Anant Kumar Hegde’s shocker: Rahul born to a Muslim and Christian! How did he become a Brahmin?

coastaldigest.com web desk
March 11, 2019

Newsroom, Mar 11: Union Minister and BJP’s controversy specialist Anant Kumar Hegde has dropped an obnoxious bombshell by claiming that Congress supremo Rahul Gandhi was born to a Muslim.

Addressing a public rally in his Uttara Kannada constituency recently, Hegde attacked Congress president Rahul Gandhi after Congress leaders raised questions on the Balakot air strikes conducted in February post the Pulwama terror attack.

Hegde questioned whether Gandhi would be willing to provide a DNA proof to establish that he is of the Brahmin caste.

Hegde said, “The entire world is talking about our might and valour. They want proof of our IAF’s air strikes against Pakistan.”

"...But how did the son of a Muslim become a Brahmin named Gandhi? What proof do they have? He was born to a Muslim father and Christian mother. How does he become a Brahmin?" the Minister of State for Skill Development questioned. Calling Rahul Gandhi a ‘pardesi’, a foreigner”

Hegde is no stranger to making such comments on Gandhi and others. Less than two months ago, Hegde had called Gandhi a ‘hybrid specimen’ who was ‘born to a Christian and a Muslim’.

Earlier, Hegde had also targeted the Muslim wife of a politician and made derogatory comments.

Comments

A Kannadiga
 - 
Tuesday, 12 Mar 2019

Ananth Kumar uncultured, absolutely unfit as a politician.

FAIRMAN
 - 
Tuesday, 12 Mar 2019

This man is the worst crazy type of  person as peoples rep.

You can imagine if a MP is behaving like this, what could be the credentials of his party and those who elected him.

 

He is so stupid, he does not have brain to think, that

To follow any religion, is required who is his father or mother.

Our constitution fully empowers every citizen to follow the religion of their choice, propagate it

 also.

No religion refuses anyone from following their choice of religion.

 

 

Is Rajeev Gandhi Muslim.

This so called MP does not know also, Rajeev Gandhi’s father Firoz Gandhi was a Farsi man.

I hope Rajeev Gandhi is Muslim, but we know he is not.

Becoming Muslim is it sin. Muslim means person who submits to the will of his creator the God.

 

I can prove that Hege’s ancestor Father was Muslim. Our first father Adam was Muslim, biologically all were  Muslims.  Again Muslim means person who obeys or submits to his creator.

 

But later as they grow, they inherited their parents or chose to remain their parents religion.

Is it sin. This is what requ

This man is the worst crazy type of  person as peoples rep.

You can imagine if a MP is behaving like this, what could be the credentials of his party and those who elected him.

 

He is so stupid, he does not have brain to think, that

To follow any religion, is required who is his father or mother.

Our constitution fully empowers every citizen to follow the religion of their choice, propagate it

 also.

No religion refuses anyone from following their choice of religion.

 

Is Rajeev Gandhi Muslim.

This so called MP does not know also, Rajeev Gandhi’s father Firoz Gandhi was a Farsi man.

I hope Rajeev Gandhi is Muslim, but we know he is not.

Becoming Muslim is it sin. Muslim means person who submits to the will of his creator the God.

 

I can prove that Hege’s ancestor Father was Muslim. Our first father Adam was Muslim, biologically all were  Muslims.  Again Muslim means person who obeys or submits to his creator.

 

But later as they grow, they inherited their parents or chose to remain their parents religion.

Is it sin. This is what required a person to be loyal to his creator and obey his creator.

 

May God give wisdom to this man and save his followers.

 

 

 

ired a person to be loyal to his creator and obey his creator.

 

May God give wisdom to this man and save his followers.

 

 

 

shaji
 - 
Tuesday, 12 Mar 2019

This person is mentally sick and does not know about parents of Rahul Gandhi.   He thinks everyone like him who has no trace of his own parents.   This Gowda has no trace from where he came.   He should be kicked out to andaman to live with monkeys, apes etc.  

Madan
 - 
Tuesday, 12 Mar 2019

this man have more more hatrate to mulsim community..

 

after 2019 they will make you to count your sin did in past..

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 24,2020

New Delhi, Jan 24: The Election Commission of India on Friday told the Supreme Court that its 2018 direction asking poll candidates to declare their criminal antecedents in electronic and print media has not helped curb criminalisation of politics. The poll panel suggested that instead of asking candidates to declare criminal antecedents in the media, political parties should be asked not to give tickets to candidates with criminal background.

A bench of Justices R F Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat asked the ECI to come up with a framework within one week which can help curb criminalisation of politics in nation's interest.

The top court asked the petitioner BJP leader and advocate Ashiwini Upadhyay and the poll panel to sit together and come up with suggestions which would help him in curbing criminalisation of politics.

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench had unanimously held that all candidates will have to declare their criminal antecedents to the Election Commission before contesting polls and had called for a wider publicity, through print and electronic media about antecedents of candidates.

Comments

Satya Vishwasi
 - 
Saturday, 25 Jan 2020

What about those criminals who were already in parliament and vidahan sabhas? shall the ECI cancel their positions?

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 19,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.

Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.

“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.

In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.

‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’

Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.

“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.

In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.

“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.

The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 23,2020

Mangaluru, Mar 23: In its efforts to contain the outbreak of COVID-19, the district administration has ordered that all shops and establishments selling essential commodities to remain open only between 0600 hrs and 1200 hrs from Tuesday till March 31.

Dakshina Kannada Deputy Commissioner Sindhu B Rupesh, in a press release here, announced that autorickshaws and taxis should not ferry passengers and should be utilised only during emergencies and for transportation of essential commodities among others.

Ms Sindhu has also ordered shutting down industries. Only those industries involved in the production of essential commodities, medicines, medical instruments, medicine, fuel, farm produce among others had been exempted, Please log in to get detailed story.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.