An interesting article, who was this minister??

Why are you afraid in naming the politician?

Better to name the Politician, instead of giving clues.

Re: An interesting article, who was this minister??

by vijay » 10 hours ago

It is my opinion only which may be right or wrong , so I prefer not to disclose. However you are free to do so..

OK. Because I could not guess about the Minister, I asked you to give an exact clue

rambabu wrote:

OK. Because I could not guess about the Minister, I asked you to give an exact clue

I am least interested in either your opinions or views ..

I am surprised that our members are unable to identify the concerned minister.  He became Prime minister.  He had also held diplomatic assignment as ambassador.  This much suffices to identify.   . 

Do you mean Modi? I don't believe it.I am sure he is Rajiv Gandhi

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

I am surprised that our members are unable to identify the concerned minister.  He became Prime minister.  He had also held diplomatic assignment as ambassador.  This much suffices to identify.   . 

I can very well imagine who is being wrongly identified just to shield the real culprit which has always been the case with the family and the party which has blinkers on!

rambabu wrote:

Do you mean Modi? I don't believe it.I am sure he is Rajiv Gandhi

Modi certainly not. Rajiv Gandhi certainly not. The concerned person is said to be a minister  who later became Prime minister. Neither Modi nor Rajiv Gandhi held any ministerial post in union govt.They became PM straightway.  You have to look for some one who was in the union cabinet at  relevant time and later became PM. 

If you know, why don't you name the Minister? I am curious to know.

Either @ usha or @ gulshan is wrong. Both are hinting at different persons. Gulshanjis hint can be identified but the bhaktas bias comes out brazenly. She should either withdraw her biased remarks or be bold to name the person. 

Then Why dont you give correct name of the Minister

vijay wrote:

Either @ usha or @ gulshan is wrong. Both are hinting at different persons. Gulshanjis hint can be identified but the bhaktas bias comes out brazenly. She should either withdraw her biased remarks or be bold to name the person. 

More importantly slaves bias comes out ..

usha manohar wrote:

vijay wrote:

Either @ usha or @ gulshan is wrong. Both are hinting at different persons. Gulshanjis hint can be identified but the bhaktas bias comes out brazenly. She should either withdraw her biased remarks or be bold to name the person. 

More importantly slaves bias comes out ..

Vijay, I am not considering any ex PM guilty.  I got hints from the article itself and mentioned these. I do not believe in truth of the article.  

Do you think,  there is no truth in the article? Then what is the truth ? It is all confusing.

rambabu wrote:

Do you think,  there is no truth in the article? Then what is the truth ? It is all confusing.

There may or may not be truth in article.  The truth, if any, may not be whole truth. In fact, such articles buy diplomatic and espionage persons are seldom reliable. Such articles can be planted with ill motive. 

May be. A commoner like me cannot understand the intricacies in such articles.

But you pass judgements left and right

Not myjudgment. I am revealing what actually I am.

Not my judgment. I am revealing what actually I am. Especially, when a member lets his opinion that is beyond my understanding, I feel i am lost in the wilderness