The Asian Age – All thunder, no rain: PM to BJP

Asian Age Correspondent

New Delhi, 7 March 2013. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was in his element in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday as he hit out at the BJP for belittling the achievements of the UPA government, saying that party would meet the same fate in the 2014 elections that it did in 2004 and 2009.

In an apparent rejoinder to Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi’s description of the Congress as “termites” and calling him a “night watchman” at the BJP’s recent national council meeting here, Dr Singh said while it hurled the “choicest abuse” against the Congress leadership, he would not reply in “that language”, saying “our performance is the best judge”.

But he added: “Jo garajte hain wo baraste nahi hain (thunderous clouds do not bring rain)” Replying to the debate on the motion of thanks on the President’s address, the Prime Minister spoke at length on several issues: the economy, on keeping India’s options open on the United States resolution against Sri Lanka at UNHCR, ties with Pakistan and the Maldives situation.

Dr Singh exuded confidence that the slowdown in the economy will not last and the country will return to 7-8 per cent growth in next two years.

Deftly using Urdu and Hindi couplets and proverbs, the soft-spoken Dr Singh took potshots at L.K. Advani, saying the BJP lost in 2004 after its “India Shining” campaign and faced defeat again in 2009 when it pitted the “iron man” against “the lamb that Manmohan Singh is”.

“I am confident the people will again elect us in the next election based on our performance,” the Prime Minister said amid repeated thunderous applause from the treasury benches.

http://www.asianage.com/india/all-thunder-no-rain-pm-bjp-016

The Asian Age – PM: ‘Liberate’ Gujarat from Modi, officers feeling unsafe

Asian Age Correspondent

Vansada, Gujarat. 10 December 2012. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Sunday urged the people of Gujarat to “liberate” it from “divisive politics”, and regretted that minorities were feeling “insecure” and government officials feeling “unsafe” in the BJP-ruled state.

Without referring to chief minister Narendra Modi by name, the PM set the tone for the Congress’ Assembly campaign by openly attacking the BJP’s “divisive politics”.

Addressing an election rally at Vansada, Dr Singh said: “We have been getting regular complaints that minorities and a few other segments are feeling insecure.

Even a few state government officers have filed such complaints, which is very unfortunate.”

While the Prime Minister didn’t name anyone, he was apparently referring to suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who had accused Mr Modi of complicity in the 202 riots, and whose wife Shweta is standing against Mr Modi.

http://www.asianage.com/india/pm-liberate-gujarat-modi-officers-feeling-unsafe-041

BBC News – Narendra Modi: UK agrees to meeting

Monday, 22 October 2012. The UK’s high commissioner in India is to meet a controversial politician accused of encouraging religious riots, with a view to end a 10-year boycott.

The UK and other Western governments suspended ties with Narendra Modi, chief minister of the state of Gujarat, after rioting in 2002.

An estimated 1,000 people were killed, most of them Muslim, three of them British citizens.

But Mr Modi has always denied any wrongdoing.

One of India’s best-known politicians, he has been exonerated by several inquiries.

Close Gujarat ties

He has been tipped as a potential future prime minister, partly because of his record in turning his state into one of India’s economic powerhouses.

Britain has had no official contact with him since the communal riots in Gujarat because of his alleged complicity in the violence against Muslims, which saw hundreds killed by Hindu nationalists.

Many Britons of Indian descent trace their origins to Gujarat, and the government says British interests, such as boosting investment ties, are better served by engagement, not continuing isolation.

But human rights groups and relatives of three Britons who were killed in the riots have criticised the decision to arrange a meeting.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20024563

The Asian Age – Modi as PM may cost BJP, feels Congress

Asian Age Correspondent

New Delhi, 29 May 2012. Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi’s attempts to play a role at the national level as the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate could consolidate the Congress’ support base among minorities and dalits.

“Minorities had voted for us decisively in the 2009 Lok Sabha election after the BJP-led NDA projected L.K. Advani as the prime ministerial candidate,” Congress insiders pointed out.

Mr Modi, who has not emerged as a vote-catcher outside Gujarat, created more enemies within his own BJP, they said, and predicted that “Modi projection” could begin the process of the NDA’s disintegration.

“If the Janata Dal (U) could be the first one to desert the NDA, prospective allies like the BJD, Trinamul Congress and the TDP will not ally with the BJP so long as Modi remains its face,” they said.

Mr Modi had never won the Gujarat Assembly polls on the development agenda, they said. In 2007, he had coined the slogan of “Hum paanch, hamare pachhis,” “Miyan Musharraf (former Pakistan President)”, and in 2007, he had built up the campaign on “Maut ka Saudagar”.

An NDA leader said Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee could have retained power in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections had he succeeded in removing Mr Modi from the Gujarat chief ministership after the communal riots.

LJP chief Ram Vilas Paswan, the NC and the DMK had left the NDA only after the riots. The BSP, which had moved closer to the BJP in UP, also started distancing itself from the saffron party.

The Congress insiders feel Mr Modi is also playing a game with the Shiv Sena, the oldest ideological ally of the saffron party.

He is getting closer to Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray. He invited him to Gujarat and showered praise on him. Mr Bal Thackeray knows the BJP mindset very well and play his cards accordingly, they said.

http://www.asianage.com/india/modi-pm-may-cost-bjp-feels-cong-707

BBC News – Gujarat report says MP Ehsan Jafri ‘provoked murderers’

Friday 11 May 2012. A Muslim politician who was murdered in 2002 riots in India’s Gujarat state may have “provoked” a violent mob by firing at them, investigators say.

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) made its controversial findings in a report to India’s Supreme Court.

Former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri was among 69 people killed in the Gulbarg residential complex in Ahmedabad.

More than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, died in violence that erupted after 60 Hindus were killed in a train fire.

The cause of the train fire is a matter of fierce debate, although Muslims were blamed at the time.

The riots were one of India’s worst outbreaks of religious violence.

The SIT, which was appointed by the Supreme Court, is looking into a number of high-profile Gujarat riots cases.

It recently submitted its report to the court, and details of its findings to do with the Gulbarg complex killings are emerging only now.

Mr Jafri fired at the mob and “the provoked mob stormed the [Gulbarg] Society and set it on fire”, the SIT report said.

‘Action and reaction’

Correspondents say the SIT report invokes the same Newtonian theory of “action and reaction” that the state’s controversial Chief Minister Narendra Modi had used as the riots were raging.

In an interview to Zee television on 1 March 2002, Mr Modi is reported to have said that the firing by the MP was an “action” and the massacre was a “reaction”.

Mr Modi later denied making the statement and said he was “quoted out of context”.

The SIT report confirmed that Mr Modi used the words “action” and “reaction”, but it gave a clean chit to the chief minister.

“In his interview, the chief minister has clearly referred to Jafri’s firing as ‘action’ and the massacre as ‘reaction’. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsan Jafri fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims,” it said.

The report quoted Mr Modi as saying that the train fire was a “heinous crime, for which reactions were being felt”.

The controversial chief minister has been blamed by critics for not doing enough to stop the violence.

Zakia Jafri, the MP’s widow, says her husband called Mr Modi for help but it never came.

Survivors of the Gulbarg massacre say he fired his gun in self defence as the violent mob attacked the complex.

Mrs Jafri has accused Mr Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ministerial colleagues, including top police officials, of conspiracy in the riots.

The chief minister argues that he has been unfairly targeted by his critics and his lawyer called the allegations against his client “absurd”.

On the basis of the SIT report, a trial court last month ruled that investigators had found no evidence against Mr Modi in the case.

Mrs Jafri, who received a copy of the SIT investigation into his death earlier this week, has said she would appeal.

The report has been criticised by activists and opposition politicians for giving a clean chit to Mr Modi.

One Congress politician has filed a Right to Information application seeking details of pay and other benefits given to RK Raghavan, the SIT head, by the Gujarat government.

There have also been allegations that Mr Raghavan’s foreign trips were financed by the state.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-18031124

The Tribune – Post-Godhra riots; HC slams Modi govt for ‘inaction’

Ahmedabad, February 8. In a major blow to the Narendra Modi government, the Gujarat High Court today censured it for “inaction and negligence” during the 2002 post-Godhra riots, holding that this had resulted in an “anarchic” situation.

Passing strictures against the state government, the court said, ” the Gujarat Government’s inadequate response and inaction (to contain the riots) resulted in an anarchic situation which continued unabated for days on”.

A division bench of acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice J B Pardiwala made these observations, while ordering compensation for over 500 religious structures damaged in the state during that period.

“The state cannot shirk from its responsibilities,” the court observed while noting that there has also been “negligence” on the part of the government. “Because of this (such inaction and negligence) there was large-scale destruction of religious properties”.

The government was responsible for repair and compensation of such places, it further said.

The court said when the government had paid compensation for destruction of houses and commercial establishments, it should also pay compensation for religious structures.

The court also ordered that principal judges of 26 districts of the state will receive the applications for compensation of religious structures in their respective districts and decide on it. (PTI)

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120209/main3.htm

The Hindu – Amicus report lays the ground for chargesheeting Narendra Modi

Rejects SIT’s decision to close case against Gujarat CM

Vidya Subrahmaniam

New Delhi, 23 October 2011. The report of Raju Ramachandran, the amicus curiae in the Zakia Jafri case, has laid the ground for Narendra Modi to be charge-sheeted for his alleged role in the 2002 anti-Muslim Gujarat pogrom.

The report is still confidential, though it has now been shared with the Special Investigation Team set up by the Supreme Court to investigate and prosecute cases stemming from the 2002 violence in which more than 1200 persons were killed.

According to informed sources in Ahmedabad, who briefed The Hindu on the report’s contents, the report strongly disagrees with the SIT’s view that no case against the Gujarat Chief Minister was made out. It says that only the cross-examination of senior Gujarat police officers, including Sanjiv Bhatt — who stated that he was present when Mr. Modi instructed police officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger — could establish whether the Chief Minister was innocent or guilty.

Significantly, the report also says that Mr. Bhatt’s statement was made probable by the presence of two Ministers in the Ahmedabad Police Control Room (PCR) at the time Muslims were being attacked.

If the trial court accepts Mr. Ramachandran’s view, the sources said, the stage will have been set for the prosecution of the Chief Minister under various sections of the IPC, among them, 153 A (statements promoting enmity between communities), 153 B (imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration) 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) and 166 (public servant disobeying a direction of the law with the intent to cause injury).

Under Section 166, any public servant who disobeys a direction of the law as to how he should conduct himself as a public servant and knowing the act will cause injury is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term extending to one year. As the chief executive in control of the administration, Mr. Modi was especially under obligation to quell the riots, the sources said.

The SIT was tasked by the Supreme Court to investigate Ms. Jafri’s complaint against Mr. Modi and 61 others. The Court subsequently asked Mr. Ramachandran independently to evaluate the reports filed by the SIT by interacting with witnesses.

The sources said the SIT recommended closing the case against Mr. Modi on the grounds that police officer Bhatt, who was vital to fixing blame on the Chief Minister, was a controversial and unreliable witness. The SIT also concluded that there was no material on record to show interference by the two Ministers who were present in the PCR when Muslims were being attacked across Ahmedabad.

In his testimony to the SIT, Mr. Bhatt had said he was present at the February 27, 2002 meeting where Mr. Modi instructed top police officials to allow Hindus to “vent their anger” against Muslims. The meeting was held late in the evening at the Chief Minister’s Gandhinagar residence. The SIT said none of the other officers present at the meeting had corroborated Mr. Bhatt’s presence.

The sources said the amicus disagreed with the SIT’s conclusions, arguing that evidence has to be weighed and not counted, and this can happen only when Mr. Bhatt and others present at the meeting are cross-examined in the trial court. The amicus’ view was that it would be premature and presumptuous to close the case against Mr. Modi without an adversarial party putting the other officers to rigorous questioning: Mr. Bhatt could turn out to have lied. Equally, other officers present could turn out to have lied.

The amicus was in fact credited with the view that the presence in the police control room of two Ministers unconnected to the Home portfolio probablised Mr. Bhatt’s statement. More so because the SIT had itself suggested that the Ministers had the Chief Minister’s blessings (Tehelka magazine which scooped the SIT report quoted Mr. Raghavan as saying that the presence of the two Ministers fuelled speculation that they were there with Mr. Modi’s blessings.)

If the view of the amicus is rejected by the SIT, Ms. Jafri and her co-complainant Teesta Setalvad will have the option to contest it in the trial court. The court can also form its own, independent opinion on the views of the amicus.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2563188.ece?homepage=true