem Afghanistan to the west, Pakistan could concentrate its armed forces on its eastern frontiers and intensify the Kashmir struggle.

 

How ironic it would be if the U.S attempt to root out aggressive fundamentalism in Afghanistan ended with similar forces triumphant in Pakistan. The irony would be all the greater because, in many respects, the ISI was modelled on the CIA. In the past, the two have often co-operated, not least in building up fundamentalist forces in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invaders.

So, what exactly is the ISI's game? The truth is that the Taliban is, or was until very recently, the ISI's creature. Back in the early Eighties, when America ( and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia ) was funding and arming those anti-Soviet fighters, huge amounts of American money and material was funnelled through Pakistan. General Zia, Pakistan's then military dictator, used the ISI as the conduit for this aid. It came to be staffed by many thousands of hand-picked men in Zia's mould. They were chosen from the armed forces for their loyalty and religious fervour. Most of them were Pathans, a people who live on both sides of the frontier between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

While the Taliban was fighting to gain control of Afghanistan, the ISI arranged initially for crucial, cross-border artillery barrages to support them. Since the Taliban emerged as a major player in 1995, it has been beholden to the ISI, which has provided it with masses of munitions and material.

 

The West would be foolish indeed to count on the loyalty of the ISI.

 

* Question that was never asked - when Pakistan backed Talibans were in power in Afghanistan why did some 2 million Afghan refugees stay in Pakistan? Why were they not sent back to Afghanistan? The reason is simple. Under the pretext of helping refugees, America and the west gave financial help to Pakistan.

 

* Pakistan did well out of this crisis as we expected. Bush lifted sanctions on India and Pakistan imposed because of their nuclear explosions. The truth was that U.S sanctions were hurting Pakistan far more than India. Even Bill Clinton wanted to lift sanctions against Pakistan, before he retired in January 2001. Now Bush found perfect excuse for doing so. And to show even handed approach he lifted sanctions against India also.

 

On 24 September Rahul Bedi reported from New Delhi for the Daily Telegraph " Lifting of sanctions a 'sweetener' for siding with US. "

 

The White House said the sanctions were no longer in America's 'national security interest'  ( So, everything boils down to being in 'America's national interests' ) as it prepared to confront Afghanistan's  ruling Taliban and bin Laden, the regime's guest.

 

The move means that Pakistan will be able to claim economic aid and loans denied in 1999 after Pakistan's military took over the democratically elected government and engaged in tit-for-tat nuclear tests with India.

 

America considers Pakistan's assistance vital as it borders Afghanistan and has extensive intelligence on the Taliban regime it helped to install in Kabul.

 

Pakistan is now entitled to make military purchases and is eligible for economic aid from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to help over its foreign debt of more than 25 billion pounds.

 

* Peter Popham reported from Islamabad for Independent On 24 September  

' America ends punishment imposed for testing of nuclear weapons '

Bush indicated as long ago as July 2001 that he wanted to lift sanctions against Pakistan.. Sanctions suspended military sales to India and Pakistan and prohibited new credit guarantees and international loans. It also banned countries from exporting  'items controlled for nuclear or missile reasons'  to the chronically hostile South Asian neighbours. Little harm was done to India, with its far larger and more buoyant economy, but Pakistan, which has scant foreign reserves and huge burden of debt repayments, was plunged into an economic crisis from which it has yet to emerge. As well as the lifting of sanctions, the U.S has also agreed to reschedule 412 million pounds of Pakistan's debt.

 

But by bartering nuclear restraint for co-operation on terrorism, Mr Bush risks giving a green light to other countries that might be on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, which will now hear the message that they can proceed without fear of penalty. In this haste to make the world free from one form of terror, Mr Bush risks condemning it to a different type a year or two down the road.

 

A similar myopic approach 20 years ago - when the CIA poured billions of dollars into Afghanistan's mujahedin and Islamic radical groups form other countries to enable them to fight America's proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union - produced a monster called Osama bin Laden.

 

Twenty years from now, yesterday's decision may be condemned for a similar reason.

 

* What we did not expect was the collapse of the opposition from Muslim Fundamentalists in Pakistan. They simply fizzled out instead of causing an uprising. That has lesson for us. We should not feel afraid of such people when we want to carry out our reforms and take firm action.

 

--------

 

PROPHESYS PROVED WRONG.

 

Military experts had warned that America could not win the war. They gave several reasons for this

 

(1) Taliban fighters

 

* Colonel Yuri Malishev wrote in Daily Mail on 19 September 2001 ' As a Red Army veteran of the Afghan war, I believe Bush is making a terrible mistake -he'll never beat the Taliban' He explained - The Taliban fighters that American and British forces will come up against are invisible. It is hard to explain what it is like to face enemies you cannot see. They move around in the mountains with impunity. They are constantly one step ahead of you - time and again. Over years they have laid down supplies of firepower, bombs, food and clothing in remote parts of this rough and mountainous terrain, which they know like back of their hands. Yet this is an environment which is utterly alien even to the best-trained soldier from other countries '

 

' Taliban may seem like a primitive force, but don't be deceived. If today's coalition of world powers does decide to invade Afghanistan, it has failed to learn the lessons of history. One Soviet veteran remarked this week in Moscow that the Americans would think Vietnam was a picnic compared with what they would face on the ground in Afgnahistan.'

 

* The head of the German equivalent of the SAS has angered senior Nato officers by predicting a "bloodbath" if special forces from allied nations move into Afghanistan to try to hunt down Osama bin Laden.

 

In a deliberate call for caution, Brig General Reinhard Gunzel, who commands the elite Kommando Spezialkrafte ( KSK) said success would be almost impossible without severe and unacceptable losses to his special troops and those of other allied nations.

 

Even if such a combined force did find bin Laden, this would not mean victory, he said " Behind him stand so many fanatic followers that another one would immediately replace him."

 

The 57-year-old brigadier general added : " Special forces would come lightly armed and unprotected. There would be a bloodbath. No special unit in the western world could agree to such an action."

 

The Brig Gen insisted that troops with a 'western philosophy' and a will not to die would have "little chance against men who are willing to give their lives in a fight."

( Daily Telegraph 24 September 2001, page2 )

 

Daily Telegraph also carried a report from David Blair in Peshawar. He wrote, " The veteran fighters from Afghanistan's Mujahideen exchanged memories of their victorious war against the former Soviet Union, fought between 1979 and 1989, with delight. On one point, they were adamant - any American soldier entering Afghanistan would share the fate of the Soviet army. Maulana Inyadullah who began fighting the Soviet invasion in 1982 at the age 16 and his colleagues are training guerrillas for the war inside Indian controlled Kashmir. What they call "Indian terrorism " ranks alongside America in their pantheon of evil.

 

But if any American troops set foot in Afghanistan, they will return to their homeland and join a new jihad against the latest foreign invader. They view their possible opponent with genial contempt. Mr Inyadullah, 35, said : " The Americans would be easier to defeat than the Russians. The Americans lead lavish lives and they are afraid of death. We are not afraid of death. The Americans love Pepsi Cola, we love death."

 

By contrast, the former fighters had a wary respect for Russian soldiers, especially those from the Spetsnaz special forces. Ali Amjud, 40, paid tribute to the prowess of the invaders he had fought. " The Russians were very brave and they were used to mountain warfare. The Spetsnaz were very dangerous, they climbed mountains like goats. Despite the fierce fights with Russians Mr Amjud never had any doubts about the final victory. " All the weapons, training and technology of the Russians gave way because they had no purpose in life. They only fought for a salary. We fought for the cause of Islam, because Allah commanded us."

" We embraced death, we were willing to be martyrs" he said.

 

(2) The Talibans also have Stringer missiles - the sophisticated U.S - built surface to surface missiles that Washington supplied in the mid -1980s to the mujahedin ( holy warriors ) fighting against the Soviet Union. ( Independent 24 September 2001 )

 

(3) The Afghan opposition forces in the north are not large. They have about 15,000 well-trained men, many of them in Panjshir, and another 40,000 militia, but they are now-finally -likely to receive as much money and as many arms as they want.

(Daily Telegraph 24 September 2001).

 

Moreover we were told that they are not a homogenous group and consist of Uzbecks, Tajiks, Hazaras and Persian speaking Heratis. They had nothing in common except utter hatred of Talibans.

 

(4) From late October to May, thick snow blankets much of Afghanistan, effectively shutting down the whole country. .. Said Mushtaba, a logistics officer for the opposition Northern Alliance, said : " We never launch offensives in winter. You can only get around in the mountains on foot, vehicles are no use."

 

(5) Other difficulty quoted was short time available for action by America. Ramadan, the Muslim holy month begins on 17 November. So, America will have to stop its military action for a month and once that is over there will be winter in Afghanistan making any kind of war impossible

 

All these doubts were proved wrong. There were no reprisals against Americans or Britons in Islamic countries even though they did not stop bombing during the month of Ramadan

 

 

THE END RESULT

 

It is surprising how quickly the Talibans were smashed. They did not put any sort of fight at all, let alone fight for the last man on any battle ground. Here is the summary of events

 

24 September 2001-- 1000 Muslim clerics last week called on Bin Laden to leave Afghanistan voluntarily.

 

1 October      --- Taliban rulers admitted that they were hiding Osama bin Laden.

 

7 October      --  Americans start bombing Taliban strongholds

 

17 November -  Kabul falls

 

21 November -  Kandahar and Kunduz still controlled by Taliban

 

27 November -  Kunduz falls

 

28 November -  U.S prepares for attack on Kandahar

 

30 November -  Alliance is inside last stronghold - Kandahar

 

7 December   -  Taliban rule 'over' as arms are surrendered.

 

 

 

SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE

Surprisingly enough interests of many diverse countries coincided and America got their full co-operation

 

* One immediate concession that Vladimir Putin of Russia sought was a promise from Washington not to question the brutal military campaign in Chechnya, where Russia says it too is fighting against Islamic 'terrorists'.

 

* Uzbekistan has also suffered from Islamic terrorism. In February 1999 the normally verdant peace of the capital Tashkent was rocked by an assassination attempt on Mr Karimov. At the time US embassy officials in Tashkent highlighted the military precision of the attack and said they were convinced that the terrorists had received training in Afghanistan and were backed by Osama bin Laden.

Mr Karimov was quick to blame Uzbekistan's Islamic terrorists and launched a crackdown. Human rights organisations reported that more than 5,000 Muslims were arrested, of whom some 500 remain in jail                        ( Daily Telegraph 24 September 2001. )

 

* Iran would have declared war on Taliban had it not been for the events of 11 September. Iranis are Shias and Talibans are Sunnis. Their feud goes back centuries. Moreover the drug trafficking by Taliban had created a very serious problem for Iran.

 

* China too has her own problem of Muslim separatists in its northwest region of Xinjing which share a short border with Afghanistan..

 

 

INTERNATIONAL LAW - WHAT LAW ?

 

The whole episode showed that Might is Right is still the law. What happened the UNO? Did that body approve use of military force? Nobody even raised this question.

 

 

HINDUS REPRESENTED AT LAST

 

On 24 September 2001 David Sapsted reported from New York for Daily Telegraph

 

Prayers and patriotism ease the grief.

 

A palatable feeling of the families' loss filled Yankee Stadium. The grief of more than 30,000 people who lost loved ones and colleagues in the World Trade centre attack found voice in a poignant but rousing prayer service in New York yesterday... The service started with a choral rendition of the Battle Hymn of the Republic followed by invocation from the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu clerics present. Prayers were said in languages from English to Hebrew, Spanish to Arabic.

 

 WHAT DO WE THINK ?

 

It was good that the Talibans were defeated. Consequences of their victory would have been too dreadful to imagine. What a pity that America did not have to pay price in terms of lives of U S Soldiers. More about this event in the next newsletter.

 

1.5 The BBC and Islam

 

BBC2 showed a series entitled Empire of Faith In July 2001. Here is some criticism of the series. On 22 August 2001, in the Daily Mail, in the Letters to the Editor column we found a letter by Keith Matheson of Cardiff. He wrote :-

 

" TV critic Peter Paterson was spot-on about the BBC series of programmes on Islam. It went to town to promote Islam as a caring and tolerant religion, but it didn't show the other side of the coin.

 

Could it not have mentioned that in Saudi Arabia it is forbidden for Christians to worship in public. In Indonesia, Christians have been forced out of their homes, slaughtered or forced to convert to Islam. In Afghanistan, a group of Christians is under threat for sharing their faith with Moslems.

 

I have no objection to Moslems practising their faith in this country, and I abhor the abuse that is sometimes directed against them. But theseprogrammes did not show the true face of Islam."

 

 

1.6 Indian rail is better

 

It is rare for the British newspapers to publish anything good about India. We were therefore surprised that on 22 October 2001 Metro, the London paper   published a letter by M Nathan. He says

" I wonder if Pamela Johnson ( Metro 18 Oct ) has ever actually been to a Third World country and experienced their transport system. May be she should, before immediately assuming that the 'integrated transport system' here is automatically better.

Given the resources that are available, the cheap price of tickets ( by local standards ) and the sheer number of people who use the local rail services and bus services in Mumbai, the authorities there are have achieved nothing short of a stellar service.

Although it may be more crowded, the people are more accommodating and do not cling on to their personal space, without any consideration of the inconvenience to their fellow passengers.

While the passengers in Mumbai have endured years of crowded trains, the service these days is reliable enough to ensure they can reach their destination on time. That is no mean accomplishment considering the drivers of some of these trains have been victims of the violence of irate passengers in the past."

 

 

2. AROUND LONDON TOUR OF PLACES ASSOCIATED WITH INDIAN FREEDOM FIGHTERS

 

Slide shows

 

Dr Agarkar of Kalyan, Maharashtra, conducts slide shows of Godbole's Special tour

 

He conducted a show at Tilak Mandir,  Bhiwandi on December 13, 2001. It is an old establishment functioning from 1920. He was told Lokmanya Tilak visited this place before 1920. The slide show went very well. 30 people attended.

Agarkar also made another show in a school in Bhandup, Mumbai in  January 2002.

 

 

3 Historical Findings : Memorial to Sir Curzon Wyllie

 

On 1 July 1909, Madanlal Dhingra, a contemporary of Veer Savarkar shot and killed Sir Curzon Wyllie, Political A.D C to Secretary of State for India. Godbole had emphasised for a long time that Wyllie was a very high ranking British officer and that a tablet was placed in his honour in St Paul's Cathedral, London. Godbole happened to visit this Cathedral recently and found that the tablet does indeed exist in the crypt of St Paul's, about 20 feet from where Nelson is buried. It is about 6 by 4 foot and depicts Wyllie's head with decorations. It reads

 

To the Glory of God

 

And in lasting memory of

 

LT COL SIR WILLIAM HUTT CURZON WYLLIE, KCIE, CVD

 

Younger son of General Sir William Wyllie, GCB

 

Born October 5th 1848. Assassinated July 1st 1909

 

while attending an assembly of his Indian fellow subjects

 

at the Imperial Institute in London.

 

This tablet is erected in sorrow and in love

 

by his friends.

 

Entering the Army in 1866 and the Indian Political

 

Department in 1879, he earned distinction in the

 

Afghan War of 1879-80, in Oudh, in Nepal, in

 

Central India and above all in Rajputana where

 

He rose to the highest rank in the Service. In

 

1901 he was chosen to be Political Aide-de-Camp

 

to the Secretary of State for India

 

Innocent of all offences.

 

A devoted public servant, courageous and gentle,

 

of a winning courtesy, and a constant self-denial.

 

He was loved by the Princes and people

 

and died as he had lived

 

in the Service of India

 

 

Jesus said I am the resurrection and life                             St

John XI 25

 

His servants shall serve Him, and they shall see his face  Rev XXII 34

 

1869-1870

 

1866-1869

 

R.S.R

106

 

Bombay Light Infantry

 

In 1909, it was indeed a very high honour for such a tablet to be placed in the crypt of St Paul's

 

 

 4 History today

 

4.1 Assimilation : Will it spell the end of the Jews ?

 

A very interesting article ( in three parts ) by Graham Turner appeared in The Daily Telegraph in April 2001. In part II he reports :-

 

 'America is finishing Hitler's work', declared James Adelman, a Jewish lawyer who lives near Chicago. Like a good many other Jews, he is deeply worried by the steep decline and dilution of the Jewish community in the United States because so many young Jews are 'marrying out'. In the last three years, I haven't been to a single wedding where both partners were Jewish. I think the Jewish culture in America will simply disappear. ..

 

 The sense of dismay is patent, and the statistics certainly look ominous. In America, six out of 10 Jews are marrying out. In Britain, it is as much as two thirds.

 

 The consequences for the future in both countries are dire. ' where there's a mixed marriage' said Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, who runs the World Union for progressive Jewry in New York, 'only 28 per cent of the children are raised as Jewish. In the next generation, a mere six per cent identify themselves as Jewish. So, in just two generations, you've eliminated the Jewish line.

 

Once, Jews who married out were severely stigmatised. Thirty years ago their parents would have killed them. Now, they don't even object.

In Britain, the Jewish community has fallen from 450,000 in the fifties to 260,000 today. In America, where the birth rate among all Jews is the lowest of any ethnic community, Jews now make up only 2 per cent of population, half of what it was 40 years ago.

 

There is no doubt that, in the years after the war, a great many British and American Jews were only too ready to dump religious practises that not only made no particular sense to them but also set them apart from the Gentile community. They wanted both accepted and successful.

 

Nor was that surprising. Even after the horrors of the Holocaust, they were still subjected to overt discrimination. In Britain, Jews were excluded from all manners of clubs and treated with disdain, particularly by the landed classes. In America, discrimination was far worse. Herman Obermayer remembers his family turning up in torrential rain at a motel in Maine where they had made a reservation, only to be turned away for being Jewish. " My father, who was the first Jewish president of Philadelphia Bar, just said : ' America has been very good to us - don't complain.' Ruth Bader Ginsburg, recalls signs outside bed-and breakfasts that said simply  "no dogs or Jews."

 

Jewish students had the same humiliating experience. " I wanted to do a doctorate in chemistry at Columbia " said Norman Lamm, now head of the Yeshiva University in New York, " and went along for an interview with a professor who came from Tennessee. He didn't even ask me to sit down. 'What makes you people want to come to Columbia?' he snapped. 'You mean New York Jews?' I said. 'Yes,' he replied. So I took my application form, tore it up and threw it in his face."

 

A good many American Jews, however, did not stand on their dignity in the same way. In order to get on, they imitated gentile customs and neglected religious observance. Kosher went out of the window. There were Christmas trees and presents. Reform Synagogues in Britain installed organs and imported choirs, on the Christian pattern. In some American synagogues, worshippers were asked to take off their yarmulkes, the skullcaps Jews wear to show respect to God.

 

" Many of my parents' generation" said Adele Malpass, who is 39 " wanted to be part of America. They didn't want to be different. In fact, they were worried about being different because, at that time, a lot of baggage came with it. So, their religion was watered down until there was very little religion or tradition in it. It was a very sanitised version of Judaism.              

 

The sense of crisis in both Britain and America is so profound that a minority of Jews have rebelled against what they perceive as the wishy-washiness of the parental generation. Some were afraid that their community could simply wither away and Jewish people become more observant when they feel insecure. Hence the revival of Orthodox Judaism in both countries.

 

Orthodox Jews make up only 10 -15 per cent of the Jewish community in America, compared with 60-65 per cent in Britain. The differences between the Orthodox version of Judaism and its Reform, Liberal and Conservative varieties, which account for the most of the rest, are enormous.

 

Orthodox Jews believe that the first five books of the Bible are God's word, and that's it. The liberal and Reform communities on the other hand, think it is a human and not divine document. The Orthodox have no choice but to conform to everything in those books, whereas others believe that Jews should study them and then do what their educated and enlightened consciences tell them to do.

 

That is only the most important of a vast range of differences. In Orthodox synagogues, men and women sit separately, with a mehitza, or barrier between them ; the rest worship together. Reform Judaism, which in America accounts for 45 per cent of synagogue - goers, has women rabbis, whereas Orthodox rabbis are invariably men. Orthodox Jews are strictly forbidden to marry out ; in American Reform synagogues, as many as a third of the families now include a non-Jewish parent.

 

For the Orthodox to be Jewish, you must either have a Jewish mother or one who has gone through an Orthodox conversion. Reform Rabbis in America, by contrast, regard any child as Jewish providing it has a Jewish father committed to raising it according to Jewish law.

 

Ultra Orthodox Jews believe the same as their Orthodox brethren, but they keep themselves to themselves rather than integrate with the general community. In Israel, there are whole towns that are virtually 100 per cent Ultra, and parts of Manchester and London have a very high proportion. Ultra men invariably wear black hats and clothes and normally sport beards and ringlets, following the Biblical injunction not to use a knife on the face.

 

Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox have one thing in common - large, sometimes huge, families. In the northern suburbs of Manchester, 10 children are not unusual and 15 not unknown. .. It is the same in parts of New York and in Israel, where Orthodox girls often marry at 18 and have four or five children by the time they are 25.

 

" What's the difference between an Orthodox, Conservative and reform wedding ?" I asked David Rosen, a former Chief Rabbi of Ireland. " Answer - at an Orthodox wedding, the bride's mother is pregnant. At the wedding of Conservative Jews, who are not so fussed about pre-marital sex, the bride is pregnant. At a reform wedding, the rabbi is pregnant."

 

To a Gentile, Orthodox Jews can seem remarkably pernickety about what they can and cannot do on Sabbath. . Jews are not permitted to use an umbrella on the Sabbath - and if one even touched it, that might be construed as using it...

 

 The Jewish community is certainly not going to boost its numbers significantly by conversion, since joining its ranks is made incrediblydifficult. Judaism has not been a proselytising for the past 2000 years. Ammiel Hirsch says that, traditionally, rabbis were expected to reject applicants for conversion twice, and talk about it only if the supplicant came back a third time. A reform conversion in the United States can still take three years, laced with private tutorials and written exams, but even that seems like a shoo-in compared with the obstacle course you have to negotiate to achieve an Orthodox conversion .. About 150 people apply each year and, even if they make it on to the files as serious contenders, which only a third do, there are some very high fences on this Grand National of a course.

One English convert who has experienced to the full the truth of conversion difficulties is 38 year old Hadar Fatida of Nottingham .. Astonishingly, Hadar reckons it was all worth it. She is extremely observant, believes that God wrote every single word of the Pentateuch and will not even touch a Bible which contains the New Testament, because she believes it to be a blasphemy.

 

NOTE :- This has strong implications for Hindus. The death of Jewish lobby in America will lead to problems for Israel. There are also strong parallels with Hindus. Are we facing the same fate as the Jews but by a different route?

 

 

4.2 Corruption  - but of a different kind

 

Many times, when scandals are exposed in the western society, we say, ' well, the westerners are just as corrupt as us Indians' There is one vital difference.

 

After the events of 11 September 2002 Bill Clinton, former president of America admitted he tried to have Osama Bin Laden killed in 1998 - but failed because the terrorist could not be found. He said that the assassination attempt followed the bombing of American embassies in East Africa. which Bin Laden is believed to have planted. The twin bombings of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 killed 224 people, including 12 Americans and injured more than 4,000.

 

Mr Clinton said, ' I authorised the arrest and, if necessary, the killing of Osama Bin Laden. We actually made contact with a group in Afghanistan to do it - but they were unsuccessful. We did everything we could. We also trained our commandos for a possible ground assault but we did not have the necessary intelligence to do it successfully.

 

Mr Clinton said he was optimistic about his successor George Bush's chances of capturing Bin Laden in Afghanistan because of the coalition of international support. He said, ' Now we have support from people who would not have supported us in 1998 and they give us many more tactical options than were available then. There are a lot of operational issues about putting ground troops in there - that will still not be easy. The President (Bush) still has to got some tough tactical calls to make, but I think they're handling this in a very careful and deliberate and strong way.' ( Metro, 24 September 2001 / Independent 24 Sept )

 

Bill Clinton was a famous womaniser, corrupt politician. But, when it came to the crunch he ordered execution of Bin Laden. That is something Indian politicians will never do. They will sit like cowards. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!!

 

Remember the Michel Fay affair of 1994? This hooligan damaged cars in Singapore and as result was sentenced to flogging.

 

Fay's Democratic member of U.S Congress Mr Tony Hall and even Bill Clinton appealed to the Singapore government for clemency. Christine Shelly, a State Department spokeswoman said ' What happens to American citizens abroad clearly is US business.

( Daily Telegraph 10 March 1994 )

 

The Guardian reported on 20 March 1994, " President Bill Clinton personally intervened yesterday for the third time. Mr Clinton described the proposed beating with with six strokes os a ratten cane as severe. .. Apparently unconcerned about exacerbating the bilateral animosity caused by the case, Mr Clinton said he remained unconvinced of Fay's guilt ... Mr Clinton's repeated personal intervention in the case have caused surprise and anger in Singapore, where over 1,000 people are sentenced to be caned each year. Singapore newspapers have claimed that Mr Clinton'd concern is the product of Occidental cultural arrogance, calling it unwarranted interference in the country's affairs.. In response, the New York Times among others have taken up Fay's cause, condemning Singapore's judicial brutality and mediaeval torture and suggested that Fay may have been unfairly singled out."

 

Eventually Fay was flogged. On 6 May 1994 Financial Times reported

 

Clinton angry over Singapore caning

 

" Bill Clinton said Singapore had made a mistake in giving Fay four lashes with a ratten cane for vandalism. ... The Singapore ambassador was summoned to the state department to receive US protest."

 

By 16 June 1994 BBC reported that America is going to punish Singapore for this incident. Singapore wants to host some world trade talks. America would veto the venue. (America indeed forced the talks to be held elsewhere.)

 

That is the difference between corrupt American and corrupt Indian politicians.

 

 

In 1979 Immigration officers in Britain humiliated newly wed girls from India who came to U.K with their husbands. British doctors at Heathrow airport carried out 'virginity tests' on them. The girls requested that at least they should be examined by women doctors. That request was flatly refused. British Medical Association saw nothing wrong in that. So sickening was the whole affair that Margaret Thatcher the British Prime Minister had to apologise unreservedly to the European Commission of Human Rights. AND yet where was Indira Gandhi? She did absolutely nothing. Now we know why the world respects Americans and despises Indians.

 

 

4.3 Hindu marriages - stop meddling with our rites.

 

Having attended a few Hindu marriages in England, I am becoming concerned about the way such ceremonies are conducted in England. We should not be carried away with European thinking of today. There is no need to change the marriage ceremony as it is. For example :-

 

False ideas of equality

 

(i) Bridegroom puts a Mangalsutra made up of black beads around the bride's neck. Immediately the bride puts a necklace around the bridegroom. This is childish. It is not the question of ' you gave me something so I will give you something in return.' That is not the reasoning behind a Hindu marriage.

(ii) Essentially, man is a wanderer. He does not want to stay in one place. It is the woman that gives him stability. And therefore it is the man who has to take oath of allegiance to his wife three times. He has to say, ' Dharme cha, Arthe cha, Kame cha, Nati charami ' He has to give this promise to the bride's father. But nothing is asked of the bride - that is the beauty of Hindu marriage. Men and women are NOT equal. They are complimentary to each other.

 

(iii) Saptapadi

 

This is an essential part of Hindu marriage. When Social Security officers investigate claims of widows they ask questions about the marriage ceremony that the woman went through. If she does not remember Saptabadi, there is suspicion about her claim.

 

Saptapadi means taking seven steps together by the couple. But again it is the man who asks his wife to share his fortune, status and comforts of married life. Here are the seven steps

 

(1) May we have plenty of food at all times. So take this first step with me.

 

(2) May we enjoy pleasures of body for a long time. So take this second step with me.

 

(3) May we enjoy wealth in our married life. So take this third step with me.

 

(4) May our married life be full of enjoyment. So take this fourth step with me.

 

(5) May we be blessed with beautiful children. So take this fifth step with me.

 

(6) May we enjoy all the seasons. So take this sixth step with me.

 

(7) May you be my lifelong friend and supporter of me. So take this seventh step with me.

 

Such is the beauty of our ceremony. Why spoil it with trying to emulate the Europeans ?. In a leaflet given out at the marriage in 1998 I found the following information -

 

Saptapadi - Both ( bride and groom ) take seven vows of marriage

 

(i) promise to be faithful to each other

 

(ii) to live together under all circumstances

 

(iii) to serve the parents and society at large.

 

(iv) to avoid that which hinders their sacred union.

 

(v) Both have equal rights in society.

 

(vi) to observe religious ceremonies together.

 

(vii) May the forces of nature - the fire, earth, air and water help us to give noble children.

 

Why deviate from our traditional ceremony ? Even the film Gandhi of

Richard Attenborough shows these seven steps clearly.

 

 

4.4 Yvonne Ridley is proud to be British. Are you proud to be an Indian?

 

Despite the turmoil caused by the events of 11 September 2001 Yvonne Ridley, a 43-year-old British woman journalist ventured into Afghanistan on 28 September near the city of Jalalabad without her passport and visa from Taliban, Though she wore burqa and was accompanied by two guides, Taliban soldiers became suspicious and arrested her. She was found to have a secret camera with her. And immediately there were pictures of Miss Ridley, her 74 year-old grandmother, her 9 year-old daughter Daisy and her dog in British newspapers. No one said that she was extremely foolish and must suffer the consequences. She knew very well that eight western foreign aid workers were held by Talibans for two months on charges of preaching Christianity. Americans started their bombing on 7 October.

 

She was chief reporter for Sunday Express and said that she was treated with respect and courtesy. ( The Talibans knew what the consequences of maltreatment would be )

 

Her nine-year-old daughter Daisy wrote to Tony Blair pleading for his help to win release of her mother

 

Following an intensive diplomatic offensive involving talks with Taliban officials in Pakistan, the hardline regime finally promised on Saturday 6th October to release her.

 

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he was 'delighted Miss Ridley was safe. I know what a great relief this must be for her family, especially at such a difficult and uncertain time' he said ( Daily Mail 9 October 2001)

 

The fact that Miss Ridley was a Captain in the Territorial Army was hardly mentioned. Daily Telegraph revealed that Miss Ridley had her daughter by a former Palestine Liberation Organisation ( PLO ) official.

 

 

Now ask yourself this question - what would have been the fate of an Indian woman reporter in a similar situation ? We need go no further. We found the answer on the front page of Times of India of 21 April 2001. It reported 'Bagladesh returns 15 bodies of BSF jawans.'

 

The Border Security Force ( BSF ) confirmed that Bagladesh had returned the bodies of 15 BSF soldiers who were killed in the attack by Bangaldesh Rifles ( BDR ) at the north-eastern border outpost. Most of the bodies, BSF sources said, were in mutilated form. Only seven dead soldiers could be identified while eight could not be as they were disfigured and beyond recognition. A preliminary inspection of the bodies of the soldiers indicated that they had been killed after being shot from very close range. They seem to have been killed in cold blood."

 

And what did Mr A B Bajpayee, the Indian Prime Minister do? He disarmed the Indian

BSF !!!

5. BEHAVIOUR OF CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS TODAY

 

5.1 THE CHRISTIANS

 

Creation controversy is alive again.

 

We dealt with Darwin versus Bible controversy in previous issues. The controversy continues. We found some interesting letters in the paper Metro of London, in response to a letter by Jane Rowett published on 5 October 2001

 

Contradictory Bible

 

James of Wildman of London wrote :-

 

Anyone with an ounce of commonsense knows the Bible contradicts itself many times, in very precise and unarguable ways. Consider the contrast between the depiction of God as Love in the New Testament with the spoilt child Lord Of Hosts, who orders every men, woman, child and animal of the Israelites' enemies slaughtered without mercy in the Old. The entirety of the Book of Job is about a pious man whom God deliberately tests to breaking point with the destruction of his farm, livelihood, family and health, and then punishes when he gets angry about his treatment. What kind of moral message is that ? I am a Christian and a believer, as Ms Rowett is, but her kind of dogmatic fundamentalism is both sick and stupid, and the root of much of the world's evil.

 

Brin Hodgskiss of London wrote :-

 

Ms Rowett suggests science must be questioned more, while the Bible must be blindly accepted. Apart from being contradictory, she seems to overlook the fact that rigorous questioning of beliefs is an essential part of both science and religion. Wasn't Jesus questioned by his disciples ? What do theologians ( many of whom are deeply religious ) do ? Without questioning, any belief is built on sand.

 

 

Shaun Meeham of Surrey wrote :-

 

Does Steve John ( Metro 4 October 2001 ) think all 'sins' in the bible make sense for today's world ? The Bible clearly says those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death ( Exodus 35:2). Am I morally obligated to kill all those who work on a Sunday or is it OK just to report them to the police ?

 

 

On 10 October 2001 we found the following letters in Metro

 

* David Nicholson wrote, " Unlike Jane Rowett ( Metro 5th ) I believe the Bible is no more than a set of moral guidelines and should not be taken literally. In the many years Bible has been written, re-written, translated and passed down by word of mouth, can Ms Rowlett not see the naivety of taking such a book at face value? There are many religions and beliefs and, because of this, there are many holy books. Does Ms Rowlett believeall of these are wrong and the Bible is the only true religious book ? It is because of these 'tunnel-vision' views many holy wars have started. When translated, these books say the same thing - be nice to each other.

 

* Gareth Bartlett of London wrote, " Jane Rowlett tells us we should spend more time questioning the 'wisdom' of scientists. Why then should we not spend more time questioning the Bible ?"

 

5.2 The Muslims

 

5.2.1 Muslims and the numbers game

 

* In the aftermath of the Muslim suicide bomber's attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001, Daily Mail reported on 24 September, ' the brothers (of Osama bin Laden the brain behind the attack) inherited a fortune from their construction magnate father, Mohammed. He left millions to each of his 57 children by 12 wives after dying in a plane crash in 1968.'

 

This is what the Muslims are up to. By producing such large number of children, they will conquer the world. They do not want to live in the 21st century.

 

The world now has 1.18 billion Muslims

 

 * European Convention on Human Rights was absorbed in British Law in the year 2000. Immediately Muslims stated that they MUST be allowed to marry four wives as it is their human right to do so. This means of course that each Muslim will produce 14 children, because the wives have human right to bear children too.

 

Will we Hindus ever learn?

 

5.2.2 (So called) Islamic Brotherhood of man

 

Muslims always taunt Hindus and say, " look we Muslims are one. You hurt one Muslim and the entire Muslim world will rise against you." We always foolishly believe in such boasts.

 

In January 2000, Sarfaz Najeib, a Muslim student was severely beaten outside the Majestyk nightclub in Leeds. Leeds United footballers Lee Bowyer, Jonathan Woodgate and two of their friends were charged with the assault. The case made headlines in British newspapers in 2001. But were there any demonstrations in Afghanistan? in Libya? in

Iran? Never. The Arabs, Pathans and Iranis despise Indian Muslims ( they may call themselves Pakistanis or Bangladeshis but in the eyes of others they are Indians ). And yet the Muslims in U.K go to fight in Chechnya and Afghanistan. Why can't they fight the racist attacks on them in Britain? Why are they scared stiff of the right wing white thugs?

 

 

Let us take two recent examples :-

 

(i) On 3 October 2001 Dailt Mail reported on page 26 ' Asian chef stabbed to death in racist attack.'

 

A father of two was beaten to death by a gang of white youths in an apparently racist attack, a court heard yesterday.

 

The Old Bailey heard how Shiblu Rahman, a 35 year old Bagladeshi chef was branded a 'Paki' before being set upon as he walked home from work.

 

Witnesses told of hearing a squealing noise 'like a dog being kicked ' as he begged for his life.

 

Mr Rahman, who had just finished a shift at an Indian restaurant in Romford, Essex, managed to crawl back to his flat on his hands and knees to raise the alarm with his terrified wife, it was claimed. But his injuries were so severe he died later that night, the jury was told.

 

One witness heard someone screaming outside. He looked down and saw three white males attacking an Asian man. They were punching and kicking him around his whole body and face. He was crying out ' please stop. What have I done to you, help, help.' The men were shouting out ' shut up you Paki'

 

 

(ii) On 25 January 2002 Evening Standard reported, ' Arsonists blamed for blaze at east London mosque'

 

Arsonists are being blamed for a fire which partly destroyed a mosque after a burglary. Police fear the attack on the Limehouse Bangladesh cultural centre and mosque may have been racist. Firefighters spent more than an hour tackling the blaze, but no one was hurt.

 

Detective Sergeant Mark Adams said : Burglary appears to be the most apparent motive as some money was stolen from a collection box. But we are not dismissing the suggestion that there could be a racial element to the incident.

 

Once again we ask, ' was there a reaction in the Muslim world ? ' The answer is NO. And where were the Islamic Jihadis ? They are nowhere to be seen.

 

5.3 CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS

In the aftermath of events of 11 September 2001 we found some interesting correspondence under the title : Bishops have missed the point about Islamic threat in the Daily Telegraph of 24 September.

 

Frank Baigel of Prestwich, Greater Manchester wrote

 

The 11 bishops ( letter, Sept 22 ) have misunderstood the real problem wit Islam inside and outside their own dioceses.

 

In their laudable concern for the welfare of Muslims in this country, they must realise by now that Islamic religious leaders, both here and abroad, have failed miserably to spread the message of peace and tolerance among their own young people.

 

Instead we have seen a radicalisation of their youth. This is the generation that supported the murderous suicide bombers in Israel and is now worried about the West's reaction to the obscenity in New York. These are the youngsters who need educating in the path of peace and tolerance for all faiths throughout the world.

 

All the Islamic leaders in the world - not just the few British Islamic scholars and pundits who appear in the media - must come out clearly and coherently with statements and actions that condemn all those Muslims involved in terrorist acts wherever they occur.

 

Not all the Muslims in the Middle East are terrorists, bur it seems that all the terrorists claim to be Muslims and claim to be acting in the name of Islam.

 

Francis Bennion of Devonshire wrote

 

The bishops are patently wrong in saying that the present struggle to suppress terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

 

The 1989 furore over Satanic Verses and the fatwa against Salman Rushdie brought us all up against what religion involves. Exclusive fundamentalism, whether Christian, Islamic or other, is the only possible stance for a true believer. The New Testament presents Christianity as the only true religion : ' No one comes to God except by me' ( John xiv 6 ) The Koran makes a similar claim for Islam. True believers must treat apostasy and blasphemy as ultimate transgressions, for they defame the very God they believe in.

 

 

Tim Clarke of Isle of Wight wrote

 

While I agree with bishops' humanitarian sentiments, I wonder if they are aware that the Koran denies that Christ died on the Cross. By implication, this refutes the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity

 

 

Brian Gill of London wrote

 

If Muslims adhering to the Islamic faith deny that Jesus Christ is Son of God, then how is it possible for the 11 bishops to state that we are all 'children of one God ' ? We need revelation, not deception.

 

 

S J Power of Solihull, West Midlands wrote

 

The idea of martyrdom in Christianity and Islam - it is not just a world of difference, but a whole eternity of difference.

 

The martyrs of ancient Rome died having been hunted down for their faith in Christ as the Son of God, and for refusing to offer sacrifice to pagan gods. Thus, they died in union with Jesus Christ, forgiving their executioners in sympathy with their Divine Saviour, who pleaded " Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" ( Luke, xiii,34 )

 

Islamic martyrs die with the whole idea of bringing about death to others as an offering to their god, Allah.

 

 

6. Why we cannot tell the truth

 

On 24 October 2001 the Evening Standard reported, " Exam board sacks GCSE whistleblower."

 

The man who blew the whistle on the "fixing" of record GCSE results has been sacked by the exam board which employed him in what he has described as 'conspiracy of silence' to hide the truth about education standards, writes Tom Miles.

 

Jeffery Robinson, a senior maths examiner with the Oxford, Cambridge and RSA exam board before he retired this year, exposed in the Evening Standard how over 16 years he saw marks required to achieve each exam grade steadily fall. Exam boards, driven by competition, deliberately manipulated pass rates to offer schools the best chance of league table success, he claimed. Now his employers have accused him of ' breaching confidentiality' and he has been sacked from his job as an examiner with his board's international arm, Cambridge International Examinations.

 

Today, Mr Robinson, 67, accused the board of acting out of 'spite' because he had exposed the truth. Several fellow maths examiners publicly disputed his claims but last week he dismissed an inquiry into his allegations as a 'whitewash' after Education Minister Stephen Timms said the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority had found no evidence that grade boundaries have been lowered.

 

Now he is seeking support to win his job back. The University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate says he broke contractual obligations not to disclose confidential information or to speak to the press.

 

David Hart of the National Association of Head Teachers, said he did not agree with Mr Robinson's claims about exam standards, but defends his right to speak out.

 

Our comments :- Now you know why Indian historians are afraid to speak the truth about Taj Mahal.

 

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 

 We are grateful to the following for their help :-

 

 * For making copies of our newsletters and distributing them to friends

Dina Nath Behl of London, Dr Godbole of Rochdale.

 

 * For making copies of our newsletters and sending them to friends in

Pune and America

An anonymous friend from Pune

 

 * For studying our writing and making suggestions of improvement

Pandit Ramkrishnayya of London.

 

 * For continuing with slide shows of Godbole's special tour of London.

Dr Agarkar, of Kalyan, Maharashtra.

 

** Please help by :-

 

 * acknowledging the receipt of this newsletter to the following address :-

 

 Mr V S Godbole

14 Turnberry Walk

Bedford

MK41, 8AZ

U.K

 

E Mail --  v.godbole3@ntlworld.com

 

Telephone Number 01234 - 357388

 

 * sending money to Mr Godbole (in pound sterling or Indian rupees )

 

* making five copies of this newsletter and sending them to your friends.

 

* circulating this newsletter among your friends.

 

* trying to get parts of this newsletter published in various newspapers,

 

  magazines and periodicals.

 

* arranging slide shows by Godbole at various social functions

 

* purchasing books from Mr Godbole.

 

VANDE MATARAM