BUDGET--WHAT ARE ITS COMPONENTS.

A budget as we all know is a document projecting the likely future incomes accruing in a country and the likely future expenditures in a period of 1 year.

A Budget allocates funds to various sectors of the economy as per the priorities of the Government and also deals with taxation and market/external borrowings to bridge the gap that arises out of shortage of Income over expenditure.

Despite resorting to additional taxation, as well as other measures like market and other borrowings, the budgetary gap in India remains unfilled and this is left uncovered. This is known as the fiscal deficit. The government would have to print additional currency notes to fill in this uncovered deficit and this leads to inflation as the money supply in the country expands.

It is normal for countries to have a budgetary deficit, but it should be ensured that the deficit does not get out of hand. If Greece is in distress today it is because of indiscriminate spending without bothering about fiscal deficit. So it went in for more and more borrowings till the time the loan burden became unserviceable.

There are two components in the union budget and they are:

1.Revenue Budget: It includes

a) Revenue Receipts of the Government received by way of taxation as well as other receipts

b) Revenue expenditure of the Government which is all expenditure incurred in running the government and all other expenditure spent on the public. This includes all the expenditure made by the government except capital expenditure.

2.Capital Budget: It includes

a) The Capital Receipts of the Government received by way of loans, small savings and recoveries of loans given to state governments

b)Capital Expenditure which is all the expenditure made in creation of a capital assets like buildings, machinery etc.

QUASARS- UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF THE UNIVERSE.

Our galaxy, the Milky Way is an average sized galaxy in the Universe and contains 10,000 crore stars. Each galaxy radiates an amount of energy, that makes it visible both visually and also by emission of Radio waves depending on the distance.

A class of objects were discovered known as Quasars (Quasi Stellar Radio Sources) which are exceedingly far away from us with the farthest ULAS J1120+0641 [2] being 1290 crore light years away. At this distance we should not have been able to even know that these objects existed because the energy emission that is required for their identification on Earth would have to be enormous.

These Quasars show swift variations in energy which is possible only when the energy is originating from a compact source. For these light fast variations to occur, the size of its source has to be the size of our solar system or less. With such a small object giving out radiation which is more than 100 times that is being emitted by a whole galaxy is simply unbelievable.

The Quasars are supposed by scientists to be galaxies with super massive black holes at their centers. Due to their vast distances from us we can only detect its super radiating core and nothing else is known about their other properties.

The other properties of Quasars are unknown to us and they remain one of the mysteries of the Universe to Cosmologists.

THE PROBLEM ECONOMY OF GREECE.

Greece enjoyed a very high standard of living which ranked it 29th on the Human Development index. Greece is a good case of what corruption can do to finish off a country. Greece is the most corrupt nation in Europe if one excludes Bulgaria. Greece’s underground economy (i.e.black money)

Which is around 25% of its GDP is very high for a European nation. Along with corruption,the crisis in Greece has also come about due to uncontrolled Government expenditure and the public sector accounted for 40% of its GDP. Greece is a welfare state and provided 32% of its 2012 budget for social services and pensions.

When Greece entered the European Union in the year 2000, its Government presented manipulated figures so that it qualified to enter the union. In 2009, the budget deficit stood at 15.4% which is unacceptable for any country. Its debt stood at 126% of its GDP which is far above the danger mark. (India presently has a debt equaling 76% of its GDP and its fiscal deficit is hovering round 5%). This led to further debt to service the debt and it spiraled to 148% of its GDP.

Greece’s GDP contracted by 6.8% during the year 2011 and the unemployment rate is presently around 21%.

It was about to go bankrupt when the IMF and the other Eurozone countries intervened and bailed it out with a loan package. Whether Greece would be able to service this package later is the billion Euro question. In order to obtain the bailout package, Greece had to agree for harsh austerity measures which resulted in social unrest. The other Eurozone nations are threatening to throw it out of the European Union if it does not deliver on the austerity measures and reduce its budgetary deficit.

IS PHILOSOPHY REALLY ESSENTIAL FOR MANKIND?

Some people say that Philosophy is very difficult to understand and there is no point in wasting time in reading Philosophy. –True enough, one need not read Philosophy or for that matter any other subject and still live on, but one should remember that if such a thing had happened then man would have still been in the caves and would not have been different from any other animal.

Some people think that Science is the greatest and there is no need for Philosophy at all. They should understand that Philosophy is the beginning of science and is also its ending.

When man does not know about something he speculates and this speculation is nothing but Philosophy. Then he experiments and that philosophical concept advances to become science.

Similarly when Science ends at a point man again speculates which again is Philosophy. This in turn gives rise to experimentation again that leads to further science and so on in an unending cycle.

Apart from this there are certain human values that are beyond Science. What is meant by Good, Bad, Beauty, Love, Justice, Morals etc. which cannot be dealt by Science and Philosophy comes to our rescue.

It so happens that in philosophy each philosopher considers his system to be the ultimate. But there comes another philosopher with his system and his own philosophy. No philosophy is ultimate and there is always room for development. This is the seed that germinates into science.

VEDAS- A BRIEF NOTE

 I know that most of my friends know about the Vedas in general. But I thought I would like to tell them a little more about them. Many of you may be knowing this as well, nevertheless even if a few people gain some additional knowledge on account of this I would be very happy.

The Vedas consist of 4 parts:

1. Samhita, 2. Brahmana, 3. Aranyaka and 4. The Upanishads.

Again there are 4 samhitas:

1. Rik, 2. Sama, 3. Yajur and 4. Atharva.

A Vedic sacrifice needs 4 priests:

1. Hota who addresses hymns in praise of the Gods to invoke their presence and participation in the sacrifice.

2. Udgata who sings the hymns to entertain and please the Gods.

3. Adhvaryu who performs the sacrifice according to the strict ritualistic code and gives offerings to the Gods.

And

4. Brahma who is the general supervisor of the sacrifice.

Rik is for the Hota, Sama is for the Udgata, Yajur is for the Adhvaryu and Atharva is for the Brahma.

The Brahmanas are written in prose. They are the elaboration of the complicated ritualism of the Vedas. They deal with the rules and regulations laid down for the performance of the rites and the sacrifices. There is little philosophy in these.

The appendages to the Brahmanas are the Aranyakas. They mark the transition from ritualistic to philosophic thought. There is a mystic interpretation of Vedic sacrifices in them.

The concluding portions of the Aranyakas are the Upanishads. They are intensely philosophical and spiritual. There are said to be 108 different Upanishads in all. However, 10 of them on whom Sankaracharya has commented are considered important. They are:

1. Isha.

2. Kena. 

3. Katha.

4. Prashna.

5. Mundaka.

6. Mandukya.

7. Aitareya.

8. Taittiriya.

9. Chandogya.

10. Brihadaranyaka.

The Upanishads regard Karma Kanda as secondary, being only a help to purify the mind which is made fit to receive the real teaching about Brahman.

MY VIEWS ON GOD-- II

I feel that there is nothing in this Universe that is not God. The Universe stretches in an infinite number of dimensions. Humans know only 3-Length, Breadth and Height. Even if we consider Time to be a dimension there are only 4 dimensions known to man. How much may science develop, man would never be able even visualize the ultimate reality because he does not possess the faculties to comprehend it.

I have a great analogy (this is my own idea and I have not taken it from any ones thought) for visualizing the role of man in the universe (which in turn is God or the ultimate). See the human cell, which our scientists have discovered. Cell is a part of the human body. It multiplies and therefore the body grows, it dies and the body dies. It is a part and parcel of our body and is never separate from it. It can never exist separate from the body. Similarly a body can never exist without a cell. The cell unconsciously fulfills all the functions that are required for the human body. It does not know that it is a part of the body because it cannot think like humans do. It does not have a brain. Similarly each particle in the Universe is a part and parcel of the whole. The Universe cannot exist without that particle and the particle cannot exist without the Universe. I call each particle perfect because it fulfills its function perfectly. It cannot be anything else but perfect because if this particle is imperfect, then so is God of whom it is a part. This is the reason why I do not believe in Good and Bad per se. All deeds happen within God and are again perfect by themselves. That is why I do not believe in anything called sin.

But if that is the case, then how to determine what a person should do. Good and bad can be defined in a different way without linking them to God. That is by taking society as a base. Why is the society formed? It is for the mutual benefit of the individuals that are part of it. Man is like any other animal, the only difference being his brain. In the olden times man lived in the open and in caves as animals do today. But that was an insecure life. He had to continuously hunt for food. It may be available one day and not available on another. He had to sometime fight for his food. Similarly, some other man may covet his mate and take her by force if he is stronger. There was chaos and the stronger always prevailed. Even the stronger man was not safe from attack from a still stronger man. Therefore everyone was insecure. Slowly with time man discovered that association with each other protected him from such insecurity. That is how society came into existence. Since society is formed for mutual benefit, anything that threatens to destroy the fabric of society should be termed as bad and that helps the smooth perpetration of the society as good. Seen this way, a murder is bad because it hurts an individual for whose benefit society is formed. A person helping another person is good because it will improve the security of the person who is a part of the society. Good and bad can also change as per the circumstances and are only relative the ultimate aim being the smooth continuation of the society. At the same time none of the concepts set forth by the society should be accepted unquestioningly. Everything should be questioned and inquired into to find whether it helps the smooth existence of the individuals that form its part. It should also be dynamic and adapt itself to the changing environment so that it accepts modern ideas continuously and does not hinder the development of independent thought. There was a time when people were persecuted just because they said that the earth revolved around the sun. Giordano Bruno was burnt at stake for believing in pantheism. I feel that those things are bad because they restrict the freedom of an individual and thereby harm the society as a whole.

I do not believe in a soul. Consciousness and body are never separate. Consciousness arises when certain conditions of the body are fulfilled and ceases when those conditions are extinguished. We can never find the whys and where fore’s of this because this is related to the ultimate reality and we do not have the mental faculties to even comprehend the Ultimate Reality much less find reasons for its operation.

The problem with man is, he thinks that he can understand everything that is happening in the universe. He thinks that because he has a structured way of thinking, everything should come into his thought. It never occurs to him that he is no better than a particle of sand in the universe’s scheme of things. A cell can never comprehend its significance in the body; similarly man can never comprehend his significance in the Universe either.

Man has invented God in his own model to explain away the unexplained. Man feels, so he expects the God to feel, man juxtaposes all the good qualities as defined by him on to God. Since only all the good qualities are appended to God, the concept of God is good for the society. God is in fact the ideal man who is all powerful as per society. This concept of God puts the fear of the other world into man and tempers him to an extent that he moderates his actions and controls himself. That is why I say that religion is a necessary thing for society. But it should not become so rigid as to restrict the progress of the society itself for whose benefit it has been formed.

No religion was founded with a bad intention, and the idea was to bring peace to humans. Unfortunately, religious interpreters twist religion for their own benefit with the result that the original teachings get obscured. An amazing example is Buddhism. Buddhism was founded as a reaction to the idolatry of Hinduism and Buddha was totally against idol worship. Nevertheless, his followers worship Buddha’s image now, which is totally against his own teaching. He was also made into an incarnation of Lord Vishnu.

There may be some parts of this writeup that may be totally against what people believe in general. I thought I would put down to you the way I think about God. I do not claim this to be the only possible explanation for the Universe, but this is how I think. I know that nothing is final in science and philosophy. 

SPINOZA-A PHILOSOPHER WHO THINKS SIMILAR TO ME.

Before I go about writing my own views of God I felt it would only be apt to write down briefly how my favorite philosopher(along with Sankaracharya) lived. I am a great fan of Spinoza (Baruch de Espionoza) and hold him in great regard. When I read about him, I found that he thought in many ways like I do.

Spinoza lived an extremely simple and Spartan life. Although he is not Christian, you would find from Espinoza’s life (which I had given in brief below) that he had followed the sayings of Christ unknowingly and never coveted anything.

Espinoza’s parents came from the Iberian Peninsula in the 17th century and are Portuguese Jews They ran away to Holland as the Jews were being persecuted in all other parts of Europe at that time. Espinoza thoroughly studied the Old Testament as well as the Talmud (Jewish religious literature). He then studied the works of the Jewish philosophers Moses Maimonides, Hasdai Crescas and Ibn Ezra (These are considered to be the most brilliant of Jewish philosophers).

Spinoza lost faith in Jewish orthodoxy when the Jewish community excommunicated a skeptic called Euriel Acosta who questioned the established faith. So humiliated was Acosta that he committed suicide. This event made Espinoza lose faith in religion. When the elders of the Jewish community in Holland came to know that Espinoza was talking against the established faith, they were alarmed. They considered him to be a brilliant mind and a future light of their community. They immediately summoned him and offered him 500 dollars (remember that was a princely sum in the 17th century) if he gave up talking against the faith. Espinoza refused and was excommunicated. He was then just 24 years old. From then onwards he became a loner.

After his fathers death his sister tried to grab the property that should be rightfully Espinoza’s. He filed a suit in the court and won the case. He then gave away the property to his sister saying that he did not want the money but only wanted to prove that he was in the right. For his livelihood he polished lenses. He then contemplated and started writing his philosophical treatises and became famous throughout Europe. Some of the scientists of his time like Henry Oldenburg, Leibnitz and Christian Huygens have become great fans of his. His greatest fan was the rich Dutch businessman Simon Devries. He tried to bring Espinoza back amongst the society, but Espinoza was not willing. Devries felt bad about Espinoza’s poverty and offered 1000 dollars but Espinoza’s reply was no. After that he bequeathed his entire property to Espinoza, which he again declined.

Espinoza’s fame spread to Louis IX of France. He said he would give a handsome pension to Espinoza if he dedicated one of his works to him and as usual Espinoza refused. Heidelberg University (Germany) offered him the chair of philosophy with a rider that he should not criticize religion. Again Espinoza refused. Since he was polishing lenses, due to the dust entering into the lungs he suffered from Tuberculosis and died.

One of the terms that are frequently found in his writings is “God”(which he called substance). A philosopher described Espinoza as a “God intoxicated philosopher”. Despite that many of his contemporaries dubbed him as an atheist.

What are Espinoza’s opinions about God? He said that (God which he called substance) is the only existence and there is nothing that is not God. Its existence is not dependent on anything else. It is the cause and reason of all existence. It is infinite, eternal, self-existent, self-caused. It does not have anything called will. It does not do anything thinking of an end. If it does something thinking of an end it means it has a desire. Desire arises only when something is lacking. When there is nothing else apart from it, when it is complete by itself why would it have a desire or will?

This is just a brief glimpse of the great philosopher and I broadly agree with him on many of the things he said.

There are some things where my thinking is different from Espinoza’s. I would now write my own views about God in a later post as already this has grown too long and would tax anyone who bothers to read it.

PROBLEM OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

When India was granted independence by the British in 1947, there were some 567(sometimes stated as 562 or 565) independent states headed by Indian Maharajas. They were independent only in name though as they were totally dependent on the British for their defense and did not have any standing armies. A British resident was present in each of these states and the Maharajas had to follow the instructions of the resident. 

When the British gave independence to India they refused to merge the independent states with their Indian territories and insisted that the concerned state has to decide whether to accede to India or to Pakistan.

A ministry for the integration of the Indian states has been set up which was headed by the strongman Sardar Vallabhai Patel. Patel coerced most of the Maharajas into signing an accession with India. There were however. A few maharajas refused initially for the accession but had to fall in line when Patel threatened them. These included the Maharaja of Jodhpur, the Maharaja of Udaipur and the Maharaja of Travancore. Finally 3 states remained, and they were 1) Jammu and Kashmir, 2) Hyderabad and 3) Junagarh in Gujarat.

When India gained Independence, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir was Hari Singh. He had an ambition of making Jammu and Kashmir into an independent country by not joining either India or Pakistan. Hari Singh then requested for a standstill agreement with both Pakistan and India. Pakistan agreed and signed a standstill agreement with Jammu and Kashmir. India however wanted to negotiate on the issue and invited Hari Singh for talks. This scared Pakistan. As Hari Singh was Hindu they felt that India might persuade him to accede to India. They now panicked and armed a band of 5000 Pashtoon tribals and sent them into Jammu and Kashmir to occupy it. The tribals were clandestinely supported by the Pakistani army. As they were tribals the raiders were very undisciplined and instead of taking over Jammu and Kashmir as per the plan of Pakistan they started indulging in looting and arson.

Jammu and Kashmir, like all other Indian states at that time did not have any army worth the name. Its police were no match for the raiders. The tribals advanced deep into Jammu and Kashmir and were knocking at the gates of Srinagar. The Maharaja now grew desperate and appealed to India for help asking the Indian army to defend Jammu and Kashmir. But now India insisted unless an accession treaty is signed it cannot send in its army into J&K as that would be against international conventions. The Maharaja had no choice and had to sign the instrument of accession but insisted on some conditions which were enshrined in article 370 of the India constitution.

Article 370 of the Indian constitution: This specifies that except for Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance and Communications,(matters specified in the instrument of accession) the Indian Parliament needs the State Government's concurrence for applying all other laws. Thus the state's residents lived under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights, as compared to other Indians.

The Indian army then went into Jammu and Kashmir and fought with the raiders. However, before the raiders abetted by the Pakistani army could be pushed back, the Indian government appealed to the United Nations which ordered an immediate ceasefire.

By the time of ceasefire 57% of the area of J&K was in control of the raiders. Later Pakistan ceded 20% of that area to China and retained the remaining 37%. China built the Karakorum highway on the area ceded to it by Pakistan. India now has just 43% of the area of Jammu and Kashmir. As per the UN resolution, the Pakistani army has to immediately withdraw from J&K and thereafter the India army too has to be withdrawn and a plebiscite si to be held in J&K to assess its mood of accession. As the Pakistani army never withdrew from J&K, the Indian army too did not withdraw and the plebiscite never took place till now.

Unless both the armies withdraw from J&K and a plebiscite is conducted there, normalcy is unlikely to return to the valley and the Kashmir problem would persist forever.

PETROL PRICE HIKE......GOVERNMENT CHEATING THE PUBLIC.

Last time when the oil prices were hiked by the Government, a barrel of oil was quoting at 100 US Dollars. The price of petrol at that time was around Rs 70.20 in AP.

 A liter of petrol attracts the following taxes from the Government in my state AP after the price revision on 15.09.11. Prices in other states may differ slightly:

                                                                                               %                 Amount Rs.

1. Basic price including refining-------------------             49.25                  36.20

2. Excise duty 24%----------------------------------                  24.00                  17.64

3. VAT 9%-------------------------------------------                        9.00                    6.61

4. Petrol customs duty 3%-------------------------                  3.00                    2.21

5. Crude oil customs duty 2%---------------------                 2 .00                   1.47

6. Education Tax 0.75%----------------------------                   0.75                    0.55

7. Transportation 10%------------------------------                 10.00                   7.35

8. Dealer commission 2%--------------------------                  2.00                   1.47

                                         TOTAL PRICE                                                 Rs 73.50

As you can see out of the Petrol price being charged from us a large percentage of the cost is on account of taxes which are given in no’s 2,3,4,5 and 6. Together they account for around 38% of the amount being charged from us. There may be some minor variations in taxes in different states.

In the year 2009-10 around 216,000 lakh litres of Petrol is produced/consumed in India. We can assume for comparison that the consumption would be the same for 2011-12 as well. The value of this @ Rs 70 per liter would be Rs 1,51,200 crores. The tax revenue accruing to the Government on this account would be 38% of this or Rs 57,456 crores.

Out of the Rs 3.14 hike now Rs 1.19 would go to the Government coffers by way of taxes. For the whole year this would translate to a tax revenue of Rs 2,570 crores to the Government.

Last time when Petrol price was hiked to Rs 70 (May 2011) the oil price was ruling at around USD 100 per barrel. It has now come down to around USD 88 per barrel. The government should have therefore brought down the prices of Petrol from Rs 70. They have conveniently forgotten that and have actually raised the prices now by Rs 3.14 stating the depreciation of rupee is causing losses to the government. True the rupee has depreciated by around 6% since the last petrol hike in May 11, but this is more than offset by the decrease in crude prices by 12% during the same period. Despite accounting for the depreciation of the rupee the crude price has registered a fall of around 6% since the last hike and hence the prices have to be brought down, but instead they have been increased.

The oil companies have given the amazing logic that they are incurring losses on account of the appreciation of the US Dollar. One wonders whether this is a deliberate ploy by the government to raise its tax revenues by additional taxation without the people actually realizing that they are being taxed. They are using the oil companies as a front to stifle the public outcry.

It is high time the Government switches over from the ad valorem duties on Petroleum products to specific duties as the taxation on them is already too high. They should also avoid resorting to higher taxation in the guise of rise in international prices.

CORRUPTION SCANDALS IN EARLY INDEPENDENT INDIA....

Since the topic of corruption is raging strong, I thought that I would have a look at the corruption cases in early India.....its is refreshing to note that in all of these cases except one the guilty were punished....I am giving below the gist of the cases....It is a tribute to Nehru and the Congress leaders of that day that people on charges of corruption are ultimately punished except in a few instances. 

.Jeeps Scandal involving VK Krishna Menon 1948

The history of corruption in post-Independence India starts with the Jeep scandal in 1948, when a transaction concerning purchase of jeeps for the army needed for Kashmir operation was entered into by V.K.Krishna Menon, the then High Commissioner for India in London with a foreign firm without observing normal procedure. Contrary to the demand of the opposition for judicial inquiry as suggested by the Inquiry Committee led by Ananthsayanam Ayyangar, the then Government announced in September 1955 that the Jeep scandal case was closed. Soon after in February 1956 Krishna Menon was inducted into the Nehru cabinet as minister without portfolio.

THE MUDGAL CASE 1951

The Mudgal case came into the open when Prime Minister Jawa-harlal Nehru moved a motion in the Provisional Parliament in 1951 for constitution of a five- member committee headed by T.T. Krishnamachari to probe the conduct and activities of one of its members, H.G. Mudgal of the Congress party itself. This case did not come out due to a media investigation like in the present but was brought out by Nehru himself.

Mudgal was accused of receiving financial and business advantages from the Bombay Bullion Asso¬ciation for "canvassing support and making propaganda in Parlia¬ment on problems like option business, stamp duty, etc".

Nehru had two meetings with the member at which he confronted Mudgal with the evidence on hand. Nehru was unimpressed by Mudgal's defence and decided to move the motion for constitution of a parliamentary committee to investigate into Mudgal's conduct.

The Speaker also brushed aside demands for the proceedings being held in camera. "The public will not know what we are do¬ing and it is no use keeping back from the public what our true colours are."

After weighing the evidence at hand and examining several witnesses including Mudgal's assistant, the committee concluded that Mudgal's conduct was derogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standards which Parliament is entitled to expect from its members.

While the report of the committee was unanimous, four of its members chose to append separate notes on the issues that the Mudgal case had thrown up namely the conduct of the MP’s.

The Haridas Mundhra Scandal 1958

This was the first financial scandal that surfaced in free India. It was exposed by none other than Feroze Gandhi in 1958 much to the discomfiture of his father in law Nehru and his government. Haridas Mundhra is a Calcutta based industrialist and stock speculator. In 1956 Mundhra was found guilty by the Bombay stock exchange for selling forged shares. In 1957 he managed to influence the LIC into investing Rs 1.40 crores (which is large by the then standards) in his 6 loss making companies namely Richardson and Cruddas, Jessops, Smith Stanistreet, Osler lamps, Agnelo Brothers and British India Corp. This investment was done under government pressure and bypassed the LIC’s investment committee and LIC has lost most of that money. The M.C.Chagla committee was appointed by the government to investigate the matter. A public hearing was undertaken and large crowds gathered to watch the proceedings. The report was submitted in just 24 days and the Finanace Minister T.T.Krishnamachari had to resign from his office.

Haridas Mundhra was arrested and sent to prison. It later transpired that Mundhra has also cheated the government on income tax in connivance with some officials.

In the Mundhra case, the action of the government was swift and the investigation was concluded in just 24 days of public hearings and Mundhra was punished.

Charges against Pratap Singh Kairon,Chief Minister of Punjab 1963/64:

Pratap Singh Kairon and his family members were accused of corruption in early 1960’s. A judicial inquiry into the charges against Kairon was held after an indictment was handed out by the Supreme Court in a case filed by a Punjab Civil Surgeon. It was the first judicial inquiry into charges of corruption, setup against a Chief Minister, in office, by the Government of India.

The commission concluded that "There is no getting away from the fact that S. Pratap Singh Kairon knew or had ample reason to suspect that his sons and relatives were allegedly exploiting his influence and powers... In view of his inaction in the face of the circumstances here in before alluded to, he must be held to have connived at the doings of his sons and relatives, his colleagues and the government officers."

Kairon's initial reaction was to stick to his office in spite of the adverse verdict. The report of the enquiry commission came in 1964, 2 months after Shastri assumed office as PM. When the report was published, Kairon had no option but to quit. He was later assassinated by Sucha Singh.

Charges against K.D.Malviya minister:

K.D.Malaviya was a minister in charge of ministry of Mines and Fuel. There were allegations that the minister has received Rs 10,000 from Seerajuddin&Co from Orissa with which his ministry had dealings. Malaviya was a leftists in the congress party and was known to be ideologically close to Nehru. Despite that when the allegations surfaced Nehru did not hesitate in ordering an inquiry. The commission found Malaviya guilty and he had to resign from his office. His resignation was readily accepted by Nehru. Contrast Nehrus behavior with those that came after him. Would we ever be able to get leaders like him again? Many people have contempt for Nehru without actually reading much about him. Nothing can be a better eye opener than the book written by MO Mathai, his personal secretary who does describe Nehru's weaknesses...and was roundly criticized and condemned by Congressmen but Mathai also says that he has not seen any greater nationalist than Nehru.

Lik