Cong demands Swaraj’s resignation, also drags in PM

New Delhi: Congress today demanded resignation of External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj for her help to Indian fugitive Lalit Modi in getting British travel documents and dragged Prime Minister Narendra Modi into the raging row, saying “needle of suspicion rests” at his door.

The main opposition party also posed 11 questions to the Prime Minister, including “what happens to transparency and non-corruption promise” made by him and how the government would bring back black money if it “supports” such people who are accused of money laundering to the tune of Rs 700 crore.

“People are asking ‘is (PM Narendra) Modi helping (Lalit) Modi,” Congress spokesman Randeep Singh Surjewala told a press conference. Rejecting Swaraj’s defence that she helped Lalit Modi on “humanitarian grounds”, Surjewala alleged quid-pro-quo, saying the former IPL Commissioner had helped her husband Swaraj Kaushal in securing admission for his nephew in a UK university in 2013 and he enjoyed proximity to BJP leaders, including its president Amit Shah.

The AICC Incharge of Communications Department also wondered if the government had come out with a policy to help criminals on humanitarian ground and if it would be extended to wanted terrorist Dawood Ibrahim too if he sought such a help.

“What we have witnessed today involves blatant quid pro quo, direct help to a fugitive from law, internecine warfare between the top echelons of government and unraveling of the nexus between BJP leadership and its crony criminal friends… Swaraj should immediately step down,” he said.
He sought to know if the Prime Minister was aware of Swaraj’s help to the former IPL chief and said he must come out with a statement to make facts clear.

“The role of the Prime Minister is under a cloud of suspicion as to whether there was a tacit endorsement of the action… The needle of suspicion rests at the door of the office of the Prime Minister,” he said.

Noting that Lalit Modi was wanted in cases involving money laundering of Rs 700 crore, he took a dig at the Prime Minister over his promise of bringing back black money. “What happens to the transparency’ and no-corruption claims of the Prime Minister when it is apparent that his own government is actively helping a fugitive from Indian law accused of financial bungling and money laundering?,” he said.

The party also released several e-mails purportedly exchanged between Lalit Modi and British MP Keith Vaz over the issue. In one mail, Vaz writes, “From the horses mouth! I will do a thank you we will need her again.”

Surjewala also sought to know if the BJP government had changed India’s stand on Lalit Modi’s extradition from the UK as the previous UPA dispensation had been pressing for it. The then Finance Minister P Chidambaram had written twice to the UK government besides taking up the issue in his meeting with his British counterpart in 2013, the Congress spokesman said.

“What action do the Prime Minister and Finance Ministry propose to take against Lalit Modi in light of the fresh revelations? Do they propose to compound and close all the offenses of financial bungling, illegal betting and money laundering against him…,” he asked.

Taking a swipe at the Modi government, he wondered if this is its new policy to help all fugitives of law on humanitarian grounds. “Is this declaration of policy per se not against national interest and shameful?”

Noting that BJP had demanded resignation of the then Union minister and Congress MP Shashi Tharoor as his wife allegedly owned a “small” stake in an IPL team, Surjewala asked if the Prime Minister and BJP will now apply the same yardsticks of “moral and constitutional propriety and accountability”.

Hinting that Lalit Modi’s equations with several BJP leaders, including Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje besides Shah, might have played a role in Swaraj’s help to him, the Congress leader wondered if it was done with the prior approval of Narendra Modi.

In one of the e-mails released by Congress, Vaz wrote to UK Visas and Immigration Director Sarah Rapson, pushing for grant of travel documents to Lalit Modi, saying, “Foreign Minister of India (Sushma Swaraj) has spoken to me making it very clear that the Indian Government has no objection to the travel document being granted which is contrary to what the refusal notice has stated… Frankly everyone has been involved in this apart from Ban-ki-Moon.”


  1. For the former Ministers of Karnataka, the Reddy brothers who are in jail now, Mrs. Swaraj was a motherly figure; she blessed both of them. She is a mother figure for the extremely rich people and the business of politics is a mutual blessing business. She was blessed too; and this issue will be unravelling some hidden blessing story.

    • Dear A. S. Mathew, as long as the mining mafia don Gali Janardhana Reddy was a free man, Sushma Swaraj used to invariably visit him and Sriramulu on every ‘Vara Mahalaxmi Vratam’ day to collect booty from them and supply it to the RSS and BJP! Once Reddy was put in jail, Goddess Vara Maha Lxmi could not pay the booty to the RSS and the BJP, and thus she stopped worshipping Goddess Laxmi. Now that Reddy is let lose by Modi’s CBI, She certainly would visit Ballari again regularly!

      Another booty center for the RSS is criminal Modi, who is a fugitive living in the UK. Sushma’s daughter is Modi’s advocate and her husband Kaushal is the advisor. Now RSS sent Sushma to him also for evident purpose, as usual. RSS says Sushma is blemishless. But, the RSS – MP, Varun Gandhi and his Mother Maneka Gandhi, who is Sushma’s cabinet colleague now in Modi’s government, had published a lot about the blemishless-ness of Sushma in their news magazine Surya! The vivid “revealing pictures” in their scores, about Suresh Ram s/o Babu Jagjivan Ram with Sushma, published in Surya, are the standing testimony to her blemishless-ness!!!

      To get more information about his foreign minister, Original Paimaam of USA may visit: http://www.echarcha./forum/archive/index/php/t-25710.html and many more sites

Leave a Reply