POW case haunts McCain"s image as war hero

In 1992, then-Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., left, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, listens to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., during a hearing of the committee, which released classified testimony on the Pentagon’s intelligence gathering efforts in Vietnam.

NEW YORK – Though he immediately backtracked, presidential candidate Donald Trump reopened the controversy over Sen. John McCain’s service during the Vietnam War and his subsequent handling of the post-war POW issue by questioning whether the Arizona Republican should be regarded as a hero.

McCain, whose father and grandfather were four-star Navy admirals, has been commended throughout his career in the Senate for enduring five-and-a-half years in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton” prison in North Vietnam.

But various critics, including Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Sydney H. Schanberg, have charged that McCain, working with fellow Vietnam veteran and then-Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., suppressed information about POWs believed to have been left behind by the U.S. government at the end of the Vietnam War.

In a 2008 article published by the Nation Institute when McCain was the Republican nominee for president, Schanberg wrote that the senator, who had risen to political prominence based on his war-hero image, “has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home.”

“Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents,” Schanberg wrote.

The remarkable story told in “Ride the Thunder: A Vietnam War Story of Honor and Triumph” vigorously dispels the belief that America was losing the war in Vietnam.

“Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books,” he concluded.

On Saturday, after days of trading barbs, Donald Trump said in remarks at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, that McCain is “not a war hero.”

“He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured,” Trump said.

Speaking to reporters afterward, Trump denied saying that McCain isn’t a war hero.

But he said McCain has “done very little for the veterans.”

“I’m very disappointed in John McCain,” Trump said.

What do YOU think? Should Donald Trump back down from his feud with John McCain? Sound off in today’s WND poll

13 years in captivity

The case of U.S. Marine Pfc. Robert R. Garwood, while complicated, continues to provide evidence that U.S. POWs were still alive in Southeast Asia, at least through 1979, when Garwood finally returned to the U.S. after more than 13 years captivity.

Pfc. Robert Garwood

This is despite repeated claims made by the U.S. government at the time and since that there were no POWS left in Southeast Asia after 591 returned to the U.S. in Operation Homecoming in 1973.

The final report of the House Select Committee on Missing Persons in Southeast Asia on Dec. 13, 1976, spelled out the committee’s conclusion (pages 238-239) that after 15 months of investigation “no Americans are still being held alive as prisoners in Indochina, or elsewhere, as a result of the war in Indochina.”

The House select committee, created as a result of a resolution introduced by Rep. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery, D-Miss., on March 18, 1975, stressed its agreement with “the national intelligence community statement that there is no reliable evidence that any unaccounted for POWs/MIAs are still being held in Indochina represents a careful, studied assessment of all intelligence information during the past 15 years.”

The Garwood case began Sept. 28, 1965, when the Viet Cong captured the Marine as he wandered from camp near Marble Mountain at China Beach, a short distance from Da Nang.

Radio Hanoi reported at the time that a Viet Cong convoy, after a fierce firefight with a Marine that got lost, took the Marine prisoner.

Garwood, a motor-pool specialist assigned to the 3rd Marine Division, who was 19 years old at the time of his captivity, had only 12 days left on his tour in Vietnam and was looking forward to returning home to California, where he planned to marry his high-school sweetheart from Indiana.

In 1979, after pleading for help in a note passed to a World Bank official in Hanoi, the Vietnamese sent Garwood back to the United States, where the Department of Defense promptly court-martialed him. The U.S. alleged Garwood eventually became a collaborator who went over to the Viet Cong and fought against American troops in Vietnam.

Immediately after his capture by the Viet Cong, Garwood was held in a POW regional detention camp, Camp Khu, northwest of Da Nang, along with two U.S. Army prisoners.

Brutal daily life

As reported by Monika Jensen-Stevenson in her 1997 book, “Spite House: The Last Secret of the War in Vietnam,” on page 92, two South Vietnam Army of the Republic of Viet Nam soldiers held at Camp Khu with Garwood, upon their release in January 1966, brought with them a letter written by Garwood to his mother.

The ARVN soldiers documented the cruelty of the North Vietnamese to the POWS at Camp Khu, as Jensen-Stevenson chronicled:

They [the ARVN soldiers released from Camp Khu] testified to the cruelty of the camp commandant and guards. Daily Life was brutally difficult, they reported. The prisoners had suffered from diseases that resulted from an unfamiliar and inadequate diet. Dysentery, edema, skin fungus, and eczema were rampant. The POWs were moved regularly to avoid detection by American troops. The VC [Viet Cong] guards, they said, were particularly abusive to American POWs. For any minor infraction, including conversation with other POWs, the Americans were buried, held for days in a cage with no protection from insects, deprived of food and water, shackled, and beaten regularly. Those who resisted the most were executed. Usually it was slow death by torture.

Garwood had not been included in a release of prisoners as a gesture to celebrate the Vietnamese new year, Tet, Jansen-Stevenson reported. He had been held as one of the hard-core resisters, despite constant psychological efforts to indoctrinate them.

According to Lt. Col. Gary D. Solis, U.S. Marine Corps History and Museum director, in his 2013 book “Marines and Military Law in Vietnam: Trial by Fire,” Garwood eventually succumbed and asked to join the National Liberation Front.

The allegations against Garwood included charges that he adopted the Vietnamese name Nguyen Chien Dau and fought for the Viet Cong as part of the Military Proselytizing Section of Military Region 5. He allegedly wrote propaganda messages and broadcast them by loudspeaker near Marine bases, and assisted the Viet Cong in guarding and indoctrinating U.S. prisoners in the MR-5 POW camp in the village of Tra Khe, Tra Bong District, Quang Ngai Province.

On Feb. 5, 1981, the court-martial convicted Garwood of communicating with the enemy and assaulting a U.S. POW. He was sentenced to reduction in rank to private, subjected to loss of all pay and allowances, and given a dishonorable discharge.

“Somehow Garwood had become a metaphor for wholesale betrayal,” Jansen Stevenson noted on page 97 of her 1997 book, arguing that the most that could be proved with certainty against Garwood at his court martial was that he had served as a prison guard for the Viet Cong and struck a U.S. POW in the face.

“After 1975, Garwood’s captors repeatedly took pains to drum it into him that the U.S. government had officially taken the position that no American prisoners were left behind,” Jansen-Stevenson noted on page 229. “Garwood did not want to believe this even though a statement made in 1973 to the media by National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, that all American prisoners had been returned, was played over the camp loudspeaker.”

No one imagined he would walk out alive

In 1981, this reporter was recruited to serve on a task force headed by Dallas-based psychiatrist David Hubbard, an expert in skyjacking, political violence and terrorism. The panel was organized under the auspices of the U.S. Agency for International Development to train U.S. State Department staff stationed in dangerous assignments overseas how to survive hostage situations such as had occurred in 1979 with U.S. Embassy personnel in Tehran held hostage for 444 days following the Iranian revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini.

After receiving top-secret clearance through the auspices of USAID, this reporter assisted Hubbard in conducting a series of videotaped debriefing interviews with Garwood.

“No one in the State Department or Pentagon ever imagined Garwood would walk out of Vietnam alive,” Hubbard concluded, “even though there were many reports prior to 1979 that he was living in Vietnam as one of the Vietnamese people.”

In the intensive psychological interviews conducted by Hubbard, Garwood revealed that his decision to “go over to the Vietnamese” was made to survive.

“When you are in a cage where you can’t stand up or sit down and you are being led through villages where the North Vietnamese are poking sticks at your vital parts and accusing you of being a murderer, you quickly realize your survival chances aren’t very good,” Garwood explained.

“So what I decided to do was to listen until I could pick up a few basic words in Vietnamese, so I could ask for a drink of water, or say thank you for some kindness done to me,” he said. “I soon realized that nobody was going to come to save me, that I was abandoned, and that to survive I had to start speaking Vietnamese, adapting, otherwise my chances as an enemy captive were pretty dim at best.”

Hubbard produced three major conclusions based on taped interviews and a psychiatric evaluation: 1) Garwood, properly understood, was a survivor, not an enemy collaborator; 2) rigid U.S. military codes regarding POW conduct needed to be modified to take into consideration that all human beings have a breaking point, including U.S. soldiers captured in combat; and 3) dozens and very possibly hundreds of other American POWs abandoned in Southeast Asia had survived, as had Garwood, by assimilating into Vietnamese society after realizing there was little chance they would ever see the United States again.

‘Keeping the truth buried’

Schanberg severely criticizes McCain for introducing legislation that became law in 1991 that was “so crushing to transparency,” it “actually spells out for the Pentagon and other agencies several rationales, scenarios and justifications for not releasing any information at all – even about prisoners discovered alive in captivity.”

The passage of the legislation was a prelude to the creation of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in 1991 in which, Schanberg charges, “Kerry and McCain ultimately worked to bury evidence.”

Schanberg points to the testimony of Richard V. Allen, former national security adviser to President Reagan, before the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs as providing the explanation for why McCain, Kerry and U.S. presidents since Richard Nixon have been motivated to keep hidden from the American public evidence about the number of POWs that were left behind in Southeast Asia at the end of the Vietnam War.

In closed-door testimony before the Senate Select Committee, Allen described an offer from Vietnam to the Reagan administration, transmitted through a third country, “to exchange live POWs for $ 4.5 billion.”

Although Allen later recanted that testimony, Schanberg noted the Senate Select Committee staff was in revolt when, led by Kerry and McCain, it refused to release a finding that U.S. intelligence reports marked “credible” reported POW sightings in Vietnam through 1989, leading to the conclusion the committee refused to report: “There can be no doubt that POWs were alive … as late as 1989.”

Schanberg observed that Allen’s initial testimony had the ring of truth, because when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and withdrew their troops from Vietnam, France for years afterward paid ransoms for prisoners to bring them back home.

Finally, Schanberg cited a theme regarding McCain’s “war hero status” that has been echoed again in the current controversy with Trump.

“Washington said no prisoners were left behind, and Hanoi swore it had returned all of them,” Schanberg wrote in conclusion. “How could either side later admit it had lied?

“Time went by and as neither side budged, telling the truth became even more difficult and remote,” he continued. “The public would realize that Washington knew of the abandoned men all along. The truth, after men had been languishing in foul prison cells, could get people impeached or thrown in jail.

“Which brings us to today, when the Republican candidate for President is the contemporaneous politician most responsible for keeping the truth about this matter hidden,” Schanberg observed in 2008. “Yet he says he’s the right man to be the Commander-in-Chief, and his credibility in making this claim is largely based on his image as a POW hero.”

Expressing his desire to question candidate McCain on the issue, Schanberg closed with the following argument.

“On page 468 of the 1,221-page [Senate Select Committee] report, McCain parsed his POW position oddly: ‘We found no compelling evidence to prove that Americans are alive in captivity today. There is some evidence—though no proof—to suggest only the possibility that a few Americans may have been kept behind after the end of America’s military involvement in Vietnam,’” Schanberg wrote.

“Evidence though no proof,” Schanberg reiterated for effect. “Clearly, no one could meet McCain’s standard of proof as long as he is leading a government crusade to keep the truth buried.”

WND » World
POW case haunts McCain"s image as war hero

D"Souza case exposes startling double standard

NEW YORK – If you are going to bend Federal Election Commission rules by setting up straw donor contributions – essentially donating in someone else’s name – it appears a prudent preparation for the potential of being caught is to be a Democrat planning to donate to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

An analysis of how the federal judiciary system has treated two naturalized American citizens, both born in India and each found guilty of scheming to use straw donors to make campaign contributions, reveals a stark contrast.

In one case, the Democrat donor, the penalty is essentially a wrist-slap. In the other, the donor who wasn’t a Democrat, the penalty includes jail bars, monitoring for years – and even a judge who concludes court-appointed psychologists are wrong when they say the defendant needs no further thought-coaching.

Sant Singh Chatwal

The case of Indian-born naturalized U.S. citizen Sant Singh Chatwal reveals how the federal justice system is capable of finding a way to excuse behavior and administer a minor reprimand.

In 2014, Chatwal pleaded guilty in a Brooklyn federal district court to arranging multiple straw donors in a lavish scheme to give tens of thousands of dollars into Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, plus funneling additional tens of thousands of dollars illegally into the federal campaigns of three other Democratic candidates between 2007 and 2011, including Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut.

The federal district judge sentencing Chatwal limited his punishment to three years parole, even after Chatwal admitted his goal in arranging the straw contributions to Democrats was to buy political influence in the White House and on Capitol Hill for himself and family, as well as for his many business associates, and numerous friends.

The issue has arisen because of the recent case against conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, a former college president who became a vocal political critic of the far left after he changed careers to become a highly successful documentary filmmaker and bestselling author who has openly criticized the policies not only of President Barack Obama but also the Clintons.

Today, Chatwal finds himself on parole, under a federal sentence that excused him from any prison time and included neither nighttime detention nor any requirement to perform any community service.

In contrast

D’Souza in contrast, was sentenced to eight months of nighttime detention at a federal facility in San Diego and remains on parole now. But he also is being forced, until September 2019, to devote one day a week community service teaching English to Spanish-speaking applicants to be U.S. citizens.

On Monday, as WND reported, a Clinton-appointed federal judge in Manhattan ordered D’Souza to continue psychological counseling that qualified, board-certified psychological doctors say he does not need.

What was D’Souza’s crime?

D’Souza pleaded guilty to a federal felony, admitting he uncharacteristically violated the law by convincing two associates to donate each to the unsuccessful Senate race of Wendy Long, a college friend.

Breaking campaign finance laws, D’Souza reimbursed to each of his two straw donors the $ 5,000 each had contributed, a misstep D’Souza could have avoided by contributing the $ 10,000 to a PAC supporting Long’s candidacy directly.

He’s called in an “impulsive decision” he reached without giving the matter much thought.

“I really should have called my lawyer to get some advice,” D’Souza told WND in a telephone interview. “There were any number of ways I could have gotten Wendy Long the $ 10,000 legally. If I had just gifted her the money, there would have been no legal problem. But I was in a rush and I made a quick decision that I obviously should have thought about more seriously.”

Except for this offense, D’Souza, now 54 years old, has a completely clean criminal record.

The big, fat Sikh wedding”

But in an article published March 5, 2006, entitled “Vikram’s Big Fat Sikh Wedding,” New York magazine described the wedding Chatwal threw for his then 34 year-old son, Vikram Chatwal, noting, “When one of New York’s most-eligible, hard-living, jet-setting, model-dating, turban-wearing bachelors decides (or, more generously, when his dad decides) the time has come for him to get married, it’s bound to be quite a party.”

The keynote guest-speaker at the wedding in India that New York magazine described as lasting a week, with 10 parties spread out over three cities and a thousand guests who were transported by three chartered 737s and “a small air force of private jets,” was none other than former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

While at the time, New York magazine noted that Vikram was the president of his father’s company managing the multi-continental hotel-and-restaurant chain, Hampshire Hotels, controlled by his father, Vikram was more precisely identified as “a Bollywood actor, better known for dating Gisele – he got a G tattooed on his arm – and hitting New York nightclubs in a red and white turban with P. Diddy and Naomi Campbell.”

After toasting the bride and groom, the father, Sant Chatwal, asked Clinton what he thought of his son’s choice for a wife.

According to the magazine, Clinton told Sant Chatwal that, “I spent an hour with Priya, and you’re very lucky. Priya is a very amazing girl.”

In April 2013, Vikram had been arrested trying to board a flight in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, carrying cocaine, marijuana, prescription pills, all attesting to his several failed episodes undergoing rehabilitation therapy.

The New York Post reported the 17th Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, “totally dismissed” the case against Vikram Chatwal that led back to his arrest in April 2013 at the Ft. Lauderdale airport on narcotics charges, citing as a reason his one-year drug rehabilitation program in New York City.

“Vikram earnestly strove, this past year, to address addiction issues, and thankfully the Broward County judicial system recognize that Vikram’s arrest was not the product of criminal conduct, but rather the unfortunate medical by-product of substance dependency,” Chatwal’s attorney, Mark Heller, told the newspaper.

Chatwal: ‘A regular at the Clinton Global Initiative’

In an article published on April 17, 2014, in the International New York Times, headlined “Clinton Backer Pleads Guilty in a Straw Donor Scheme,” Sant Singh Chatwal was described as having filed for bankruptcy protection in 1995 and in 1997, while also being sued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for his role in a failed New York bank, an incident for which fraud charges against Chatwal were dropped in 2000.

“In April 2007, Mr. Chatwal formed ‘Indian Americans for Hillary in 2008,’ and pledged to raise $ 5 million for her presidential campaign,” the newspaper reported. “One of the straw donor schemes that prosecutors sketched out in court records started that year [2007]. Mr. Chatwal asked an associate, who owed him $ 2.5 million, to help him raise money for a candidate, prosecutors said. The court records say the associated distributed $ 90,000 and kept a ‘minimal sum’ as a ‘commission,’ and that Mr. Chatwal reduced the total the associate owed him by $ 100,000.”

“Mr. Chatwal could be frank about the power of money in politics,” the International New York Times continued. “In the fall of 2010, according to court documents, Mr. Chatwal and a business owner who is now cooperating with prosecutors decided they should raise money, using straw donors, for another candidate so the candidate might intervene with a federal agency that had issued an ‘adverse ruling’ regarding the other person’s business.

“‘That’s the only way to buy them, get into the system,’ Mr. Chatwal was recorded as saying to the person, who by then was cooperating with prosecutors,” the newspaper reported.

Noting that Chatwal, in addition to his other legal problems, owes millions in back taxes, ultimately estimated at $ 30 million owed to a combination of the IRS and New York state, the International New York Times article observed Chatwal was a “regular” at the Clinton Global Initiative.

The article concluded “it was not hard to discern Chatwal’s motivation” for his straw donor contribution, given that in a recorded conversation with a government informant Chatwal once described the importance of campaign contributions as follows: “Without that nobody will even talk to you. When they are in need of money, the money you give, then they are always there for you. That’s how you buy them.”

In 2010, Chatwal provide campaign contributions to Florida Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, a Democrat who was then running unsuccessfully against former Florida Charlie Crist, then running as an independent, and the Republican contender and eventual winner, Marco Rubio.

Judge: Cantwal’s felony ‘an aberrance’

On Dec. 18, 2014, the New York Times appeared to minimize Chatwal’s felonious behavior by saying that Chatwal, “who had pleaded guilty to skirting federal campaign-finance laws and witness tampering, had avoided being sent to prison on Thursday, despite facing a possible sentence of more than five years.”

The Times report continued to explain the following: “Judge I. Leo Glasser, of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, sentenced Mr. Chatwal to three years of probation. The judge described Mr. Chatwal’s crimes as an ‘aberrance,’ and seemed swayed by the 272 letters written on his behalf; by the argument that his grown sons needed Mr. Chatwal’s help at home; and by the fact that Mr. Chatwal did not seem to personally benefit from the campaign contributions.”

The story concluded: “Judge Glasser seemed to take the position that the electoral process had become more opaque in recent years. He pointed to two recent articles in the New York Times that discussed how hidden donors were influencing the political process, along with Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon, as evidence of how much had changed since the law that Mr. Chatwal was charged with violating was passed in the 1970s.”

‘Firmly in the Clintons’ inner circle’

Investigative reporter Peter Schweizer devotes a section of his book “Clinton Cash,” [beginning page 62] to detailing the relationship with Sant Singh Chatwal that began when Chatwal first raised money for the Clintons, starting with Bill Clinton’s 1998 presidential run and continuing through Hillary’s run for the Senate in 2000.

“By the time Bill left the Oval Office in 2001, Chatwal was firmly in the Clintons’ inner circle,” Schweizer wrote. “Bill appointed him a trustee for the Clinton Foundation, an appointment reserved only for long-time friends and large financial benefactors. Chatwal had lavished money on the Clintons, including hundreds of thousands in soft-money donations and millions in campaign funds raised, and he continued his largesse once Bill was a private citizen.”

Schweizer pointed out that Chatwal helped arrange for millions of dollars in lucrative speaking fees for the former president, while he steered additional millions to the Clinton Foundation.

“When Hillary ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007, he [Chatwal] was co-chair of her presidential exploratory committee,” Schweizer noted. “He even received that most prized of gifts in the Clinton universe: an invitation to attend Chelsea’s wedding.”

“But what Sant Chatwal wanted for all that money extended far beyond the ordinary transactions that take place in Washington,” Schweizer wrote. “He wanted to influence American policy toward India, particularly as it related to the sensitive area of nuclear technology. He openly admitted that he ‘spent tons of money, time, and effort to make sure the [Indian-U.S.] nuclear deal went through.’

“In the end, both Bill, who had initially imposed the sanctions against the nuclear government, and Hillary who supported that policy played a role in getting them lifted,” Schweizer argued. “Shortly after the legislation passed, the Indian government granted one of the most prestigious civilian awards to a close Clinton family friend precisely because, as they saw it, he got Hillary to support the legislation.”

The recipient of that award from the Indian government was Sant Singh Chatwal.

Schweizer concluded his discussion of Chatwal by noting that once Chatwal pleaded guilty to felony violations of campaign contributions regarding straw donors, the Clinton Foundation “has erased any mention of him” from the foundation’s website, despite the fact Chatwal was a longtime member of the Clinton Foundation board of trustees.

WND has reported that D’Souza, after serving time in custody, has been ordered to another four years of community service. In addition, U.S. District Judge Richard Berman ruled based on his own judgment, which contradicted that of court-appointed counselors, D’Souza must continue counseling.

D’Souza already had served eight months in a work-release center, was on five years of probation, facing a $ 30,000 fine and more.

D’Souza’s supporters contend the case was politically motivated payback for his two successful documentaries and companion bestselling books critical of Obama and what D’Souza regards as an anti-American ideology.

 

WND » World
D"Souza case exposes startling double standard

Kolkata corpse case Debjani starved to death to attain god

His diary entries did carry sexual overtones, but police on Monday said they have not found any evidence suggesting that Partha De, who lived with his sister Debjani’s corpse for months, had an incestuous relationship. A search also yielded notes by Debjani suggesting she starved to death in her bid to ‘attain god’.

Meanwhile, the state-run hospital treating 44-year-old Partha said it was thinking of approaching the Missionaries of Charity for help, as the patient has repeatedly been pleading that he be allowed to interact with them.

Probing the case, police on Monday searched De’s house at south Kolkata’s Robinson Street from where they found the maggot-infested skeletons of Debjani and two dogs.

The search also yielded notes written by Debjani suggesting she starved to death in her bid to ‘attain god’.

“The writings suggest that for the past months before her death, she was into some kind of meditation and observed rituals aiming to attain god. During that period, the only thing she took was water, that might be a reason for her death,” a senior police officer told IANS.

While several notes scribbled by Partha carry sexual connotations, including incest, the officer denied having any evidence suggesting that the siblings had any kind of sexual intimacy.

“We are yet to find any evidence, including notes by Partha and Debjani to suggest the siblings had a sexual relationship. Circumstantial evidence suggests Partha could not accept his sister’s death and kept her corpse hoping resurrection.

“Things will become clear only after interrogating him. We are waiting for the doctors’ permission to question him,” the officer said.

Notes like: “My mother was jealous of her (Debjani). We went to Digha (on vacation). My mother made her strip in the bathroom…” and “My mother thinks I am impotent” had earlier led officials to suspect incest and necrophilia.

Partha, currently admitted to the state-run Calcutta Pavlov Hospital under the observation of a medical board of five doctors including psychiatrists and psychologists, is now not in the right frame of mind to talk to police, the hospital superintendent said.

“Right now he is not in the right mental frame to talk to police. So far we have not received any request from police that they want to interrogate him.

“We will take a call when the request comes, depending on the circumstances, specially Partha’s health,” said superintendent Ganesh Prasad.

Following Partha’s repeated requests, the doctors have decided to approach the Mother Teresa-founded Missionaries of Charity.

“We are thinking about it. So far we have not interacted with the Missionaries of Charity. But we will contact them soon to seek help,” he told IANS.

Christian News latest RSS headlines – Big News Network.com
Kolkata corpse case Debjani starved to death to attain god