Home Blog Page 550

The other side of the Rohingya Issue which media hides

Mainstream media deliberately indoctrinates with sympathetic theories about Rohingyas. The editorial writers in newspaper and PIL pugilist compel court for ‘Judicial Restraint’. This is just like how we see the moon, the half earth facing side.

India is under the Tsunami of Sympathy for Rohingya. Protesting against them is projected as communal hate for “Muslims”. Almost every Op-Ed or news Article will categorically have photos of crying women and children, like one shown here below, which is ideal to gain sympathy along with concocted legal and humanitarian dimensions. The phrase “Rohingya Muslims” is superimposed on “Rohingya Refugee” by Indian media.

But there is another side to this issue. The citizenship and rights issue faced by Rohingyas in Myanmar were mainly due to colonial inheritance. It is believed by the majority that in June 2012 the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman in Rakhine province by three Muslims reacted to attack a bus which led to the killing of 10 Muslims, this was the ignition stage. Later, by June 10, Myanmar was under state emergency due to “Rakhine State Riots”.

Soon after that, the Rohingya issue was on the table for international debates. Buddhist were called terrorist by Time Magazine (After all terror has a religion when it’s not Muslim). Al-Jazeera greatly lobbied for Rohingyas showing them as victims and provided regular television space for them. Some Indian journalists are also giving tough competition to Al-Jazeera.

Media completely hides one side called Rohingya Terrorism. Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) which is headed by Ataullah Abu Ammar Jununi, born in Karachi, Pakistan who is trained and grew up in Macca, Saudi Arabia. ARSA is an affiliate of Al Qaeda and is engaged with the same mission of involving the Rohingya in India for militancy, as is the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami Arakan (HUJI-A) in Myanmar, headed by Abdus Qadoos Burmi, a Pakistani National (How obvious!). They have a so-called goal to have a state for Rohingyas.

Most recently a few Months back ARSA had published the Video which threatens to assassin Sheikh Hasina, PM of Bangladesh. On July 11, 2019, Four militants were nabbed by Malaysian special force in anti-terror raids, including 2 Rohingyas who threatened to assassinate Bangladesh PM. Both were Supporter of ARSA.

It was all started by Difa-e-Musalman-e-Arakan (Defence of Muslims in Arakan) conference at Pakistan in 2012 in the aftermath of Rakhine (Arakan) State Riots. It was organised by members on Pakistan Army,  LeT, JuD and JeM. Post-conference LeT senior operatives Shahid Mehmood and Nadeem Awan visited Bangladesh to recruit Rohingyas and trained them on Myanmar-Thailand and Myanmar-Bangladesh border.

HUJI-A is the main co-coordinating terror group for all the small and large terror outfit in trying to work in India and elsewhere. Rohingyas have also maintained cordial relations with Pakistan-sponsored terror groups in Kashmir. In 2016 Myanmar news agency reported that, ‘Indian intelligence informed them about HUJI-A leader, Burmi was seen with LeT head, Hafiz Syed at a terror training camp in Pakistan. The main aim was to train one of the active Rohingya terror organization, Aqa Mul Mujahideen (AMM) for India, which has been reported many times for recruiting Rohingya and later trained by Pakistani.

Hafiz Mohammed Syed (LeT, Pakistan) sharing the dais with Abdul Qudus Burmi (HuJI, Arakan) and other Rohingya leaders

While on issues of Hindus of Myanmar who fled to Bangladesh due violence by Rohingyas, in 2018, the Myanmar govt. had said it urged Bangladesh to send back almost 500 Hindu families, but the repatriation has still not happened. Bangladesh govt is threatened by ARSA for not sending Hindus back else they will be persecuted and Thus, Bangladesh excluded them from repatriation. Hindus in Bangladesh are yet to go to their homes in Myanmar.

Bangladesh is probing the role of ISI of Pakistan in Rohingya terrorism, which has also links with the terror outfits in Bangaldesh. Bangladesh minister and general secretary of the ruling Awami League, Obaidul Quader during his visit to India in 2017 said, “We have received intelligence inputs about the ISI’s link with the Rohingya militant elements. We are investigating it.” Also in 2012, Bangladesh arrested Maulana Shabeer Ahmed, who is handler of Rohingya and worked for JeM. Hence, Rohingyas are refugee plus terror, a combination of burden and threat for Bangladesh too.

Rohingyas also have the plan to destabilize Assam. It was reported that Whatsapp messaged were circulated in Assam to instigate violence, of which one of the message read as, “1 crore 21 lakh Muslims to come out on the roads (of Assam) on November 27 (to stop) harassment of (Bangladeshi) Muslims. If we do not unite in time we will all have to die like in Myanmar. Come with your father and mother onto the roads.” though large riots were prevented but still they keep on sharing such messages which lead to the killing of many in Assam between 2017-18 and was widely reported, at that time, as Mob Lynchings. While the reason behind such messages was never investigated by media.

Liberals in India are supporting PIL by Rohingyas in supreme court under Article 21, which provide to life and liberty to all the citizens and foreigners in India. But it is not under the jurisdiction Supreme Court of India to provide Right to life in Myanmar, which I thing they don’t get. Also, Liberals forget to mention Article 11, which gives complete and sole authority to Parliament for making provisions with respect to citizenship. Again neither is India signatory to international ‘Principle of non-Refoulement’ nor the customary international laws of the UN are binding to be followed at the cost of National Security.

So now you have to think, is right to life of Rohingyas more important than that of Indians?

Rana Ayyub torn apart with evidences on her fiction “Gujarat Files”

0

The Supreme Court on 5 July 2019 upheld the conviction of all 12 accused in the Haren Pandya murder case. Former Gujarat Home Minister Pandya was shot dead on 26 March 2003 in Ahmedabad. In the comments, the Supreme Court today threw out journalist Rana Ayyub’s book ‘Gujarat Files’ which was cited by Centre for Public Interest Litigation, the NGO which had filed the PIL challenging conviction of the accused. The truth of Haren Pandya’s killing can be read here.

The apex court today observed that Ayyub’s book has no utility. Adding that the book is based upon surmises, conjectures and suppositions and has no evidentary value, the court said, “The opinion of the person is not in the realm of the evidence. There is a likelihood of the same being politically motivated, cannot be ruled out. The way in which the things have moved in Gujarat post-Godhra, such allegations and counter-allegations are not uncommon and had been raised a number of times and have been found to be untenable and afterthought.”

Reading the court’s judgement took me back to June 2016 when I read her book. Following were my observations on the book and dismantling of her claims.

About Rana Ayub: Rana Ayub is a known anti-Modi, anti-BJP journalist. She has tweeted outrageous lies many times in the past. She has tweeted that the Gujarat government of Narendra Modi deliberately displayed the dead bodies of the Godhra victims which caused riots.

This is absolutely wrong on facts, since far from doing so, special care was taken to prevent display of bodies to anyone. The transport of these bodies was done inside trucks, and no one could see them, and it was also done from 11:30 pm – 12 midnight to 3:30 am, from Godhra to Ahmedabad on the night of 27 Feb & morning of 28 Feb 2002.

Even after coming to Western Ahmedabad’s isolated hospital, care was taken to send the bodies to the crematoriums (those which were not cremated at the hospital itself, some had been cremated at the hospital itself) in vehicles, not visible to anyone, while this could have been done on foot as well. This shows the sincerity of the government in preventing display of the bodies. The SIT appointed by the Supreme Court has said all this in its closure report on page 63 as well. The full truth of this false charge is given in Myth 24 in the website www.gujaratriots.com

She has also lied that Ehsan Jafri, the late Congress MP called Narendra Modi during the time of the riots. This is another lie, since it has been established completely that nothing of this sort was done. The full truth can be read in Myth 23 in the website www.gujaratriots.com

Having seen the background of the writer, we see the book. The book has to be judged on merit, and not on what the writer did in the past.

Reality- what is really in the book “Gujarat Files”?

In the foreward, Justice B.N. Srikrishna himself says: “As to whether the material presented in this book represents facts, or mere perspective vision of the events is for the reader to judge…While one may not be in a position to validate all that is narrated in the book, one cannot but admire the courage and passion displayed by the author in her attempts to unmask what she believes to be the truth.” With this description in the foreward itself, the reality becomes obvious! Even the foreward writer does not call it as the truth.

A large part of this book is absolutely irrelevant. There are 11 chapters in this book. Chapter 1 does not contain any recorded conversation or transcripts, but just the author’s own perceptions, and opinion against Narendra Modi and Amit Shah and a bit of self-praise of having got ‘Amit Shah arrested in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case’ ignoring his acquittal completely.

The entire book simply assumes that the Gujarat Government (more specifically, Narendra Modi and Amit Shah) were involved in promoting riots and fake encounters and targeted upright officers, without giving facts to support this theory. Chapter 2 describes (in far too much detail than necessary) how Rana Ayub assumed the name Maithili Tyagi, and presented herself as an ‘Independent Film-maker from American Film Institute Conservatory, Los Angeles’, got an assistant who was a 19-year old European, and pretended to be making a film on the development in Gujarat. With this story, she talked to officials in Gujarat with secret recording devices. The excessive details are irrelevant to the topic ‘Gujarat Files’.

Rana Ayub’s bias and assumptions are revealed bluntly, and she calls all encounters of Sadiq Jamal, Sameer Pathan, Ishrat Jahan, Javed Sheikh, Sohrabuddin and Prajapati as fake. In reality, as of now only one or at maximum two encounters can be stated as indefensible, namely Sohrabuddin and Prajapati, both of whom were criminals. In Chapter 3, she gives all irrelevant details of how she met police officer G L Singhal, who she accuses of ‘killing Ishrat Jahan in cold blood’ and a small part on some relevant conversations.

These conversations do not carry the slightest value as evidence, since they were supposed private conversations recorded secretly, in which the officers could have been indulging in boastful lies, or plain lies, to boast or impress a supposed American film-maker. The conversation cited with Singhal gives nothing of importance, he in fact says he has no support from the system. Now, if Rana Ayub assumes Singhal as guilty of being involved in a fake encounter (of Sohrabuddin), then no support from the system to him will actually contradict her allegation of the Gujarat Government favouring ‘Yes-men’ since she alleges the Government was involved in the fake encounters!

Chapter 4 also contains a lot of irrelevant details, and some text of a conversation with Rajan Priyadarshi, ex-ATS chief of Gujarat. Priyadarshi talks a bit against Modi and Amit Shah, but it is not believable and seems to be out of personal bias. It also doesn’t carry any value as evidence. Rana Ayub goes to the extent of saying: “Priyadarshi was the state ATS chief and Amit Shah had confided in him that Ishrat Jahan was being held in a bunglow, confined in custody before she was killed in cold blood.” This is laughable- since even if, for argument’s sake, one would assume that Ishrat Jahan was killed in a fake encounter, there is no way anyone would leak this to other officers before the encounter.

Secondly, Ishrat Jahan was a terrorist indeed, owned up by the Lashkar-e-Toiba, also by David Headley, with Intelligence Bureau inputs, and also revealed from her mother’s contradictory statements. If she was innocent, why on earth would Gujarat Police choose an unknown 19-year old from Thane to kill in a fake encounter, instead of choosing grown-up criminals from Gujarat? It is like the West Bengal Police deciding to kill 2 people in a fake encounter with Pakistani terrorists in Kolkata, and deciding to kill an unknown 19-year old girl from Patna, Bihar for it! How ridiculous to assume so! To know the full truth, read this article.

At the end of Chapter 4, she repeats slander against Amit Shah, accuses him of using policemen to indulge in surveillance of a young woman architect Madhuri (who Rana Ayub names by her real name). This despite the fact that the woman concerned herself said along with her father that it was not surveillance but security, which was given with her consent and desire, against the activities of a person who was a dear of the secular lobby. This is false defamation of Amit Shah with no regard for facts- in plain English these are blatant lies, calling security as ‘stalking’.

Chapter 5 is completely irrelevant, and does not give any conversation at all. In Chapter 6, conversations with Ashok Narayan, ex-Chief Secretary, Gujarat Government are cited. Rana Ayub egged him on to say that Modi gave orders to Police officials to allow Hindus to riot the next day in that crucial 27 Feb 2002 late night meeting in which Ashok Narayan was a participant, but he denied Modi said this even in that supposed private chat with ‘Maithili Tyagi’. Ashok Narayan made some vague statements that some Ministers of the Government were on the roads inciting riots without specifying a single case (which is absolutely wrong, since the only Minister accused of this was the late Haren Pandya)- this was a lie made by Ashok Narayan to impress American film maker Maithili Tyagi in a private chat, that he was a ‘law holding upright officer opposing such acts’.

Rana Ayub also says ‘Most police officers had decided to compromise on their integrity to the Modi dispension’. This is another assumption which is totally wrong- the thought that the Modi Government wanted to stop or prevent riots, and do its best to control them did not even occur to her, nor did she see the actual role of the Government in preventing and controlling violence- such as preventive arrests on 27 Feb 2002 itself, appeals for peace, Army deployment in rapid quick time, 15,369 tear gas shells burst, 10,559 rounds fired, 199 police firing deaths, 20,000 preventive arrests later, etc. Rana Ayub again tried to make Ashok Narayan say that Modi ordered officials to allow Hindus to riot in the 27 Feb meeting, but Ashok Narayan again denied he doing so.

Ayub claims that this supposed private chat with Ashok Narayan proves complicity of the government in the riots, while it doesn’t carry the slightest value- what an official says to a supposed American film-maker of the Hindu ideology in a private chat is different from the records of the actual role of the government. No specifics, not a single specific case mentioned, just vague talk. But Ashok Narayan also said that no one (in the Govt) told him to do anything wrong!

On pages 445-450 the report of the SIT appointed by the SC says, after giving various facts:

There is evidence available on record to show that immediately (after Godhra which occurred between 7:47 to 8:20 AM on 27 Feb) the State machinery was put on the high alert and this was communicated to al District authorities and Commissioners of Police. The first alert message of 27-02-2002 from the Home Department covered the need to take precautionary measures including adequate police bandobast and preventive measures including issuance of prohibitory orders depending upon the local situation. It was instructed that anti-social and hardcore communal elements should be dealt with firmly… (Page 445)

The alert message of 27-02-2002 was followed by another message from Home Department on 28-02-2002 to all concerned to round up anti-social and known communal elements under the preventive laws. It was further instructed that mobile patrolling should be intensified and adequate protection should also be provided at places of worship and that effective action should be taken to disperse unruly mob, unlawful assemblies, using whatever force necessary. It was also made clear that anti-social elements indulging in violence and bent upon jeopardizing communal harmony must be controlled firmly. Another message dated 28-02-2002, impressed upon all concerned officers to maintain adequate bandobast for 01-03-2002, being Friday and the day of Namaz for the Muslims. Adequate bandobast was directed to be provided to all sensitive areas and curfew was ordered to be strictly enforced… (Page 446)

It was understood that withdrawing the Army at such critical juncture when war like situation existed with the neighbour needed a high level decision at the Centre. This decision to withdraw the Army and deploy in Gujarat was immediately taken at the highest level in the Centre at the request of Gujarat Govt.… (Page 447)

The State Govt. had also made a request on 28-02-2002, to the neighbouring States of Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh to spare the services of their Armed Reserve Police companies. However, only Maharashtra responded by sending 2 Coys of SRP, whereas the Govt. of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh expressed their inability to spare any police force due to the internal commitments. It may thus be seen that there was no delay, whatsoever in requisitioning the Army and its deployment by the State as and when they realized on 28-02-2002 afternoon that the situation was going beyond control. Significantly, Union Defence Minister arrived at Ahmedabad on 28.02.2002 night to ensure that Army formations take their positions without delay.

Shri G. Subba Rao, the then Chief Secretary, who had gone abroad, was recalled and he arrived on 01-03-2002… (Page 448)

…Frantic messages were sent by the Home Department on 01-03-2002 to 06-03-2002 and specific instructions were given to the effect that the riots had to be controlled and all steps should be taken to restore normalcy and peace in the State… (Page 449)

…Further investigation has established that the State Govt. was reasonably vigilant vis-à-vis the developments on the law & order front and immediately responded by bringing to the notice of all District officials, the need to maintain adequate bandobast in view of the Godhra incident on 27-02-2002…(page 450)”

Rana Ayub does not deal with any of this, ignores all of this, and cites vague conversations in a supposed private chat to claim that the Government was involved in riots!

Rana Ayub lies in Chapter 6 : “A key point in the SIT report on the 2002 riots was that it affirmed that the Narendra Modi government persecuted police officers who tried to put an end to the violence in 2002 and that there persecution and hounding by the state had continued even after the riots”.  This is absolutely false.

On page 78, of the SIT report, the SIT quotes the allegation in the complaint of Zakia Jafri that officers Rahul Sharma, Vivek Shrivastava, Himanshu Bhatt, M D Antani, R B Sreekumar and Satishchandra Verma (all IPS) were given ill-treatment with transfers, so as to facilitate placement of those willing to subvert the system for political and electoral benefits. On pages 79, 80 and 81 the SIT quotes the versions of these officers themselves- Rahul Sharma, Vivek Shrivastava, M D Antani and Satishchandra Verma none of whom have made the allegation that they were transferred as any punishment. Satishchandra Verma has said that his transferred new position as Principal, State Reserve Police Training Centre, Junagadh cannot be called an unimportant position. Only R B Sreekumar made some allegations. But, he did not make any allegation until he was denied promotion in 2005, and his pre-2005 affidavits were full of praise for the government. The SIT has noted several such things, including this very important factor of his silence for a long time, on page 83 and said that Sreekumar’s testimony appears to be motivated.

On page 84, the SIT lists the allegation in the complaint of Zakia Jafri that people ‘collaborating with the illegal plans of CM/ BJP’ were rewarded, namely G Subba Rao, Ashok Narayan, P K Mishra, A K Bhargava, P C Pandey, Kuldeep Sharma (He happened to be their own anti-Modi man!), M K Tandon, Deepak Swaroop, K Nityanandam, Rakesh Asthana, A K Sharma, Shivananda Jha, S K Sinha and D G Vanzara. The SIT has given its investigations on all of them from page 84 to 105 and could not establish such an allegation in case of even a single individual. Thus the entire basis of the claim that the Gujarat Government ‘favoured those who collaborated with its illegal plans’ and ‘punished those who refused to toe the line’ is dismantled by the SIT report.

Rana Ayub praises Kuldeep Sharma and accuses the government of harassing him. In late 2013 and early 2014, the war against Narendra Modi launched by the Sharma brothers- Kuldeep Sharma and Pradeep Sharma became open. Here it is worth reporting the SIT’s observations on page 326: “There are material omissions and improvements in the statements made by Shri Kuldeep Sharma and Shri Pradeep Sharma…Further, Shri Kuldeep Sharma has since been charge-sheeted departmentally and has not been promoted, despite being the senior most officer in the IPS cadre of the Gujarat State. On the other hand, a number of criminal cases had been registered against Shri Pradeep Sharma and he remained in jail in 2010 for about 8 months and at present he is in judicial custody in some case since 14.02.2011. In view of these facts both Sharma brothers have an axe to grind against the State Govt. and as such their testimony is not trustworthy [in case of an allegation made by them].”

In Chapter 7, conversation with G C Raiger, former Intelligence official is described, along with a lot of irrelevant things. G C Raiger says vaguely that the Government favoured some, and harassed some. He did claim that the Government harassed Rahul Sharma, an officer for saving Muslim students in a madarsa, which Rana Ayub claims as the Gospel Truth, hiding the fact that Sharma himself denied this charge in his testimony to the SIT! No specific case is mentioned except Rahul Sharma’s which was been shown to be wrong.

On page 301 of the SIT closure report, the SIT examines the allegation against Rajendrasinh Rana, the then BJP MP from Bhavnagar. It quotes on page 301 BJP MP Rana as saying that it was he who informed Rahul Sharma, the then SP, Bhavnagar telephonically, about 400 students being trapped in a madarsa in Bhavnagar on 1st March 2002, which was surrounded by a mob, bent upon setting fire to it. Rahul Sharma then reached the spot and dispersed the mob and shifted the children to a safer place. The SIT also says that Rana produced a copy of a letter dated 10 Nov 2004 from Master Ahmed of Akwada Madarsa of Bhavnagar, in which he thanked (BJP MP) Rana for the timely action taken by Rahul Sharma, SP, at his instance, which could save the lives of innocent children.  Again, this conversation of Rana Ayub with Raiger has no value, for it was supposed to be a private conversation with a supposed film-maker and not the Gospel Truth!

In Chapter 8, conversation with P C Pandey, the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner at the time of the 2002 riots is given. P C Pandey said that Muslims were also attacking Hindus even after Godhra (a true fact) but the media was showing only Muslims being attacked. Pandey also claimed that did his best to stop the violence, made no charge on the Government, and mentioned that Ehsan Jafri fired on the mob outside his house which drove the crowd crazy and made it impossible to save him. He also said that Muslims first brutally killed a Naroda Patiya (His name was Ranjit Vanzara) which led to the carnage there.

In Chapter 9, conversation with the then Director General of Police (DGP) of Gujarat, Chakravarthy is given. He said he did his best to control riots, and no one gave him orders not to act against rioters. He also said that the then Minister I K Jadeja was in his office for some time on 28 Feb 2002 and did not indulge in the slightest interference- tearing into pieces an often-repeated charge by Modi opponents. He also denied that Sanjiv Bhatt was present in the crucial 27 Feb meeting. He made no specific charge against the Government on any single case- either on the 2002 riots, or on the encounters.

In Chapter 10, conversations with Maya Kodnani are given again. This was in 2013, when Maya Kodnani had already been convicted. In her private conversation with ‘Maithili’, Maya Kodnani said: “I know I am innocent and God will help me. I was not there Maithili, I was 20 km away from that place, I was at Sola…” She also gave more details of this. But she said nothing specific against the government neither on riots, nor encounters. She said that she was not on good terms with Modi. And even if she said anything against the government on the issue of riots or encounters, it would have no value since it could have been due to personal issues. It also contains a conversation with Geeta Johri another officer which reveals absolutely nothing about Government interference either on the issue of the 2002 riots, or the encounters.

In the same chapter, she deals with the Haren Pandya case. Gives some conversations with Jagruti Pandya, wife of the late Haren Pandya which do not reveal anything important. Rana Ayub calls Pandya a ‘popular leader of Gujarat’ but conveniently hides that Pandya was an accused in a Dargah demolition in the 2002 riots. If this allegation is reported, it will be easy to see that he was killed by Islamic radicals. Even during the UPA time, the CBI (which was called a ‘Caged Parrot’ by the SC) which fabricated cases against Amit Shah, said that Pandya was killed by Islamic radicals to avenge the 2002 riots.

Rana Ayub does not make a direct allegation, but says that Pandya deposed before a Concerned Citizens Tribunal (CCT) against Modi in 2002 and then asks if the reason for his murder lies in that act. The self-appointed CCT, which had no authority to do anything, gave its report in the form of a book titled “Crime against humanity” and made many charges against the late Haren Pandya himself on his alleged anti-Muslim statements and activities and severally criticized Pandya on Vol. I page 36, page 44, page 48, Vol. II page 48, page 49, page 52, page 77, page 87.

In Chapter 11, Rana Ayub describes how she managed to reach the then CM Narendra Modi’s office with secret recording devices under the name Maithili Tyagi, and talked to him, and of course nothing relevant to the topic was talked. Ayub says that after all this, when she talked to the Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal for publication for this entire operation, he said: “Look Rana, after the Tehelka sting on Bangaru Laxman, they shut our office. Modi is all set to be the most powerful man, the PM. If we touch him, we will be finished”.  This claim is not believable, since at that time Tehelka was publishing very anti-Narendra Modi articles. Both Tarun Tejpal and Shoma Chaudhary have denied any political pressure as the reason for not publishing, and claimed that the report did not meet editorial standard. Now we can see why. Even Tehelka did not find this worth publishing. Nor did any other publisher and it had to self-published.

90% of the book is absolutely irrelevant. It simply describes all that Rana Ayub did to try to get people to talk, how she took the name Maithili Tyagi, took secret cameras in her watch, and elsewhere and it is all irrelevant. What matters is the transcripts. Transcripts are a very little part of the book and do not reveal anything of much importance. The transcripts contain some vague conversations of government favouring those who follow its orders and those who don’t, which is very generalized and not specific to any case, and these conversations also don’t mean anything since they were supposed private chats made public.

This book is written in a manner as of a detective novel. The book is written with lots of opinions presented as facts. It can get irritating when the author assumes herself to be a James Bond like personality and indulges in self-praise and self-pity when she was undercover when she researched for this book. The desperation to somehow try to malign, defame and reach Narendra Modi and Amit Shah is very obvious in this book, and the attempt is not successful, since on merit nothing given in the book will stand. It becomes clear that this is an attempted political hit job to target Modi and Shah rather than a balanced, impartial verifiable account of events.

By endorsing a book like this, Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal has only reduced his own credibility, since it makes it seem that he will praise anything and anyone attacking Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, irrespective of the merit of the question.

To know the full truth of the Gujarat riots of 2002, read the book “Gujarat Riots: The True Story”.

http://www.amazon.in/Gujarat-Riots-True-Story-Truth/dp/1482841649/

[Note: This was first published at https://satyavijayi.com/rana-ayyub-torn-apart-fiction-gujarat-files-hitesh-rangra2/ ]

Sanjiv Bhatt’s crimes covered up by the media- exposed here

Disgraced former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt has been sentenced to life imprisonment in a custodial death case of 1989 by a Jamnagar court.

This led to more lies being spread by the self-proclaimed ‘liberals’, and media outlets like BBC, who tried to imply that the reason for his conviction was the anti-Modi stance taken by him, and not this 1989 case. This included Manu Joseph, a former contributor at Outlook weekly, who had initially made the same false charge which was later made by Sanjiv Bhatt, on Narendra Modi giving ‘orders to the police to allow Hindus to riot the next day’ in a crucial meeting on 27 Feb 2002 held at CM’s Bungalow, Gandhinagar in weekly Outlook dated 3 June 2002. Manu Joseph said: “I also believe that he is in jail right now only because he tried to destroy Modi.”

[Manu Joseph’s report of Outlook 3 June 2002 was as false as Sanjiv Bhatt’s claims, and he too can be prosecuted for it. To know the full truth of it, and the lies of Joseph in Outlook, click here.] Of course, in reality, Sanjiv Bhatt is in jail for what he did. He deserves to be in jail for far more crimes committed by him as well, primarily perjury. There is a truckload of evidence of Sanjiv Bhatt’s crimes, which has been covered-up totally by the media.

Let us see what the SIT says about the claims of Sanjiv Bhatt and the reality. It is well-known that Sanjiv Bhatt claimed to be presented in the crucial 27 February 2002 late night meeting in Gandhinagar at 10:30 PM. He had also claimed to be present at Narendra Modi’s second meeting at his residence (i.e. in Gandhinagar, away from Ahmedabad) on the morning of 28 February 2002 at 10:30 AM, as mentioned by the SIT in its report on pages 30-31 as well as 400.

The SIT said [on pages 44-45 as well 400 of its closure report] that his call records showed that Sanjiv Bhat was in Ahmedabad, more than 25 km away from Gandhinagar at 10:57 AM on 28 February. He thus, could not have have attended the meeting of 10:30 AM at Gandhinagar on 28 Feb by any stretch of imagination. Such crucial facts have been totally covered up by the media and the liberals who have no answer for these lies of Sanjiv Bhatt, nailed by his own call records.

The SIT interviewed all the people who were indeed present at that 27 February late night meeting, namely S.K. Varma, the then acting Chief Secretary, Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home), P.K. Mishra, the then Principal Secretary to CM (Narendra Modi), K Chakravarthi, the then DGP, P.C. Pandey, the then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, Anil Mukim, the then Additional PS to CM, K Nityanandam, the then Secretary (Home) and Prakash Shah, the then Additional Secretary (law and order).

On pages 393 to 397 of the closure report, their statements are given. S K Varma stated that she could not remember if Sanjiv Bhatt was present or not, but dismissed his allegation that Modi said anything about balancing action against Hindus or Muslims, or that Muslims be taught a lesson or Hindus be allowed to vent their anger. ALL other participants denied the presence of Sanjiv Bhatt, and also any Minister, and categorically denied the claim that Modi made any statement of the type alleged by Sanjiv Bhatt.

Sanjiv Bhatt also claimed that the then Ministers the late Ashok Bhat and I K Jadeja were present at this meeting of 10:30 AM at Gandhinagar on 28 Feb. The SIT report says on pages 44 and 45:

“The call detail records of the government mobile phone number allotted to Sanjiv Bhat show that on 27 February 2002, Shri Sanjiv Bhat remained at Ahmedabad till 11:20 hours and returned to Ahmedabad at 19:25 hours. He attended to various calls till 20:40, and thereafter, there is no record of any call made or received by him. Further, on 28 February 2002, he remained at Ahmedabad till 10:57 hours and then returned to Ahmedabad at 20:56 hours.  The claim of Sanjiv Bhat that he had attended a meeting at CM’s residence on 28-02-2002 at 1030 hours is proved to be false and incorrect. CM’s residence is at Gandhinagar, more than 25 KMs from Ahmedabad, and normally takes 30 to 45 minutes to reach there. His further claim that he had seen the late Ashok Bhat and Shri I K Jadeja, the then Ministers in the DGPs office at 11:00 hours on 28-02-2002, is also belied from the call detail records in as much as the location of the mobile phone of Shri Sanjiv Bhat was at Prerna Tower, Vastrapur-I, Ahmedabad, which happened to be at a distance of 1.5 Kms appropriately from his residence and Shri Bhat could not have reached Police Bhavan, Gandhinagar before 11:30 hrs by any stretch of imagination (page 44)…

(Page 45)  The claim of Sanjiv Bhat that he attended the said meeting at 1030 hours at CM’s location is proved to be false from the location of his mobile phone, which was at Prerna Tower, Vastrapur-I, Ahmedabad City at 10:57: 43 hrs.”

This shows that Sanjiv Bhat also wrongly claimed to have been present at the DGP’s office in Gandhinagar at 11:00 am on 28 Feb 2002, and seen two Ministers the late Ashok Bhatt and I K Jadeja there. We can also see that on 27 February 2002, his call location is not Gandhinagar from 8:40 PM. He reached Ahmedabad at 7:25 PM and his last call record is 8:40 PM at Ahmedabad with not the slightest indication of Gandhinagar. If he attended the 27 February meeting held at 10:30-10:45 PM at Gandhinagar, at least at some time his mobile location would have been shown to be Gandhinagar, post 8:40 PM. Instead the mobile location is shown to be Ahmedabad at 10:57 AM the next day.

The SIT report says on pages 423-428:

“Government of Gujarat vide its letter dated 22-6-2011 forwarded a set of emails exchanged between Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG, Gujarat Police and certain individuals during April & May 2011. It was mentioned in the above letter that during the course of an inquiry instituted against Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS by DG (Civil Defence), Gujarat regarding misuse of official resources, some revelations have been made having direct bearing on the cases monitored by SIT. The material forwarded by Govt. of Gujarat has been scrutinized and the salient features of the same are summarized as below:

  • That top Congress leaders of Gujarat namely Shri Shaktisinh Gohil, Leader of Opposition in Gujarat Legislative Assembly and Shri Arjun Modhvadhia, President of the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee are in constant touch with Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG. They are providing him “Packages”, certain materials and also legal assistance. Further, on 28-04-2011, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt exchanged mails with Shri Shaktisinh Gohil and the former gave points for arguments in Hon’ble Supreme Court matter, allegations to be made against the members of SIT and to establish that the burning of a coach of Sabarmati Express at Godhra Railway Station was not a conspiracy. From the emails, it appears that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was holding personal meetings with senior Congress leaders as well. In one of the emails, he even mentions that he was “under exploited” by the lawyer representing Congress before Nanavati Commission of Inquiry.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been persuading various NGOs and other interested groups to influence groups to influence the Ld. Amicus Curiae and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by using “Media Card” and “Pressure Groups”.
  • Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been exchanging emails with one Nasir Chippa and in the email dated 11-05-2011 Shri Bhatt has stated that he (Nasir Chippa) should try to mobilize support/pressure-groups in Delhi to influence Ld. Amicus Curiae Raju Ramchandran in a very subtle manner. In another email dated 18-05-2011, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had requested Shri Nasir Chippa to influence Home Minister Shri P. Chidambaram through pressure groups in US. It is believed that Shri Nasir Chippa has strong US connections and his family stays there.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt arranged an appeal from Shri M Hasan Jowher, who runs a so-called NGO titled SPRAT (Society for Promoting Rationality) to Amicus Curiae on 13-05-2011, to call Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS, Shri Rajnish Rai, IPS, Shri Satish Verma, IPS, Shri Kuldeep Sharma, IPS and Shri Rahul Sharma, IPS (all police officers of Gujarat) to tender their version of the Gujarat story. It may be mentioned here that the draft for the said appeal was sent by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt himself to Shri Jowher. Further, a copy of this mail was circulated by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt to Shabnam Hashmi, Ms. Teesta Setalwad, Shri Himanshu Thakker, journalist, Shri Leo Saldana, Journalist and Shri Nasir Chippa to encourage prominent persons/organisation to write to Amicus Curiae on the similar lines so as to pressurize him.
  • In emails exchanged on June 1, 2011 between Shri Sanjiv Bhatt and Shri M.H. Jowher, it was proposed that a PIL may be filed through a lawyer named Shri K Vakharia (a Sr. Advocate and Chairman of Legal Cell of Congress Party in Gujarat) in the Gujarat High Court for providing security to Shri Sanjiv Bhatt. It was also proposed that another complaint may be filed with the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City against Shri Narendra Modi & others for his alleged involvement in 2002 riots which would be taken to appropriate judicial forums in due course.
  • That Ms. Teesta Setalwad, her lawyer Shri Mihir Desai and Journalist Shri Manoj Mitta of Times of India were in constant touch with Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS and were instrumental in arranging/drafting of the affidavit for filing the same in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide email dated 10-04-2011, Shri Bhatt solicited “Co-ordinates” from Ms. Teesta Setalwad, who had also arranged for a meeting with her lawyer Shri Mihir Desai at Ellisbridge Gymkhana, Ahmedabad. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt sent the first draft of his proposed affidavit to Shri Manoj Mitta on 13-04-2011, after meeting Shri Mihir Desai, Advocate and invited his suggestions. Shri Manoj Mitta advised Shri Sanjiv Bhatt to incorporate a few more paragraphs drafted by him which were incorporated by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt in his final affidavit sent to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as suggested by Mitta.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was instrumental in arranging an affidavit of one Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary, a journalist, to corroborate his claim that he had gone to attend a meeting called by the Chief Minister at his residence in the night of 27-02-2002. Significantly, Shri Bhatt had sent his mobile phone details of 27-02-2002 to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary and he had also suggested the probable timings of his meeting to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary on 15-05-2011. Simultaneously, these details were sent to Ms. Teesta Setalwad on 16-05-2011, for drafting the document, presumably the affidavit to be filed by Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt sent an email to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary that the said affidavit could be leaked out to the print media which would force the Amicus Curiae and Hon’ble Supreme Court to take notice of the same. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt also sent another email to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary, in which he has stated that they should play the “Media Trick” so that affidavit is taken seriously by Amicus Curiae and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhat had been exchanging emails with one Leo Saldana, a Narmada Bachao Andolan activist, with a view to mobilize public opinion in their favour. On 01-05-2011, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had sent an email to the latter to the effect that what they needed to do at this stage was to create a situation where it would be difficult for three judges Supreme Court Bench to disregard the shortcomings of SIT under stewardship of Mr. Raghavan and that the Pressure groups and opinion makers in Delhi could be of great help in forwarding the cause. He has further stated in the mail that he was hopeful that things would start turning around from the next hearing, if proper pressure was maintained at National level.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was trying to contact Shri K.S. Subramanyam, a retired IPS officer, through Shri Nasir Chippa to make an affidavit supporting his stand with a view to convince the Amicus Curiae and through him the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Shri K. Chakravarthi, former DGP of Gujarat, was a liar.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been taking advice of Ms. Teesta Setalwad in connection with his evidence before Nanavati Commission of Inquiry. He had also been in touch with various journalists, NGOs and had been forwarding his representations, applications and other documents through email, whereas on the other side he had been claiming privilege that being an Intelligence Officer he was duty bound not to disclose anything unless, he was legally compelled to do so.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has been maintaining a close contact with Shri Rahul Sharma, DIG of Gujarat Police and had been getting his mobile phone calls analyzed with a view to ascertain his own movements of 27-02-2002. This shows that Bhatt does not recollect his movements on that day. He has also been trying to ascertain the movements of Late Haren Pandya, the then Minister of State for Revenue on 27-02-2002, with a view to introduce him as a participant of the meeting of 27-02-2002 held at CM’s residence, but could not do so, as Shri Rahul Sharma had informed him after the analysis that there was absolutely no question of Late Haren Pandya being at Gandhinagar on 27-02-2002 night.

From the study of emails, it appears that certain vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, different NGOs and some political leaders were trying to use Hon’ble Supreme Court/SIT as a forum for settling their scores. This would also go to show that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been colluding with the persons with vested interests to see that some kind of charge-sheet is filed against Shri Narendra Modi and others.”

This makes things absolutely clear and also shows that many people were involved in this fraud, who knew that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at the 27 February 2002 meeting, but far from bringing out the truth to the investigators, were helping in this false claim.

In October 2015, the SC said exactly these things about Sanjiv Bhat. It said:

Dismissed Gujarat IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt hobnobbed with leaders of a “rival political party” and NGOs, approached the court with “unclean hands” and made “false and baseless” claims in his petition that the two criminal cases against him were an attempt by the Gujarat Government to silence him for speaking out against the role of top functionaries of the State in the 2002 riots, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday rejecting Bhatt’s petition seeking an SIT probe into the two cases against him.

The Bench of Chief Justice Hl Dattu and Justice Arun Mishra discovered that besides the senior leaders of Gujarat’s “rival political party” (read Congress) Bhatt also took instructions from NGO activists and their lawyers, and used the media to create pressure on judges and amicus curiae associated with the monitoring of the Gujarat riots cases in the SC.”

Haren Pandya (murdered in March 2003) of course, was not present in that meeting. The SIT report also says on page 56 that Haren Pandya’s mobile records show that he was in Ahmedabad on 27 Feb 2002 at 22:52 hours, meaning that it was impossible for him to attend the meeting in Gandhinagar at 10:30 PM on 27 Feb. As we can see in Myth 19, he could not even name correctly the people present in the meeting.

This shows that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at all in the meeting, and he did not even know basic facts about the meeting which even I knew as a 14-year old in 2002 living outside Gujarat. It is known since August 2002 (when Haren Pandya’s errors in naming people present in the meeting were admitted by him to Outlook) that Haren Pandya was by no means present in the meeting. But Sanjiv Bhatt did not even know this and hence first asked Rahul Sharma to find out if Haren Pandya could be introduced as a witness-a participant in that meeting.

Most importantly, this shows that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at all. If Sanjiv Bhatt was present in the meeting, wouldn’t he know if Haren Pandya was present or not? Why would he need to ask Rahul Sharma to find the call details? This also shows that Rahul Sharma also knew the truth, that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present, but did not tell the investigators and instead helped Sanjiv Bhatt in the fraud.

Sanjiv Bhatt claimed to have been present in that 27 February 2002 meeting for the first time after 9 years. When asked by the SIT about the delay, he claimed that being an Intelligence Officer, he was dutybound by Oath of Secrecy not to disclose anything to anyone unless there was a legal obligation. The SIT report continues on pages 407-408:

“In this connection (his excuse for the delay in claiming to be present in that 27 Feb 2002 meeting, he made this claim after 9 years in 2011 first), it would not be out of place to mention here that assuming for the time being that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt attended the alleged meeting of 27.02.2002, the same was essentially a law & order meeting attended by the various officials of State Administration and therefore the question of oath of secrecy or application of the Official Secrets Act does not arise because it was neither a secret meeting nor would the revelation of the contents of the said meeting jeopardize the public interest. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has used the weapon of the Official Secrets Act only as a pretext with a view to justify a long delay of nine years and just because an official of the intelligence unit attended a law & order meeting, the same does not become a secret meeting for which a privilege of secrecy is being claimed by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt. In any case, Nanavati Commission and SIT have been set up under the provisions of law of the land and all the citizens/ officials are legally bound to divulge the information available with them which are relevant to the terms of reference/ crimes of the Commission being investigated by SIT.

In view of this, the explanation put forward by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt does not hold good.”

On page 419, the SIT has completely debunked the claim of “Office of Secrecy”. The report says:

“However, on 21/22-03-2011, when he made a statement u/s 161 Cr.PC before the SIT, it is not understood as to by whom and how the claimed secrecy was waived. His silence for a period of more than nine years without any proper explanation appears to be suspicious and gives an impression that he is trying to manipulate the things to his personal advantage to settle his service matters.”

   The SIT said on page 403 that Bhatt was indeed under legal obligations to disclose these facts, if true firstly to Shri R.B. Sreekumar, the then Addl. DG (Int.), who had asked him to provide any oral and documentary relevant fact to be included in his affidavit relating to riots incidents on behalf of State IB required to be filed before Nanavati Commission, secondly to the Nanavati Commission, a legally constituted body under Commission of Inquiry Act which had issued a public notice calling upon any one having knowledge about the incident of issues involved before it, to file an affidavit and furnish information, thirdly, to the SIT, legally constituted by the Supreme Court of India which had also issued a public notice on 11.04.2008 calling upon the people to come forward and give information relating to the riots, but Sanjiv Bhatt conveniently did not come forward. Fourthly, another opportunity was given to him in November 2009, to make a statement during the course of inquiry ordered by the Supreme Court of India.

Meaning that the SIT has said that there was nothing secret about the 27 Feb meeting that prevented Sanjiv Bhatt from disclosing about it to anyone for 9 years, and he could have easily done that. Secondly, the SIT also said that he was indeed under legal obligation to disclose them on at least 4 occasions but did not do so. And thirdly, he came up and made the claims to the SIT in March 2011, more than 9 years after the incident, all on his own, and without any summons, then by whom and how was the secrecy waived?

    The SIT report continues on pages 412-414:

“Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI (Security) has named two AIOs namely Shri K.D. Panth and Shri Shailesh Raval, who used to accompany him in such meetings along with the files. After Shri Sanjiv Bhatt’s further statement was recorded at his own request on 25-03-2011 (His first was recorded on 22-03-2011), he insisted that Shri K.D. Panth, who was accompanying him and was waiting outside, should also be examined. He stressed that Shri Panth should be examined in his presence. However, Shri Bhatt was informed that Shri K.D. Panth would be called on a date convenient to the IO and examined. Accordingly, Shri Panth was informed on 04-04-2011, to attend SIT office on 05-04-2011, for his examination.

   Shri K.D. Panth in his examination has stated that he was on casual leave on 27-02-2002. Further, he has denied that he followed Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI (Security) to CM’s residence on 27-02-2002 night. However, he has stated that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had called him to his residence on 24-03-2011 night and informed that he was going to make a statement before the SIT that he (K.D. Panth) had gone to attend a meeting at CM’s residence on 27-02-2002 night, and that he (Panth) had been called at State IB office and be ready with the files for the said meeting. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt further informed Shri Panth that he should accompany him to SIT office on 25-03-2011, and make a statement on these lines.

During his examination, Shri Panth further stated that he had contacted  Shri Sanjiv Bhatt over his landline telephone no. 27455*** from mobile no. 814065**** (belonging to one of his friends) after he was called for examination scheduled for 05-04-2011. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt called him at his residence on 04-04-2011 at 2030 hrs. At his residence, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt informed Shri Panth that he has made a statement to the SIT that he (Bhatt) had accompanied DGP Shri K. Chakravarthi in his official car to CM’s office from DGP’s office on 27-02-2002 night and that he (Shri Panth) had followed him in his (Shri Sanjiv Bhatt’s) staff car along with the files. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt asked Shri Panth to make a statement accordingly.

Subsequently, Shri K.D. Panth lodged a complaint against Shri Sanjiv Bhatt with the local police to the effect that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had influenced, threatened, detained, put severe pressure and compelled him to sign an affidavit containing false/wrong and incorrect facts, in pursuance of which a case no. I CR No. 149/2011 was registered u/s 189, 193, 195, 341, 342 IPC with Ghatlodia police station, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat State. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has since been arrested in this case and the matter is under investigation. In view of this, no reliance can be placed upon the version of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt.

   This conduct of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt in arranging, prompting and controlling the witness to corroborate his statement is highly suspicious and undesirable. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt also contacted Shri Shailesh Raval on 28-03-2011/29-03-2011, over mobile phone number 982568**** of one Shri N.J. Chauhan, a clerk in CM’s Security and informed him that he would be called by SIT for his examination. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt also asked Shri Shailesh Raval [to say] that he had worked with him in Security Branch for a long time and was aware that he (Sanjiv Bhatt) used to attend meetings, to which Shri Raval reacted by saying that he had accompanied him in Border Security Nodal Committee meetings, which used to deal with the Border Security only. Shri Raval also informed Shri Sanjiv Bhatt that he never worked in the Communal Branch and was not aware of anything about it. Shri Sanjiv Bhat thereafter disconnected the phone. Shri Shailesh Raval, PI later sent a complaint in writing to the Chairman, SIT that he feared reprisal from Shri Sanjiv Bhatt as he had refused to support the false claims of Shri Bhatt. This is yet another attempt on the part of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt to tutor a witness to depose in a particular manner so as to support the statement made by him, which further makes his claim of having attended the meeting at CM’s residence on 27-02-2002, false.”

Was Sanjiv Bhatt’s insistence that K C Pant be examined by the SIT only in his (Bhatt’s) presence not a clear attempt to threaten, tutor and pressurize a witness? This and other crucial facts such as his call records exposing his lies of being present in the 28 Feb 2002 10:30 AM meeting at Gandhinagar have been conveniently covered-up by the media, lest the truth be out!

Among all the people who had actually participated in that 27 February 2002 meeting apart from Narendra Modi, not a single one has said that Sanjiv Bhatt was present. Seven (7) people have given in writing that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present, this includes high-level Police officials like the then Ahmedabad Police Commissioner P C Pandey, the then DGP of Gujarat K Chakravarty and others. Note here that had any participant decided to talk against Narendra Modi, he or she would have been treated like a Hero/Heroine by the media, given a lot of ‘packages’ by the Congress and NGOs, and the then UPA Government and got immense publicity like Sanjiv Bhatt, but not one of them did so, despite there being immense gain from doing so.

There is the question raised by us in Myth 19- Is Narendra Modi a fool to openly give such orders to so many officials in such a meeting (on 27 February night) where any of the officers could have secretly recorded such orders or which would have had 9 witnesses against Narendra Modi? Even if, for argument’s sake, assuming he did want such orders to be issued, he would have done it through middlemen and other communicators being careful not to come into the picture directly!

This is not all. The SIT has pointed out some other facts as well, which disprove Sanjiv Bhatt’s claims of being present in the 27 February meeting and also some other of his false claims.

The media also knew all this since May 2012 onwards, when the SIT report went public, but forcibly suppressed all these facts about Sanjiv Bhatt which the Supreme Court told in Oct 2015, because it wanted to paint Sanjiv Bhatt as a ‘hero’ and to forcibly demonize and crucify Narendra Modi. Ask Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt, NDTV, CNN-IBN, TimesNow [Yes, even TimesNow!], India Today and all the TV channels, and English dailies like Times of India, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, The Statesman, The Telegraph etc as to why they hid all these facts about Sanjiv Bhatt?

Magazines like Tehelka and Outlook spread half-truths and outrageous lies to somehow forcibly imply that Sanjiv Bhatt was present in that 27 February 2002 late night meeting. [See our answers to Questions 3 and 4 in our reply to 25 Questions asked by Outlook.] They suppressed all such direct evidences which nailed Sanjiv Bhatt’s lies since they wanted to crucify Narendra Modi throwing the truth to the winds.

   After his conviction in the 1989 custodial death case, the biased people in the media are again trying to make Sanjiv Bhatt a hero, ignoring all above facts. They are also indulging in blatant contempt of court by trying to call this as ‘vindictive politics of Modi and Shah’ as if they had anything to do with the court judgment!

Instead, they should demand Sanjiv Bhatt’s prosecution for perjury, for lying under oath to have been present in the 27 Feb 2002 late night meeting, making false charges on a Chief Minister, for lying under oath to have been present in the 28 Feb 2002 morning meeting at 10:30 AM, and making several other false claims, for threatening constable K C Pant to forcibly support his claim, as well as another witness Shailesh Raval. Do they have intellectual honesty? Of course not. Instead, they will suppress all these facts about Sanjiv Bhatt, call his conviction by a court in a totally unrelated case as ‘vindictive politics’, and will also describe his prosecution on any of the above grounds [if done] as ‘vindictive politics’!

For a full expose of all these lies on this issue, read Chapter 7, Myth 19 and Chapter 12 of our book “Gujarat Riots: The True Story”.

(The writer is the author of book “Gujarat Riots: The True Story” which gives all details about the 2002 riots- Godhra and after, one of the admins of www.gujaratriots.com and one of the admins of the Twitter handle @gujaratriotscom)

Like doctors of Bengal, Dalits and Doctors were attacked by Muslims in Gujarat in 2002- ignored by the media

There have been attacks on doctors in West Bengal by a mob of Muslims. Two interns are seriously injured in these attacks majorly due to police inaction on these attacks. The police of course, did not take action because the mob was of Muslims. The media is, by and large, shy of condemning the police inaction against the mob and mentioning bluntly that it was a Muslim mob. Since the attackers were Muslim, and the Government is of Mamata Banerjee, it is absolutely impossible that she would condemn the attackers and support the doctors. Instead, cases are being framed against doctors, and they are the ones who are being condemned by the Chief Minister of the state Mamata Banerjee, false accusations are being made on them by her eg. ‘Not treating Muslim patients on BJP’s orders’.

The situation that the doctors find themselves in now, is comparable to the situation Dalits found themselves in Gujarat in the 2002 riots. Fanatic Muslims attacked Dalits (even AFTER Godhra), and since this fact did not fit in the media narrative of ‘Muslims being massacred in Gujarat’, these attacks were almost completely ignored by the mainstream media.

There are people who claim to be ‘Champions of Dalits’, many of whom are full of hatred for Hindus and Hindu religion. Some people try to raise slogans like “Dalit-Muslim bhai bhai” trying to bring Dalits and Muslims together against the Hindu society, like Dr Udit Raj, formerly known as Ram Raj. Udit Raj was a man burning with hatred for Hinduism, which he left and adopted Buddhism. But later he joined the BJP before leaving it again in 2019 after being denied a Lok Sabha ticket. In 1995, BSP leader Mayawati became Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, and hurled abuses at Lord Ram, fabricated cases against (the so-called) upper caste people under the SC/ST Atrocities Prevention Act. Many people, from politicians like Sonia Gandhi, Ram Vilas Paswan, Mayawati, Communists to social activists like Arundhati Roy, Medha Patkar etc claim to be fighting for the cause of Dalits, the oppressed classes and other weaken sections.

Some of these people also falsely launch a campaign against Hindu organisations like RSS, VHP etc accusing them of being organisations of ‘upper caste Hindus’ with a ‘anti-Dalit’ bias. Organisations like RSS, which was praised for its caste-less character by Dr Ambedkar in 1939 during his visit to a RSS camp in Pune, have been trying hard to unite the Hindu society for the past 88 years. No one except the Sangh Parivar even talks of uniting the Hindus. But the media and so-called champions of Dalits try their utmost to paint the dedicated Hindu organisations as anti-Dalit.  But what is the truth? When other caste people commit atrocities on Dalits, the media highlights the case and a hullabaloo is raised (and rightly so, so it should). Even if the attacks have nothing to do caste, or even if they are caste-based, when other caste people are involved, they are almost always projected as caste-based.

After 12 Dalits were killed in Bihar under Lalu’s rule in 1998-99, Sonia Gandhi herself visited Bihar immediately and declared that the state government has no right to be in power. (But then when the then Central Government tried to impose President’s Rule in Bihar, Sonia Gandhi opposed it and supported the RJD Government, allying with Lalu within 3 months).

But what happened when the attacks on Dalits were by Muslims?

The post-Godhra riots of 2002 in Gujarat were falsely projected as ones in which only Muslims suffered. But the truth is of course, that even after Godhra, Muslims were equally on the offensive and attacked and killed Hindus. Many of these Hindus were Dalits who suffered heavily in the Gujarat riots. India Today weekly reported in its issue of 15 April 2002:

“The next few days saw mayhem. In Ahmedabad, violence broke out on March 17 [2002] when Dalits in Danilimda area were attacked by Muslims“.

On 30 May, 2002 The Hindu reported: “In a chat with The Hindu, (CPM Politbureau member) Ms Brinda Karat, who was in Bangalore last week, shared a few thoughts on the hurdles in the rehabilitation of people affected by the riots, both Hindus and Muslims…When she did actually see a cheque for Rs. 22,000, it was at the Kankadia camp, which housed Dalits, and Hindus. There, Karat also came across cheques for Rs. 10,000, Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 22,000. “The government seems to be offering some substantial compensation only to the Dalit community,” Ms. Karat observes, emphasising the need to compensate everyone equally.”

None other than Marxist leader Brinda Karat also admitted that Hindus and particularly Dalits were also homeless. The compensation provided by the Government was equal for all, just that she ‘saw’ cheques of different denominations at different relief camps. While forcibly trying to imply that the Gujarat Government was discriminating Hindu and Muslim victims of riots, she admitted that there were Hindus also rendered homeless. She also forcibly tried to separate Dalits from Hindus, as if Dalits are not Hindus. Of course, Dalits are also Hindus.

The report of Dr Suvarna Rawal published in Marathi daily Tarun Bharat dated 21 July 2002 is a must read. Here it is in full.

“Dalits suffered heavily during Gujarat riots

The news of Godhra inferno and the subsequent riots which erupted in other parts of Gujarat were highly disturbing events for the minds of any person interested in the welfare of the society. Yet among them, those of fights between Muslims and Dalits and Muslims and Adivasis were very surprising. Generally the slogan of ‘Dalit, Muslims – Bhai Bhai’ is raised and given a high pitch. There is also a talk of forming a federation of Dalit and Muslim by alienating Dalits from Hindu society. On this background, the news of Muslim crowds attacking Dalit localities or Adivasis shattering the Muslim localities was astonishing. The apprehension that perhaps, the Dalits are being used as shields in the Hindu Muslim riots also came to mind. This was the background in our minds, when we proceeded to visit Gujarat on behalf of the Survey Committee of Samarasata Manch.

But what awaited us was quite different.

…In the group of Ramsevaks in Sabarmati Express which was burnt to charred remains by Muslim fundamentalists, there were some Dalit youths also. Just as they became martyrs in the carnage, there were many Dalit brothers living in slums of different parts of Ahmedabad who were victims of Muslims attack. We heard a number of heart-rending reports from the relatives and neighbours of the dead persons during our sojourn in Gujarat. I am giving below a few of them by way of samples.

Ramjibhai Parmar was a 24 years youth from Gomatipur area which is inhabited by Valmiki community. He saw Constable Amarbhai Patil patrolling near the Masjid was being attacked with swords by Muslims and went to rescue him but Muslims fired at him and shot him dead. (This was also reported by India Today dated 20 May 2002 and rediff.com quoting the MoS Gordhan Zadaphiya on 22 April 2002)

Devendrabhai Solanki from Radhanpur, working in the Ahmedabad Sales Tax Office as Notice Server had come to the Nanu Wadkar house for Holi. On 30th March, stone-throwing started in the direction of this house. Children were playing in front of the house and to take them inside the home, he came out. A mob of about 5000 Muslims rushed on him while Darmesh some how slipped out, but one of them cut his face with sword. He lost his front teeth. Miss Dipti Solanki, daughter of Dendrabhai Solanki weeping incessantly, told us bitterly that after 13 days, the dead body of Devendrabhai were found cut in 25 pieces.

(4 Muslims were convicted for this on 18 May 2006.)

25 years old Vasantkumar Parmar, earning Rs.1000 p. m. by working in a private factory, was looking after his old father and unmarried sister. After curfew was withdrawn, bombs were thrown near his house, the lights went out and by the deafening sound of explosion Vasantkumar rushed out of house running. The Muslims which were hiding in an ambush on the way-out, attacked him with swords and killed him on the spot. His death cries shocked his sister-in-law Gitaben but she had the presence of mind to beat the Dish (Thali) loudly and collected people nearby. Muslims attacked this locality of 125 families from all four sides. If we had weapons, we would have fought with them better. Gitaben was sobbing saying, “My younger brother-in-law became a victim without any reason.

Pravinbhai Mooljibhai Solanki, a 25-year-old youth, living in the Ramanpura area, Saatchaali was running a Panpatti shop on lease. On Ramanavami day (21st April 2002) while he was returning home after closing his shop, Muslims attacked and killed him. Mooljibhai told us that Muslims from Daryapur-Kalupur area came in our locality and exploded a bomb. As the children and women were running away, Muslims fired on them. If Dalits kept arms with them for their protection, the Police took action on them, but they take no action on the Muslims when they keep them. He said they had a serious gripe against Police for this discrimination.

In the Khariwadi of Shahpura slum, there are about 220 Hindu and 10-15 Muslim families. To the left of the slum, there is a restaurant Relief Club. The Muslim manager of this hotel, got together fanatic Muslim youths from the same locality and set the houses in the locality on fire, first taking care to remove all inhabitants of Muslim houses to a safe place. They burnt houses of 35 Hindu families. Everywhere there was a desperate cry. Two girls from two houses were burnt alive. Seeing this spectacle, a 10 year Hindu boy, Suresh Mehru died of the shock. The Sindhi owner of the Hotel Reviera which is to the right of the slum, gave asylum to all these people and made arrangements for their food. These people of the slum belonging to Vaghari community were running the business of selling old clothes.

Behrampura is a Muslim-majority area having a population of 1,20,000. We found that in the minds of the Dalit community, there was a terrible anger against Muslims who had shattered the life of their community. Yusuf Ajmeri with a 1000 strong mob and with swords and guptis in their hands rushed to Hindu locality shouting “Kill Hindus, Allah is with us”. On 28th February, Kisanbhai Bhikabhai Dantani who was returning from work, was attacked on his chest with swords and was killed on the spot.  His 70 year old mother was telling with deep sorrow depicted on her face.  She told that this treachery was done by their neighbours who were living along with them for last 8-10 years. She said, “They had come to finish us. My son was killed, my daughter-in-law could not stand it and has left for her village. What will be the fate of my grandson Sanjay? They have completely made our life desolate and barren.”

Muslims living in Behrampura have houses with 2-3 storeys. They resorted to heavy stone-throwing on the Dalit localities. Jaisinghbhai Shyamjibhai, who had passed 9th Standard and working in a Hosiary shop was standing near his house. A heavy brick came down spinning at a great speed and hit Jaisinghbhai on the chest. The impact was so disastrous that his chest cage nearly broke open and he died on 1st March. Father of Jaisinghbhai works on daily wages in the Municipality. He was narrating us this history along with his children, all of them were terrified and jittery.

Dani-Limda area of Ahmedabad has a large population of weavers community. Piyushkumar a youngster living in the Annpurna Housing Society was told by Mustak Kania, Mohamed Rafique, Kasimbhai Ganichiya and Mustak Menon from Dhruv Society just in the front side, that they were planning to launch a rocket from their building and as the rocket will take off, Mecca – Madina will be visible. Believing this story, he went to see it with curiosity, but on going there, was riddled with bullets in the throat and liver. His father and other youths from the society took him to Lallubhai Govardhandas General Hospital, but before anything was done, he died on 12th April at 6 p.m. His parents were unable to speak anything to us and hence, his grand father related us this terrible story.

(Muslims were convicted for this on 28 March 2006.)

Dayabhai Rathod from Nirmalpura had taken Voluntary Retirement and was living along with his wife, 3 daughters and his only son Pinakin of 26 years old. When stone-throwing started, a bullet from the Police hit him and he was killed on the spot. We were simply short of any words of consolation for the continuously weeping parents. His maternal uncle was expressing terrible anger against the Police.

Ms Induben Laljibhai Gohil living in the Municipal Sweepers Colony near Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar bridge in Chamunda died of a Police firing. Jitu of Marwari community living in Behrampura locality also died in Police firing.

Dinesh Kantilal Makwana from Damodar Chawl was returning on 3rd March from his work. Near the graveyard, two Muslim youths stabbed him to death. His address was found by the police from some papers in his pocket and his body which had undergone post-mortem, was handed over to his grandmother who was the only relative he had.

Soft Target:

Generally, Muslim community lives close together. In many areas, there are Dalit localities or slums alongside. Around such area there are many small factories run by Muslims and Dalit labourers working in them, live surrounded by the factories and Muslims. Those Dalit brothers who could not go out due to curfew, got caught in the deadly grip of Muslims. These financially weak people were the soft target for the Muslims. From the terraces of houses, it was easy and safe for Muslims to attack the single storeyed houses, slums or sometimes two storeyed houses with stones, and crude bombs. In the closed Muslim locality of Gomatipur, even an electric current was sent preventing Police to enter.

Crooked and selfish Politicians:

These stories are indicative and not exhaustive. Atrocities on Dalits were done on such a vast scale, but no secular politician from Sonia Gandhi to Ramvilas Paswan felt like visiting the affected Dalit localities. The reporters of English press or channels did not come at all to these areas. No progressive person wearing the mask of ‘anti-fanaticism’ felt like to wipe the tears of Dalits. Anti-fanaticism means unleashing criticism on Hindus is their equation and they have firm belief in the convictions that the love for Dalits is only a point for propaganda. The Dalits in Gujarat have got the test of this naked truth in the recent riots.

At the same time, Dalits got experience of the people from so-called Anti-Dalit organisations, RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal etc. coming to their rescue risking their own lives.

During this survey, we came to know as to how true was the minute analysis of Muslim mindset done by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar.”

URL: http://www.hvk.org/articles/0702/176.html

Along with this, let us now take a look at the report of The Indian Express dated 10 May 2002, Friday, written by Palak Nandi:

A home for long now just a death trap

   PALAK NANDI

Posted online: Friday, May 10, 2002 at 0000 hours IST

 AHMEDABAD, MAY 9: Prem Darwaza in Ahmedabad is another Panwad, though here Hindus are at the receiving end unlike the Vadodara village. The locality stands out with its burnt houses, and broken bangles, steel utensils and torn bed sheets scattered across the streets.

 
   A half damaged wall full of charcoal scribbles summarises the Vaghri Vas locality’s feelings: ‘‘Mini Pakistan’’; ‘‘Miya Vad, Karachi’’; “Don’t come back or you’ll pay a heavy price’’, and ‘‘Hindus not allowed’’.

 
Before the riots, around 800 people lived at Vaghri Vas, mostly Hindu Dalits. In the hate wave that followed, both communities were targeted. While the Dalits fled, some Muslims dared to stay put.
 

Now things have changed. Unlike earlier, the minority community now calls the shots. Jeetendra Datania, an autorickshaw driver, said: ‘‘We were living here for almost 40 years. Though outsiders attacked their (Muslim) homes on February 28, they avenged it by driving us out on March 21. Now, not one of us dares to enter the locality.’’

A daily wager’s wife, Bhavnaben Naranbhai, said: ‘‘We were more in numbers. But we dare not enter our locality now. If we try, they shoo us away saying ‘Jo tha, sab khatam ho gaya. Chale jao, varna pachtaoge (Life’s no longer the same. Run or you’ll regret it).’’

 
The Dalits have put up at a nearby temple for when they returned home about a week back, they found dead animals in their houses. ‘‘The walls were full of warnings,’’ said Raju, Bhavnaben’s younger brother.

Life is much the same at Bhanderi-ni-Pol in Kalupur locality. As many as 518 riot-hit people from Kalupur Darwaza and Kalupur Tower now stay at the Bahuchar Mata nu Mandir. ‘‘We have no choice. My shop was looted, our house pelted with stones and handmade petrol bombs,’’ said Jaswantbhai Modi.

The locality of the temple is the ‘‘the border’’ for just across live Muslims. ‘‘A constant flow of stones, petrol bombs and even bullets from across the border is regular,’’ Nirmalaben Dave said. She lost her house in the riots. ‘‘We avoid going close to the border.’’

Though the camps here are registered, the refugees have not been allotted a building to stay in. Refugees in Kalupur sleep on the streets and those in Dariapur spend the days in a building under construction.”

URL: http://archive.indianexpress.com/oldStory/2401/

This clearly proves that Muslims attacked Dalits. None other than The Indian Express reported this.
It is worth reading another article in the same newspaper, i.e. The Indian Express, dated 7th May 2002, also written by Palak Nandi:

With no relief, they turn to religious places for shelter

Palak Nandi

Ahmedabad, May 6: THESE are the 1,000-odd riot victims for whom relief is an eyewash. While some have been driven away from their houses, others had no choice but to leave their houses badly damaged in the riots.

Relief seems to be a far-fetched idea because since the past 15 days, they have been spending their days either on the streets or in a half-constructed building.

About 550-odd residents of the Prem Darwaja Vagheri Vas, Dariyapur, had no choice but to leave behind their belongings and take shelter in a near-by temple, following the violence of March 21. These Dalit families claim that they had been attacked by the people belonging to the minority community, who damaged their houses, property and drove them out of the area. 

‘‘We had no choice but to take shelter at this temple. However, the temple cannot accommodate all of us hence, we are compelled to live in this half-constructed building,’’ says Gautamiben Dhirabhai, a resident of the Vagheri Vas.

This half-constructed building is right opposite the temple, in the same premises and though it does not have a single fully-built room, it is the ‘house’ for more than 400 people, while the remaining sleep in the temple.

   
The situation is no different at a similar relief camp in Kalupur. The Bahuchar-Mata-nu-Madir, located at Bhanderi-ni-Pol at Kalupur, is currently accommodating about 518 riot-affected victims. They are the residents of areas located between Kalupur Darwaja and Kalupur Tower and which witnessed violence on March 21.

While a few of these people sleep at their neighbour’s house, some sleep in the temple while the rest, mainly the men, sleep in the lanes, just outside the temple. The temple area is called as ‘border area’ by the local residents, as across the temple is the locality of the Muslims. ‘‘There is a continuous flow of stones, petrol bombs and even bullets at times, from across the border. All of us avoid even going close to the border,’’ says Nirmalaben Dave, whose house has been damaged during the riots.

The inmates of both the camps have demanded for a building, but as yet none of them have been allotted one. ‘‘We have been demanding for the Kalpur Municipal school number 14 and 19, for a long time now, but we have not been allotted the school building. Because of the space shortage, these people have no choice but to eat and sleep in the lanes,’’ says Paresh Thakkar, organiser of the camp, who lives nearby.

For years, both Hindus and Muslims lived together in the area. Now the mutual trust and faith between the two communities has been replaced by fear, panic and hatred.

‘‘For more than 60 years, we lived peacefully and there was never any problem. However, on March 21, a few people of my locality came to me and told me that I should leave my house for good and if I return, they will not be responsible for the consequences,’’ says Badamiben Prajapari, who lives alone with her son.

‘‘It is not safe for these people to live here as one does not know when the stone-pelting and violence will begin. Already, the third floor of my building has been damaged due to the petrol bombs,’’ says Bhagyovadan Khatri, trustee of the temple. But the refugees are apprehensive about returning to their houses.

‘‘About five of us were injured in a private firing on March 21. All of us now are very careful and avoid going to their area, except in a group’’, says Hitendra Shah, who was injured in the incident.”

This is a clear proof of the fact that Dalits suffered heavily in the riots, at the hands of Muslims. But the entire non-Gujarati media generally kept quiet on this issue.

The reporters of English press or channels did not come at all to these areas. On the contrary, they tried to push these atrocities under the carpet, ignore them, and act as if there were no atrocities on Dalits done by Muslims at all. Arundhati Roy, Brinda Karat, Medha Patkar, etc also did not bother to even let the world know these atrocities, not to talk of helping the affected Dalits and exposing the attackers (Muslims) and demanding harsh punishment to the attackers. No progressive person wearing the mask of ‘anti-fanaticism’ felt like to wipe the tears of Dalits.

The report of www.rediff.com dated 2nd April 2002 titled “Politicians, gamblers keep Gujarat’s cycle of violence going” also proves attacks on Dalits. That report says:

“…In a volatile place like Gomtipur, once charged crowds come face to face, clashes are inevitable. Here, like in many other parts of Gujarat, Dalits live in close proximity with Muslims. The crowd in Shanker Ghanchi Lane consisted mostly of Dalits.

Both sides were prepared, said social worker Ashok Shrimali, a resident of the area who saw the clash. “A huge fire started when petrol bombs were thrown on a residential area. A few Dalit homes got burnt, tension increased and things became uncontrollable.”

Parikh, who witnessed the entire battle from a police jeep, said, “People had unusual weapons. Long swords to gilole (a handy instrument made of strings and leather) and handmade sulphate bombs. Bottles of Thums Up filled with petrol were in plenty.”

Shrimali remarked, “The Muslims were screaming revenge while the Dalits seemed to have been provoked by politicians. In our area Congress leaders are active again.”

Pravin Pandya, a former member of the state scheduled caste board, said, “Since Dalits have suffered more casualties, the Congress is playing with their insecurity. If Dalits are pitted against Muslims, which is quite an easy game, the Congress stands to gain.”

But Naresh Rawal, leader of the Opposition in the Gujarat assembly, dismissed this allegation as “raddi” (rubbish). Instead, the Congressman, who visited Kadi — which witnessed clashes last week — on Sunday evening, told rediff.com, “The way riots are spreading to new areas, we can see the BJP pattern emerging.

URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/02bhatt.htm

These attacks exposed 4 categories of people:

1- Media: It often reports cases which have nothing to do with caste as caste-based attacks. The genuine attacks and sufferings must always be reported, but in case of atrocities done by so-called upper caste people, the media at times exaggerates. But when the attacks were done by Muslims, the media totally ignored them and pretended as if nothing happened. And instead did everything to show Muslims as helpless victims, ignoring completely their attacks on Hindus even after Godhra.

2- A section of Muslims: Those who talk of uniting Dalits and Muslims against Hindus in general and RSS in particular were so fanatic that they did not spare even those with whom they plan to ally in other areas. The true face of fanatics is always that non-followers of their religion will suffer, be they of any caste or any other religion.

3- So-called Dalit leaders: So-called champions of Dalits like Mayawati, Ramvilas Paswan, Udit Raj etc who would have raised a hullabaloo had the atrocities on Dalits in Gujarat committed by Muslims instead been committed by upper caste Hindus, did not even notice and tried to suppress all news about all these atrocities.

4- Hindu organisations like RSS, VHP: Volunteers of these Hindu organisations gave great help to Dalits often coming to their rescue at a great risk to their own lives.

When this writer talked to some ‘secularists’ on the attacks by Muslims on Hindus and Dalits in particular, he got interesting answers.

In Muslim-dominated areas of Ahmedabad and other places, the Hindus living in minority, (often microscopic minority) many of whom were Dalits, suffered horribly, were thrown out of their homes, attacked and killed by Muslims. Not only that, even in other areas like Sindhi market and Bhanderi Pole areas of Ahmedabad the Muslims attacked the Hindus. The Muslim backlash started on 1 March 2002, 1 day after 28 February when the Hindus attacked Muslims in Ahmedabad’s Naroda Patiya, Gulbarga Society and other areas.

The ‘secularists’, after listening to these facts of Muslim attacks said to me: “It is natural and inevitable. If Hindus attack and kill them in Naroda Patiya, they will obviously attack, kill, render homeless the Hindus living in minority in their dominated areas in the next days”. This response has 2 important implications:

1- When Muslims attack Hindus, they think it is ‘natural’ and ‘inevitable’ because of attacks by Hindus on 28 Feb in Naroda Patiya. But for them Naroda Patiya attacks were not ‘inevitable’ and ‘natural’ because of Godhra killings of Hindus!

2- They know and admit that Muslims attacked Hindus even after Godhra, when they say its ‘natural’ and ‘inevitable’. If you know that its ‘inevitable’ that Muslims will attack Hindus in their areas and also other areas if riots last weeks, then why do they lie that Muslims were massacred in one-sided attacks ignoring attacks on Hindus, in particular, Dalits?

Doctors too were attacked by Muslims in the 2002 Gujarat riots, which was completely suppressed by the media. In 2002 post-Godhra riots, fanatic Muslims attacked Hindu doctors who were serving in Muslim-dominated areas. So communal were the attackers, that they attacked DOCTORS serving their own community members because they were a soft target. The Times of India reported on 11 April 2002  that:

Docs told to stay off minority areas

“All Hindu doctors are warned that they are not safe practising in Muslim-dominated areas. They are thus requested to stop practising in such areas and also in minority trust-run hospitals with immediate effect”. This message issued by the Ahmedabad Doctors’ Forum, which has about 100 active members in the city, came as a direct fallout of the attack on Dr Amit Mehta, who was repeatedly stabbed in his clinic in Juhapura (which is a Muslim area) on Tuesday [9 April 2002].
The incident has sent shock waves through the medical fraternity.

“In the past too, Hindu doctors practising in Muslim-dominated areas like Jamalpur and Gomtipur have been fatally attacked. And yesterday’s attack on Dr Mehta should serve as a warning to Hindu doctors to quit practising in Muslim areas,” ADF founder- member Dr Bharat Amin told TNN.

Already, Hindu doctors are reluctant to go to Muslim areas where their hospitals and clinics are located and this attack on one of their colleagues has only compounded their fears. “The uncertainity and insecurity is becoming too much. I have been practising in Shahpur for the past 30 years, but will I be able to trust my patients now?” asks Dr KR Sanghvi. Sanghvi had resumed seeing patients only a few days ago after having stayed away from his clinic for the better part of the month.

Dr Amit Mehta has understandably decided to give up his practice of 23 years and shut shop. “I have treated Muslim patients for more than two decades and this is what I got. I have escaped once, but my family does not want me to risk my life again,” Mehta told TNN from the hospital bed where he is recuperating.

While Mehta stresses that his case should not be generalised, an example is already being made of him. “Fear is looming large that we will be similarly attacked. In such a situation, we urge the government to provide us security for practising in such sensitive areas,” says president of the 200-member strong Vejalpur-Jivraj Medical Circle, Naresh Shah.

Shah said more than 50 doctors practising on the Vejalpur- Juhapura border have been forced to shut shop due to unprecedented tension.

It needs mention here that it is Hindu doctors that are mostly practising in Muslim areas what with Muslim doctors constituting a mere 2-3 per cent of the 5,000-odd medical practitioners in the city.

“Our job is most difficult. In emergencies we have to work at nights. If we go, we run the risk of being soft targets and if we don’t, we tend to incur the wrath of locals. The situation is getting more precarious by the day,” says a gynaecologist couple practising in Dariapur and Shahpur.

Meanwhile, the Ahmedabad Medical Association too met on Wednesday [10 April 2002] to discuss the fallout of the attack on the doctor. “We condemn this communal attack on a doctor who was giving selfless service to society without discrimating between Hindu and Muslim patients and stress that government provide security to doctors,” said AMA president Bipin Patel.

To this, health minister Ashok Bhatt said, “The attack on the doctor should be treated as an attack on humanity. The respective communities should take responsibility and ensure that doctors, who have been serving the society without discrimination, are safe. The request for security by any doctor will be considered by the government and addressed.”

Even doctors from the minority community have condemned the attack and said this would result in a negative fallout for the community. “Such assaults may result in a negative impact for a community that is largely dependent on Hindu doctors for treatment,” said Al Amin Hospital medical superintendent Dr Siddiqi Kazi.

Significantly, there are 82 Hindu doctors attached to Al Amin, of which only three have continued their services after the riots broke out. The hospital is reportedly seeking services of doctors from other states now.”

Read  a full chapter on “Attacks on Hindus” by Muslims in the 2002 riots, even after Godhra, in the book “Gujarat Riots: The True Story” and on the website www.gujaratriots.com

History is repeating itself now. More attacks on doctors by Muslims, and the media this time has given full coverage to it but has been scared of calling the attackers as Muslims. Politicians like Mamata Banerjee instead of taking action against the attackers, have condemned the doctors, and accused them of being ‘BJP and CPM plants’!

[Some part of this article was first published at http://gujaratriots2002.blogspot.com/2013/06/attacks-on-dalits-by-muslims-in-gujarat.html It is reproduced here with permission].

Difference in outrage over Kathua and Godhra – How the ‘secularists’ defended heinous killers & insulted the dead victims of Godhra

After the brutal killing of a 3-year old girl in Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh by Zahid and Aslam, allegedly over a very minor issue of payment of less than Rs 10,000, there has been a natural outrage. Of course, this outrage was triggered on the social media, by the right-wingers, and the Leftists who initially tried to ignore the issue were forced to show outrage at this. After this, they went back to their original nature and instead accused BJP of supporting rapists and killers of the 8-year old girl Asifa, who was brutally raped and killed in Kathua in early 2018, like they had done at that time.

The ability of the Leftists to twist the narrative to slander BJP and Hindu nationalists is truly extra-ordinary. Firstly, let us see the truth of the rally organized in Jammu in support of the alleged killers.

Those who rallied in Jammu did so as they genuinely felt that the accused have been framed by the Kashmir Crime Branch and simply demanded a CBI inquiry. That is by no means supporting killers and rapists, at maximum it can be called supporting accused. They were actually demanding a better investigation by CBI which would only give better justice to the poor 8 year-old victim. They did not rally and say: “The rapists and murderers of Asifa should be set free as this rape and murder is justified”. They rallied as they believed that the accused were INNOCENT and were wrongly framed in the case. The media, both Indian and global, and political opponents and Leftists reported as if the rallyists in Jammu had supported the rape and murder, which they never did.

BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi said, as did Union Minister Prakash Javdekar, that the Bar Association of Jammu President B S Slathia, who spearheaded the protest in Kathua, was Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad’s polling agent in the 2014 Lok Sabha polls. The state unit chief of the Congress was seen in a video terming the police probe in the Kathua rape-and-murder case as ‘motivated’ and defending the public protests against it.

The rally was organized by Hindu Ekta Manch, not by BJP or any Sangh Parivar organization. Only 2 BJP Ministers attended it, and they were both asked to resign by the party. The mainstream organizations like BJP, RSS and others did not demand setting the accused free, nor did they deny the Kathua murder by calling it an ‘accident’. The first arrest made for this killing was of a 15 year old boy. Much later, the Crime Branch of J&K made new arrests.

The Central government was appalled by what happened in Kathua, it got two Ministers from Jammu sacked for being present in the rally. All people I know and met, of RSS, BJP and others on Facebook and on WhatsApp were genuinely giving messages demanding death to the killers of the 8-year old girl in Kathua. They really demand harsh penalty for the killers. The Prime Minister gave a statement that the incident is a shame, and assured that the victim would get complete justice. The then Home Minister Rajnath Singh too said that victim should get justice.

The confidence with which the current accused are talking, demanding a CBI probe and narco tests as well as a lie-detector test makes me feel that they could be framed. Besides, there is a lot of evidence (such as CCTV footage of an ATM in UP on the day one accused is alleged to be in Kathua) which doubts their involvement. The trial court judgment has now come convicting 6 out of the 7 accused, and acquitting the one about whom there was CCTV footage of alibi.

There is a tremendous outrage in Jammu among the rallyists for being called ‘supporters of killers’. They have every right to demand a CBI inquiry for a fair investigation if they feel J&K Crime Branch framed innocent accused as an after-thought on orders of some Kashmir politicians. Follow what Madhu Kishwar is saying on this issue on Twitter at @madhukishwar

If the accused are guilty, they should be given the harshest penalty, i.e. nothing less than death penalty. The rape & murder of the innocent 8-year old Asifa outraged all of us, and (barring some heartless fanatics) everyone on the Hindu right is for strict punishment to the real killers. But they only want to be sure that the real killers are punished, not innocent people who could have been framed.

Now, after the outrage over the killing of the 3 year old innocent in Uttar Pradesh, the Left liberals are drawing parallels with Kathua and accusing BJP of defending the rapists & murderers. Outrage by the Left-liberal-secular brigade over disrespecting the dead and supporting killers? Hypocrisy and irony died a million deaths.

After every incident which causes outrage like Nirbhaya or Kathua there is a need to mention the Godhra carnage of 27 February 2002 to know what was missing after Godhra. The outrage.

On Godhra, the mainstream parties and UPA Government defended the horrific killers who roasted to coal 59 Ram sewaks despite knowing fully well that Muslims burnt the train in the densely Muslim-dominated Signal Falia area of Godhra. It is one thing to defend some accused of Godhra saying: “They were not a part of the mob which burnt the train”. It is quite another to deny totally that any mob burnt the train and call it as an ‘accident’.

The UPA constituted a fake Banerjee Committee, which whitewashed the heinous sins of the fanatic Muslims, and called it an ‘accident’ in Jan 2005. In Jan-Feb 2005, Lalu campaigned in rallies in Bihar saying “BJP-RSS ke logon ne Godhra mein 59 logon ko jalaya, bola Musalman ne jalaya…” [BJP-RSS men burnt 59 in Godhra, said that Muslims did it.] The Congress Party officially fully defended the findings of the Banerjee Committee and said that Godhra was an accident, with its national spokesmen Anand Sharma and Abhishek Singhvi in the forefront. This is real defending of the heinous killers. Many Congress leaders went a step ahead, going to the extent of accusing BJP-RSS-VHP of killing 59 in Godhra, like Lalu.

How would it seem if tomorrow a BJP Govt ordered a fake committee like Banerjee on Kathua which gave a report that the death of the 8 year old girl was an accident, and then BJP leaders campaigned saying: Congress-Left ke logon ne Kathua mein 8 saal ki ladki ka balatkar aur katal kiya, bola Hinduon ne kattal kiya”? [Congress-Left people raped and killed an 8-year old girl in Kathua, accused Hindus of doing so]. This is how bad the ‘Left-liberal seculars’ are and were on Godhra. None of them showed any disgust when Lalu did this on Godhra, many of them defended Banerjee Committee findings and they staunchly defend Lalu today.

The world media outlets like New York Times have also been in the forefront to defend the barbaric killers of Godhra and they even today call the Godhra carnage as an ‘accidental fire’.

This entire ecosystem of the Congress-‘secularists’ [with the exception of Vir Sanghvi and maybe Jyoti Punwani] has not only disrespected, but also insulted and slandered the 59 dead victims of the Godhra carnage including 25 women and 15 children including babies and toddlers, by leveling shameful and character-assassinating fake charges on them to somehow reduce the intensity of the heinous crime committed by 2000 fanatic Muslims of Godhra.

Nobody, including rallyists in Jammu demanding a CBI probe in the Kathua case and others, leveled fake and third class charges on the Kathua victim, like the Congress and ‘secularists’ did on the victims of the Godhra carnage.

On 27 Feb 2002, 59 Ramsewaks were burnt to coal in Godhra in the densely Muslim-dominated Signal Falia area by a well-armed and ready mob of 2000 Muslims at 8 am. After this, the ‘secularists’ in the media and the non-BJP politicians slandered the dead Ram sewaks and blamed them for the tragedy, and not the Muslims who actually burnt the train. This troubled the conscience of one of the ‘secularists’, Vir Sanghvi, who condemned this response of the ‘secularists’ and said that the dead Ram sewaks are being dehumanized, are being insulted. His exact words were:

Some versions have it that the kar sewaks shouted anti-Muslim slogans; others that they taunted and harassed Muslim passengers…Equally, it does seem extraordinary that slogans shouted from a moving train or at a railway platform should have been enough to enrage local Muslims, enough for 2,000 of them to have quickly assembled at eight in the morning, having already managed to procure petrol bombs and acid bombs. Even if you dispute the version of some of the kar sewaks – that the attack was premeditated and that the mob was ready and waiting – there can be no denying that what happened was indefensible, unforgivable and impossible to explain away as a consequence of great provocation. And yet, this is precisely how the secular establishment has reacted…And yet, the sub-text to all secular commentary is the same: the kar sewaks had it coming to them. Basically, they condemn the crime; but blame the victimsWhy have we de-humanised them [the dead kar sewaks] to the extent that we don’t even see the incident as the human tragedy that it undoubtedly was and treat it as just another consequence of the VHP’s fundamentalist policies? The answer, I suspect, is that we are programmed to see Hindu-Muslim relations in simplistic terms: Hindus provoke, Muslims suffer. When this formula does not work – it is clear now that a well-armed Muslim mob murdered unarmed Hindus – we simply do not know how to cope. We shy away from the truth – that some Muslims committed an act that is indefensible – and resort to blaming the victims…Not only does this insult the dead (What about the children? Did they also have it coming?), but it also insults the intelligence of the reader…There is one question we need to ask ourselves: have we become such prisoners of our own rhetoric that even a horrific massacre becomes nothing more than occasion for Sangh Parivar-bashing?

This article was written on 28 Feb 2002 by Vir Sanghvi, after which a lot more slander of the dead was done. Till that time, the inconsistent and self-contradictory charges on Ram sewaks were that they shouted anti-Muslim slogans, taunted and harassed Muslim passengers, did not pay for tea and snacks. Later emerged third class allegations [copied from an Islamic website which blamed Jews for 9/11, & had similar claims] of them trying to kidnap a Muslim girl which was later tried to be portrayed as true by many, e.g. Tehelka with Ashish Khetan claiming so, who later joined the AAP.

In reality of course, no such attempt was made to abduct any girl, the alleged girl Sophia Sheikh was examined by the Nanavati Commission and it found many loopholes in this claim, and concluded that she was parroting what had been fed to her perhaps a few days after the incident. These fake, third class and slanderous charges were made just to reduce the heinous-ness of the crime of Muslims of Godhra, to somehow imply that “Muslims did not start it, they had no choice than to retaliate as they were wronged by the Ram sewaks”.

Vir Sanghvi cleared admitted on 28 Feb 2002 itself that “The truth was that in Godhra, some Muslims committed an act that is indefensible, which was never going to be accepted by the ‘secularists’, though they knew it.”

Within 3 days of Godhra, the Gujarat Congress leadership in Gandhinagar prepared a report that claimed that the incident was ‘provoked’ by kar sevaks who were shouting slogans from Ratnam to Godhra.

The late Amarsinh Chaudhary, the then Gujarat state chief of the Congress Party, came on TV on 27 February 2002 and blamed Ramsevaks for ‘provoking’ the Godhra carnage, alleging that they did not pay for tea and snacks. India Today (11 March 2002, covering events till 28 Feb 2002) said:…While former chief minister Amarsinh Chaudhary condemned the attack on the train he also blamed the Ram sevaks for provoking it. 

The anger of the Godhra victims is seen since March 2002 itself. UNI reported on 8 March 2002: “That the survivors of the February 27 Sabarmati Express blaze at Godhra are a bitter lot will be an understatement. Few politicians, human rights activists or media persons have had a kind word for them.”

There was an ‘independent fact-finding report’ in April 2002 on the situation in Gujarat, full of lies [e.g. It lied that the daughters of Ehsan Jafri had been raped & killed in the riots while in reality they were in USA]. Kamal Mitra Chenoy, S.P.Shukla, K.S.Subramanian, and Achin Vanaik made this report, which was given in Outlook:

“A Report To the Nation by An Independent Fact Finding Mission…Some kar sewaks refused to pay for the tea [priced at Rs 5] and snacks and got into an altercation with the [Muslim] vendors. An old Ghanchi vendor, who is absconding, was ordered to shout pro-Rama slogans and his beard was reportedly pulled when he refused. This was followed immediately by stone throwing and physical assaults started…a kar sewak who grabbed one of the teenaged daughters Sophiya and tried to drag her inside the compartment, but contrary to later press reports and rumours failed to do so…

The fracas on the platform lasted around 15 to 20 minutes before the train began to pull out… Apparently incensed by reports of the misbehaviour with members of their community by the kar sewaks and the molestation, even rumoured abduction, of a Muslim woman, a mob of up to 2,000 people allegedly of Ghanchis from Singal Faliya attacked the train with stones and fire bombs. The kar sewaks of almost equal strength threw stones back…

This notwithstanding, major conclusions can be arrived at:

1] The attack does not appear to be pre-planned in the sense in which it was claimed publicly by high authorities in the immediate aftermath of the incident of 27th Feb. Neither available information nor the circumstances then prevailing provide support to the theory of any deep-rooted conspiracy, with or without involvement of foreign agencies.

…3] The tragedy could have been averted or at least, minimised if strong preventive measures had been taken in the wake of the communal incidents/irritants that were taking place on the train route and which could have been anticipated once the kar sewaks started leaving/returning by train in large numbers for/from Ayodhya.”

Thus they slandered the dead Ram sewaks, falsely accused them of not paying for tea and snacks at the station for Rs 5 [FIVE Rupees is the value of the lives of Ram sewaks for these shameless propagandists and Outlook which published this], falsely accused the dead of pulling the beard of a vendor etc, and of trying to kidnap a Muslim girl Sophia Sheikh and of ‘provoking’ the Godhra massacre.

Outlook dated 1 April 2002 reported:  “The Godhra case, meanwhile, will remain a mystery…What triggered off the Godhra massacre is still not answered. Clearly, the Sabarmati Express incident is not an open and shut case of Muslims targeting kar sevaks. Had it been so, the police would not have been so tightlipped.”

Then what was it? Was it a case of the dead 59 Ram sewaks including 25 women and 15 children targeting Muslims? Just because some police officers remained tight-lipped in April 2002 doesn’t mean Godhra was not a case of Muslims targeting kar sevaks. Of course it was. And Outlook called Godhra a ‘mystery’ when it was crystal clear that Muslims burnt the train, simply because it did not WANT to accept it.

An article by Rajeev Srinivasan on Rediff.com on 7 March 2002 exposed the slander of the Godhra victims done in the first week after Godhra. That article said:

“The response in the English-language media in India has been quite intriguing. The editorials and reports generally blamed Hindus for provoking Muslims by the act of wanting to build a temple in Ayodhya. The tone, generally, was: ‘We told you that Hindu provocation in wanting to build a temple will lead to a Muslim backlash. So here it is. It’s the Hindus’ fault.’

Here is an excerpt from an editorial in The Hindustan Times: A number of innocent people have already died and more may suffer if the Centre, even now, doesn’t step in to stop the insanity unleashed by the VHP. Right from the time when this outfit of Hindu fanatics announced its provocative plan to begin the construction of the temple in Ayodhya, it was known that trouble was brewing. But the BJP at the Centre, perhaps hoping that the VHP’s belligerence will consolidate the Hindu vote behind it, did nothing more than mouth pious platitudes. [Blames BJP and VHP and not Muslims who burnt the train.]

Here is an excerpt from a report in The Washington Post, with a quote from…: Teesta Setalvad, head of Communalism Combat, a group that opposes religious extremism in India, said that ‘while I condemn today’s gruesome attack, you cannot pick up an incident in isolation. Let us not forget the provocation. These people were not going for a benign assembly. They were indulging in blatant and unlawful mobilization to build a temple and deliberately provoke the Muslims in India.’

Even by the standards of the Indian English media and its ‘secular’ ‘progressives’, known for their Marxist blinkers, this is astonishing. For they are conveniently pinning the blame on the victim…

This issue of provocation is quite illuminating…Does this look like a spontaneous response to an act of provocation, or does it look like a pre-planned, well-thought-out plan for mass murder? What kind of ‘provocation’ leads someone to randomly execute women and children in the most gruesome manner possible, by burning them alive?”

Varsha Bhosle wrote on Rediff.com dated 11 March 2002 an article titled “Déjà vu, all over again”, which said:

“…Take, for instance, the “news” about the 60 karsevaks being burned to death because they had abducted a 16-year-old Muslim girl: “She kept pleading and begging to them [sic] to stop beating her father and leave him alone. But instead of listening to her woes [sic], the kar sevaks [sic] lifted the young girl and took her inside their compartment S-6 and closed the compartment door shut.” Forget the scores of Pakis who sent me that mass-circulated piece of shit, even Indian Muslims and Hindus used it to rationalize the incineration of the karsevaks….

A variation of this “news” was produced by Rajiv Chandrasekaran of The Washington Post: “[Karsevaks] exposed themselves to other passengers. They pulled headscarves off Muslim women… They failed to pay for the tea and snacks they consumed at each stop,” even quoting a mere deputy superintendent of police saying that the attack on Hindus “was not pre-planned”, but “a sudden, provocative incident”. No matter that Additional Director General (law and order) of Gujarat police J Mahapatra and The Hindustan Times (Godhra: A planned attack, March 3) and The Pioneer (Dastardly crime, March 1) and The Times of India (Attack could have been pre-planned, February 28) *and* the Intelligence Bureau, all indicate a pre-planned conspiracy. Chandrasekaran simply found “witnesses” he wanted to find… Déjà vu, all over again. And thus, from March 5 to date, messages about the villainous karsevaks and the abducted Muslim girl have been steadily trickling in.

Here’s some real news for you: The “information” about the ‘abduction’ was directly lifted from an item on an Islamist Web site purporting to be a news portal, and then embellished with garbage like “I would also mention my sources namely Mr Anil Soni and Neelam Soni (reporters of Gujarat Samachar Newspaper and also member of PTI & ANI) have worked hard to dig the true facts”, and gave 3 phone numbers of the Sonis. Well, I found Mr Soni at (02672) 40264. He said, “Are you calling up about the emails? That is complete bogus and rubbish. It is the work of my enemies.”

That’s how Islamists work — knowing well what “secularists” *like* to believe.”

Teesta Setalvad-edited Combat Communalism too insulted the dead Ram sewaks, and tried to concoct all sort of stories to paint them as bullies and demons, rather than victims. It wrote:

“In a report published on February 25, the Jan Morcha, a Hindi daily published from Faizabad, detailed instances of provocative behaviour by kar sevaks, who allegedly beat and threatened Muslim passengers, insisting that they chant ‘Jai Shree Ram’. They even unveiled Muslim women…

The Jan Morcha report published two days before the incident at Godhra, reports the conduct of kar sevaks from Gujarat headed for Ayodhya. But by several accounts, the conduct of kar sevaks returning to Ahmedabad by the ill-fated Sabarmati Express on February 27 was no better:

…And on March 7, Akbarbaig Sirajuddin Shah, a Muslim passenger who was returning to Ahmedabad with his family, in an interview with the Gujarati daily, Gujarat Today, recounted the misbehaviour of the kar sevaks throughout the journey…

As stated earlier, no provocation whatsoever can justify a heinous crime like burning people to death. But the misconduct of kar sevaks is nonetheless important to record for two reasons: One, given such persistent hooliganism, where was the intelligence machinery of the law enforcement authorities? Why was no preventive measure taken by the police? Two, if the attack on kar sevaks was pre-planned, as chief minister Modi and Union home minister LK Advani have maintained, was the outrageous conduct of kar sevaks a part of the pre-planning?…

Local accounts say that stories of the behaviour of kar sevaks (believed to be as many as 1,200 or so on board) had preceded the train’s arrival. Dahod, an-hour-and-a-half before Godhra, had seen the eruption of tension and the news had already travelled. As the train pulled in and stopped at Godhra railway station, locals who live just outside the station recounted (see box on testimonies of witnesses) that they heard abusive shouts and sounds of stone throwing from the station. Vendors near the station recounted that tea stall owners at the station (who incidentally hail from the same Ghanchi Muslim community) had an altercation with the kar sevaks who refused to pay. One elderly vendor on the platform was threatened by the kar sevaks and asked to shout slogans; they pulled his beard and assaulted him when he refused.

…Suddenly, a kar sevak obstructed their departure, grabbed Sophiya [at around 8 am] and tried to drag her inside the compartment. He did not succeed in doing so….

Reports of misbehaviour, repeated provocation, the rumour of abduction of a young Muslim girl, allegedly incited a 2,000 strong mob of Ghanchi Muslims from Signal Falia to attack the train with stones and fire bombs. The kar sevaks also resorted to stone throwing.

…Criminologically speaking, in the assessment of this [anonymous] officer, the fire was not intended. It ‘caught more than they expected.’ ‘There was no pre-planning.’…

As we have seen above, investigating officials have yet to find any proof of the Godhra atrocity being pre-planned. Nonetheless, Modi, Union home minister LK Advani and others continue to reiterate the distorted version of the motive behind the incident at Godhra…

Though all accounts suggest that there was provocation enough by the kar sevaks, little can justify the crime that burned 58 persons alive. The guilty need to be brought to book and punished.”

There was another article in this issue which was totally devoted to slandering the Ram sewaks since the time the trains carrying Ram sewaks were in Faizabad, UP.

Rajiv Srinivasan wrote in Part 2 of his article dated 14 May 2002 on Rediff.com on Godhra where he exposed some of the slander & insult of the dead Ram sewaks.

The Independent (UK) insulted the dead kar sewaks and leveled fake allegations. The report written by Peter Popham published on 20 March 2002 says that the “Ram sewaks were drunk, unruly, pulled the beard of an elderly Muslim, smashed a Muslim tea-owners stall for not saying ‘Jai Shri Ram’, drunk kar sewaks kidnapped a Muslim girl, the girl began screaming for help, a mob assembled to help her, the mob ‘requested’ that the karsevaks return the girl. But instead of returning the girl, they started closing their windows. This infuriated the mob, and it became a battle with the karsevaks piling in with their swords and sticks, and a crowd now said to be 1,000-strong burnt the train!”

Four months after Godhra, The Week reported in an article: “…The karsewaks refused to pay for the tea and abused the vendors (Muslims at Godhra Railway Station)”. Though this article mercifully accepted that Muslims burnt the train, it called Godhra a ‘Mystery’ and insulted the dead by alleging that they did not pay for tea and snacks at Godhra station and ‘abused’ the Muslim vendors.

Dionne Bunsha wrote in well-known Leftist fortnightly Frontline in its issue of 20 July to 2 August 2002 on Godhra. Again, she refused to accept that it was a well-planned act done by Muslims, and slandered the kar sewaks by saying that they ‘harassed, bullied and abused the Muslim passengers’ and resorted to all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid mentioning the truth that Muslims burnt the train in a planned act. She quoted the then Congress leader Shankersinh Vaghela to promote the lie that the VHP itself torched the train [in a densely Muslim dominated area!] and not Muslims.

Dionee Bunsha also wrote in Frontline in its issue of 15-28 March 2003 a report in which she called Godhra a ‘mystery’ and accused the dead Ram sewaks of trying to kidnap a Muslim girl, and alleged that they misbehaved with other passengers. She again tried all sort of mental gymnastics to avoid accepting that Muslims burnt the train, and even mentioned a JUDICIAL CONFESSION by one accused to court in Feb 2003 in the article. But did not mention that in that JUDICIAL CONFESSION the accused admitted that the Godhra attack was a well-planned one, and that he had himself taken part in it too. She only mentioned that accused’s confession also naming Maulavi Umarji as involved in this attack, which made Umarji a co-accused.

Rediff.com reported on 11 August 2004 in a report titled “‘It is nonsense to say that Godhra was planned’ that:

“…To put pressure on the Gujarat government in connection with the post-Godhra riots, ANHAD [Shabnam Hashmi being the force behind it] organised a seminar titled ‘Rebuilding Justice and Hope in Gujarat: The Agenda Ahead’ in the main auditorium of India International Centre in New Delhi on July 29. Needless to say, ‘secular activists’ attended the seminar in strength. Some were famous personalities like actresses Sharmila Tagore and Nandita Das, lawyers Indira Jaisingh and Nitya Ramakrishnan, and journalists Praful Bidwai and Rajdeep Sardesai. Also present were about 100 students and some known critics of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

…The session that provoked the audience was a PowerPoint presentation titled ‘In search of the truth about Godhra’ by Ahmedabad-based activist lawyer Mukul Sinha. He presented his take on the burning of the Sabarmati Express, which killed 59 passengers on February 27, 2002. With the help of the statements made by people and policemen before the Nanavati Commission, which is enquiring into the riots, Sinha tried to establish that the Godhra carnage was not planned. He said, “It is nonsense to say that Godhra was a planned act or a conspiracy.” It was an accident, which was wrongly termed as the ‘most horrendous diabolical incident’…””

These known anti-Modi personalities like Rajdeep Sardesai, Prafull Bidwai and all others like Nandita Das present there allowed Mukul Sinha to stoop to THIS level in such a horrific massacre, and did not once contest or contradict his lies on Godhra, despite knowing the truth fully well that it was a well-planned attack by Muslims.

Siddharth Varadarajan (presently editor of The Wire) refused to blame Muslims for Godhra in an article in The Hindu in January 2005. He too slandered the dead karsewaks by alleging that they ‘molested a Muslim girl’, and ignored completely that 15 children and 25 women were among the killed people, including babies and toddlers. He wrote a similar article on 22 August 2004 in The Hindu, where he refused to blame Muslims for Godhra and said: “Two years on, the police cannot offer a credible account of how coach S-6 caught fire” as if that is was unknown, while it was clear that Muslims set it afire, and he insulted the dead karsewaks by calling them as ‘ticketless travelers’. Besides, he lied that 2000 Muslims were killed in the post-Godhra riots, exaggerating the numbers to more than double, and as if no Hindu was killed while more than 250 Hindus also died even after Godhra.

He implied in August 2004 that the post-Godhra riots would have happened even without Godhra! This was in Outlook in an article in which he said that the “Godhra incident itself is so shrouded in mystery that it is almost as if the official narrative which emerged within minutes and hours of the train being consumed by fire is an invented one, conveniently conjured up to provide the “rationale” for the pogrom which had simultaneously been ordained.” He ignored completely the killings of Hindus even after Godhra and called the riots as a ‘pogrom’! If one can read between the lines, it means Muslims have been wrongly accused for Godhra according to him.

In January 2005, the then Railway Minister Lalu Yadav got a Banerjee committee to give a fake report that the Godhra carnage was an ‘accident’. Everyone knows the truth and in February 2003 there was a JUDICIAL CONFESSION by one Muslim accused of this too. If it had been an accident, the Ram sewaks would have ran out of the train and saved their lives, it was a mob of Muslims who did not allow them to run away and burnt them to coal. This of course, was known to all in the ‘secularist’ media, but they promoted the lie of it being an ‘accident’. Lalu campaigned in Bihar in 2005 saying: “BJP-RSS men burnt a train in Godhra killing 59 people, said Muslims did it”. In this report of that campaign Lalu is mercifully not reported as alleging that ‘BJP-RSS men burnt the train in Godhra’ which he did in other rallies, which was shown on TV by NDTV Hindi.

There was and is no outrage in any of the ‘seculars’ for Lalu doing this and instead he was and is their hero. The media did not call this act of U C Banerjee & Lalu as ‘shameful’, unlike their outrage on PM Modi calling Rajiv Gandhi ‘Bhrashtachari’. Actually, they were happy Lalu did this. Papers like The Tribune and journalists like Khushwant Singh supported the claim of U C Banerjee. The Hindu in its editorial of 19 Jan 2005 and mainstream parties like Congress, CPI and CPM staunchly defended the Banerjee report and condemned BJP for opposing it with Congress spokesmen Abhishek Singhvi and Anand Sharma in the forefront!

Outlook fully supported the Banerjee Committee report in January 2005 in an article by Darshan Desai and Saba Naqvi. It said: “While the BJP continues to squirm on the Godhra issue, the report’s release has come as a bit of a breather for Muslims across the country. The overwhelming sentiment is that a huge taint has been removed.” Thus, Outlook instead of calling Lalu & Banerjee’s acts as ‘shameful’, was actually thankful to them for the report, since it whitewashed the heinous crime of Muslims. It exposes only Darshan Desai, Saba Naqvi and Outlook which published such a third class article.

The Congress fully defended the final Banerjee report in March 2006 which was same as the interim report and instead demanded the immediate resignation of the then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi and condemned Modi!

On 13 October 2006, the Gujarat High Court declared the Banerjee Committee to be ‘illegal’  and ruled that the probe was “unconstitutional, illegal and null and void”. Justice D N Patel declared its formation to be a “colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions“.

When the Nanavati Commission, which was a full-fledged Commission of Inquiry having all powers under the Commission of Inquiry Act, gave its report in September 2008 that Godhra was a well-planned act done by Muslims, the mainstream parties of entire UPA like Congress, RJD and Left parties CPI, CPM refused to accept it, and instead condemned the report.

In Feb 2011 the trial court convicted 31 Muslims and called Godhra as a pre-planned act. Even after this, mainstream parties like the Congress refused to accept Muslims did Godhra. So did men like Swami Agnivesh, Prashant Bhushan. Saba Naqvi defended the heinous killers even after their conviction and tried to imply that the ‘BJP and/or VHP did Godhra’. Her article in Outlook in March 2011 said:

“…the so-called justice delivered in this case…” The words ‘so-called justice’ imply that Muslims have been wrongly convicted. She refused to call it a conspiracy though Godhra is impossible to have been anything but planned. She said: “Why would Muslims of Godhra plan such a horrific incident in a BJP-ruled state?” as if Muslims did not plan and do it. “BJP had just lost power in UP in 2002 & was expected to lose the Gujarat elections later that year, when Godhra happened.” She implied that BJP planned and killed the 59 Ram sewaks in Godhra in light of the Gujarat elections! There was a JUDICIAL CONFESSION by a Muslim in Feb 2003 that Godhra was planned, which was totally ignored by her. She wrote: “After all, the incident became the trigger for the worst anti-Muslim violence in independent India [wrong on facts, Hindus too were killed by Muslims even after Godhra, and there were many worse anti-Muslim violences in India eg Nellie in Assam in 1983]…BJP,VHP and Modi who benefited from the gore” as if they did Godhra and not Muslims! Not once did she say anywhere that ‘Muslims roasted the 59 Ram sewaks in the train’.

Saba Naqvi who is a regular on TV has never been properly exposed for who she is- such a disgusting supporter of heinous killers of 59 Ram sewaks, daring to stoop so low in THIS case, not once, but twice in 2005 & 2011.

A BJP opponent, as late as 2017 refused to blame Muslims for Godhra and called the dead 59 Ramsewaks in Godhra as ‘fanatics’ including the 15 children killed including babies which was allowed to be published by India Today’s platform DailyO.

Rajdeep Sardesai indirectly slandered the Godhra victims even after the Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction of 31 Muslims on 9 October 2017. He tweeted: “My view: train burning was a horrific unforgivable act but not pre-planned. Conspiracy theory added later.” implying that the dead Ram sewaks ‘provoked’ the incident!

They often also accused the dead victims’ organizations themselves of killing them. In July 2002, the Congress officially accused the Sangh Parivar of having burnt the train in Godhra. This is like accusing Rahul Gandhi for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, so third class is the charge! Yet this charge was happily promoted by the media.

The comparison which needs to be drawn after incidents like the horrific Kathua rape-and-killing is with Godhra. It reveals how disgusting, third-class the ‘secularist-liberals’ are and to what extent they can go to, to defend any crime of Muslims.

(The writer is the author of book “Gujarat Riots: The True Story” which gives all details about the 2002 riots- Godhra and after, one of the admins of www.gujaratriots.com and one of the admins of the Twitter handle @gujaratriotscom)

[West Bengal] Muslim mob pelt stone and vandalize roadside shops after residents protested against alcohol consumption outside their house

0

Rishra, West Bengal: According to a news report, on the night of July 9, 2019, the Hindu residents of 5 no. ward in Maitri Path area in Rishra had an argument with few Muslim men about consumption of alcohol outside their home. One of the locals told the reporter that some Muslim men regularly sit outside their houses and drink alcohol, once they get drunk enough, they start their regular hooliganism, abuse the residents. According to the other locals, the Hindu owner of the houses, confronted the drunk men and asked them to leave, but the Muslim men started verbally abusing the owners and quickly gathered a mob of 40-50 Muslim men (also residents of the same locality).

Seeing the danger, the owners quickly went back to their house and called the local Rishra Police Station, the Muslim mob vandalized local shops, pelted stones at the house of the Hindu residents. A part of the mob entered the house of one Hindu resident and assaulted the owner and his grandson. According to one local, “the police came more than 30-40 minutes after the incident took place, by then the mob had dispersed.”

One Hindu resident registered a First Information Report with the local police against the Muslim men. Some injured people were taken to Serampore Walsh Hospital after the violence. Police has since been posted in the area.

Al Qaeda releases video on Kashmir, criticizes Pakistan for exploiting the Mujahideen for their political objectives

0

Al Qaeda has released a new video message calling for jihad on Kashmir and also criticizing Pakistan for exploiting terror groups to achieve their own political motives. The Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri delivered the message through the outfits media arm, As Sahab.

Zawahiri has called upon Kashmiri jihadist groups to “single-mindedly focus on inflicting unrelenting blows on the Indian Army and government so as to bleed the Indian economy and make India suffer sustained losses in manpower and equipment”.

While delivering the message Zawahiri does not mention the slain terrorist Zakir Musa, however, a picture of Musa flashed on the screen while the chief spoke on Kashmir. Musa was the Chief of the terrorist group Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind, a cell of terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. He was killed in May this year by security forces in Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir.

Urging Muslims to take up jihad in Kashmir, Zawahiri said: “the first vital step is to turn the Jihad in Kashmir into Jihad for the sake of Allah…to liberate Kashmir jihad from the clutches of Pakistan intelligence agencies.”

Zawahiri had revealed the role of Pakistan sponsored terror in Kashmir. He criticized Pakistan for not being trustworthy and called both the Pakistan army and government as “toadies of America”.  According to him, Pakistan prevented Arab Mujahideen from heading to Kashmir after the Russians were driven out of Afghanistan.

He criticized Pakistan for exploiting jihadist groups. In his message, he said, “Pakistan is exploiting the Mujahideen for specific political objectives, only to dump or persecute them later; the beneficiaries, in the end, being a bunch of traitors who fill their pockets with bribes and illegitimate wealth”.

Citing the examples of Dhaka surrender, Balochistan, Waziristan & Swat, the chief said that Pakistan can’t be trusted as when it comes to defending Muslims, Pakistan army possesses a very dark history.

The Al Qaeda chief also called upon unnamed scholars to spread the idea that jihad is a worldwide movement that must be taken up by every Muslim. He said, “You [the scholars] must clearly state that supporting the jihad in Kashmir, the Philippines, Chechnya, Central Asia, Iraq, Syria, the Arabian Peninsula, Somalia, the Islamic Maghreb and Turkistan is an individual obligation on all Muslims, until sufficient strength is achieved to expel the disbelieving occupier from Muslim lands”.

The government has informed the Parliament on Tuesday that ever since the Balakot air strikes, there has been a 43% drop in infiltration. After the Pulwama attack, the IAF had conducted a successful operation targeting terror camps of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) harbored by Pakistan.

The government has also said post the air strike, Pakistan has changed its strategy. Intelligence reports have said that Pakistan is currently strengthening its military assets and have increased the surveillance fearing possible attacks from India in the future.

Last month, the Al Qaeda had released another video message eulogizing the slain terrorist Zakir Musa and announced Hameed Lelhari as his successor of Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind (AGH). The Kashmiri group Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind is supported by the Al Qaeda and is regarded as its branch in Kashmir.

Sharia and India

0

Islam being the fastest flourishing religion in the world has paved its way for ‘Sharia’ the most controversial legal system to spread its wings briskly. However, can Sharia be called a law is the real question. Sharia is a collection of teachings from the Prophet and is an inspiration adapted from the way he lived his life. Sharia thus has a divine and philosophical genesis that provides a devote Muslim with guidance to live an Islamic life. The dawning of Sharia is not from a book of statute neither does it consist of any judicial precedent or regulations, nor do its origin root back to the state.

Most of the Muslim majority countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. follow the strict canon of Sharia. Indonesia is the country with the highest Muslim population in the world. A research nevertheless states that India will own that distinction by 2050 while still remaining a Hindu majority country. This puts light on how rapidly the Muslim population is growing in India.
Sharia in India has always been a contentious issue. This is because unlike the Islamic countries, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) accepts the Indian Penal Code as far as dealing with crimes with regards to Muslims is concerned. The AIMPLB came into being in 1973. The Board was constituted to adopt and provide continuation to the Muslim Personal Law in India (Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937). The main reason for the constitution of the Board was to safeguard Sharia from any law or legislation that infringes on it.

The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937, deals with all personal matters regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of Personal Law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust properties, and wakfs (other than charities and charitable institutions and charitable and religious endowments). A similar Board called All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board was constituted in 2005 to focus on issues specifically related to Muslim women in case of marriage, divorce, and other rights. However, the latter did not gain much leverage.

Another legislation that facilitates the marriage matters for Muslims in India is the Dissolution of Marriage Act, 1939. This provides for provisions that deal with circumstances where a Muslim woman seeks to obtain a divorce or has been divorced by her husband or any matter connected therewith.

The Shariat code of conduct applies to all the Muslims in India only barring an exception for the Special Marriage Act under which, a Muslim, if so elects can get married. The practise of Sharia in India has often come under a number of scrutinies in the past and has always been a topic for controversial debates over the years. These have been mostly related to the protection of fundamental right bestowed by the Constitution that has been threatened under the application of the personal law of Sharia. The Shariat Application Act clearly states that the State does not have right to interfere in the matters of personal dispute. However, the State being secular a system does not have a defined line up to which it can have access into the personal matters of its citizens. Where on one hand most Muslims in India consider Sharia as a complete code of conduct and absolute in every which way, the Constitution of India on the other hand bestows on its citizens the freedom of religion as a fundamental right. This creates an enormous conundrum when it comes to bringing any form of legislative change in the personal law.

In India, time and again it has been emphasized that the personal laws shall be in conformity with the Constitution. The AIMPLB however, insists that personal laws cannot be said to violate Part III of the Constitution as they form an essential and integral part of a religion and Article 25 of the Constitution of India provides protection for the same. The Law Commission of India on the other holds out that the personal laws cannot be such that they result in contradicting the Constitution of the country. They further put prominence that in case of an absence of consensus the best way to move forward is by preserving the diversity of the personal laws, while ensuring the same do not contradict the Constitutional text in any manner. The Commission has suggested that the personal laws should be codified to the greatest extent possible and any inequalities that creep in such codified version shall be remedied by amendment.

In an incident that took place in north India, a 28 year old woman was raped by her father-in-law. A Fatwa was issued in the case which read “If one raped his son’s wife and it is proved through witnesses, or the rapist himself confesses it, Haram Musaharat will be proved. It means that the wife of the son will become unlawful forever to him i.e. the son. The woman with whom father has copulated legally or had sexual intercourse illegally in both ways, the son can’t keep physical relationship with her. The Holy Quran says: “Marry not the woman whom your father copulated”.

The Supreme Court of India however, ruled that Fatwas do not have any legal status in the Indian Constitutional scheme but the practice of issuing Fatwas in themselves is not illegal as it forms a part of informal justice delivery system and is solely based on the discretion of the person to accept or reject it as not all Fatwas are bad but at the same time a Fatwa is non-binding and cannot be derived as a force of law. The paramount part to note in cases like these is the frightful thought of patriarchal dominance which governs the principles of such predated conventions.
Sharia Law, as they call it, is a crude form of law as a lot of the rules mentioned in it date back to the age of the Prophet (Sixth-seventh century), the changing times have had little to almost no impact on its effectiveness as a set of guidelines to run a society, especially in a lot of Middle- Eastern Wahabi regimes where the law is still practised to the last bit with precision.

The Arabic term for Sharia is ‘the way’ and it does not literally translate into ‘the law’. Sharia thus does not have a judicial milieu, all its rulings are based on moral and ethical teachings mentioned in the Quran and the Hadith (words, actions, teachings of the Prophet).

Speaking about India and the application of this stringent code of ethics in the largest democracy in the world, it almost seems impossible for its application as a strict code of conduct as has been the case with the Muslim countries. Most of the Indian population being Hindu further determines the fate of Sharia in India. Though Sharia has been practised as a personal law since a long time now, a complete application of this law even with regards to the Muslim population in India is a remotely extinct idea as a lot of its dictum often emerges to oppose the Indian Constitution in some way or the other and this not only would threaten the ambit of democracy but also paralyse the effect of the Indian legal system.

In the times where Jihad seems to be the biggest condonations for Muslims and where the world peace hangs on the edge of threat inflicted by fundamentalist in the epithet of Islam, a world ruled by such ideologies does not seem to hold a bright future.

Sharia being a complete contrast to the Western ideology cannot be expected to grow in countries seeking development as progressive civilisations. The fundamentals of Sharia being completely contradictory to the fundamental principles of the West does not aid its further proliferation.

Change is the only constant, human society formed laws to regulate human life, laws of state have been amended from time to time as per the needs of the changing society, Sharia on the other hand defies the basic purpose of law as it preaches that life should only be led according to certain principles that were set out some fifteen centuries ago, this nullifies the basic concept of law being, ‘laws are made to aid human existence rather than humans coming into existence to practise a set of laws’.

India is a democracy that gives the right to its citizens to be secular in their practise of religion. So even if sharia endures as a personal law in India for centuries to come, it can never take the place of a mandatory statute, as not only does Sharia form a brutal set of criminal laws for today’s world, but its civil implications would also prove to be a deficit to the Indian democracy.

1. Asifa Quraishi-Landes,The Washington Post, ‘Five myths about sharia’, June 24, 2016,
2. Michael Lipka, Pew Research Centre, ‘Muslim and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world’, August 9, 2017,
3. Anand Patel, India Today, ‘Fact File: Sharia courts decoded’, July 13, 2018,
4. The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
5. Dissolution of Marriage Act, 1939
6. Adrija Roychowdhury, India Express, ‘Shariat and Muslim Personal Law: All your questions answered’,
7. The Hindu, ‘Personal laws and Constitution’, October 19, 2016,
8. The Law Commission of India, ‘Consultation Paper on Reforms of Family Law’, August 31, 2018,
9. Supreme Court of India- Vishwa Lochan Madan vs Union Of India & Ors, July 7, 2014 Bench: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Pinaki Chandra Ghose
10. Spike Hampson,‘The real reasons Islamic Sharia law is incompatible with the West’, June 4, 2018

‘The paradox of tolerance’ of Hinduism and minority appeasement, let us support Narendra Modi and save India

0

Karl Popper in 1945 defined a term called the paradox of tolerance which states that if a society or group of people or a particular religion/culture is tolerant without any limit, its goodness to be tolerant is being exploited and used by the intolerant.  And that is intolerance emerge in any society in general.

Hinduism is one of the ancient living cultures in the world and even we can say that Hinduism is the cradle of all human civilization, value systems, ethics, morality and the law of equal worth and spirit. Hinduism promote and perpetuate the above values not only among human beings but also with nature and its species diversity.

No culture of any religion is as diverse, vibrant, tolerant and open as Hinduism and at the same time, is also celestially intelligent and inexplicably vast and fulfilling, both the body and the soul of every human being. The goodness of Hinduism, the true way of happy and responsible life has been misused by several political parties in India. By way of minority appeasement and sowing the seeds of insecurity among minority community, the tukde tukde gangs in Indian politics has misinterpreted the abysmal tolerance of Hinduism and fueled unnecessary division among minority communities.

The law of the paradox of tolerance of Hinduism has been virtually exploited by congress party in India and also by other regional players and they collectively kindled many religious leaders of certain minority community to be intolerant and rally their people to vote against PM Modi by describing BJP as anti-minority party.

In truth the congress party of the dynast and other regional parties are the one cheated and fooled the minority communities and cleverly cultivated vote bank politics with the innocence, gullibility and illiteracy of certain minority community and kept them as their political hostage in the name of secularism.

The real tyranny of India is not poverty or diversity but the innocence and illiteracy of people and how the congress party and other tukde tukde gangs have exploited such innocence of minority community, to be in power. Through such merciless exploitation, several dynastic political parties had emerged in India and also ruined India to a great deal.

Thanks to the entry of Modi, people have started to realize the dirty politics of congress party and other tukde tukde gangs and were injecting politics of hatred, negativity, lies etc., to divide people and fear monger minority community against majority community. The best example is the politics of DMK in Tamil Nadu.

Today several Christian Missionaries are openly misusing the premises dedicated for spiritual activities to tell people to vote against BJP possibly at the behest of congress party and other tukde tukde gangs and this is happening only because of the tolerance paradox of Hinduism. Need of the hour is that people must re-trace the essence of Hinduism and how it elevates human life, its thinking and actions, how spiritually evolved is the culture of Hinduism etc., so that India’s ageless great culture we can regain and also can establish new rule of peace and harmony. The Hindu consolidation is inevitable and must happen to save India and rescue our precious cultural identity and soft power to rule the world.

PM Modi is working hard for the country where development and sab ka vikas shall be the focus and not minority appeasement or abusing majority. In the recent past, the dynast of the congress party suddenly wore the garb of Hindu, identified himself as born Brahmin, Siva Bakth and protector of cows. But his Hindu and Brahmin identity he displayed only in North India and when he campaigned in South and other parts of India became the custodian of secularism by also revealing his Christian Italian gene.  His pseudo-secular credentials are well known and so is his love for secularism.

People of India tore apart his true political character and trueness like how the dynast tore government ordinance of his own government in public where the ordinance was aimed to protect Lalu by the then UPA2.

The Dynast tried all tricks in the book to mesmerize people of India but people of India made a wise decision to support PM Modi and save India. The honesty and personal integrity of PM Modi, his focus on development and sab ka vikas and the transformative initiatives taken by PM Modi in the last 5 years made the people of India to elect Narendra Modi and save India.

People of India must work even harder to eliminate congress party and other tukde tukde gangs from Indian politics. Good governance by noble leader– PM Modi needs no opposition. When the county is going to get united under its sacred cultural identity called Hinduism, India does not require opposition and instead PM Modi must be supported to make India one nation, one election, one ration card, one party- BJP and one leader -Narendra Modi.

S Ranganathan

Rahul Gandhi’s resignation is a sign of better India

0

So, Mr. Rahul Gandhi is no longer the President of Indian National Congress. His much awaited coronation in 2017 had witnessed unprecedented accolades and praises from most of the prominent media persons (I hate to call them journalists). Just like, a ‘Rahul coming of age’ moment was celebrated when he publicly mocked then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over an ordinance in 2013. Though it was not the only moment of embarrassment for the ill-fated Prime Minister and it certainly was not the only moment of “Rahul coming of age’.

Such moments emerged and passed. Congress continued to witness electoral defeats and mockery. Yet, the delusion of a ‘Gandhi Leadership’ continued. All the sheep continued to look at ‘Gandhis’ as their holy shepherds. But, all these hopes and prayers have been shattered with this resignation. ‘A sheer jolt to Indian Democracy’- as they would like to see it. It is these pseudo-liberals, pretentious zholawallas and Hindu haters who have been saddened to witness the failure of their crowned King.

But, in a way, this moment is undoubtedly historic for Indian Democracy. I do not know whether this is just another moment of ‘Rahul coming of age’ as someone would still depict Rahul’s resignation as a sagacious act of selflessness! However, in my limited view, this terrific moment is certainly a great sign of “Indian Democracy coming of age’.

I still remember meeting Rahul Gandhi. We were a bunch of students visiting Delhi for a “study tour’’ in 2011. We reached at 9 am sharp at his residence as we had been granted an appointment. After security procedures, we entered the veranda. We waited almost for 2 hours to see even a glimpse of this people’s representative. Around 11 am, he surfaced from the neatly cladded interior. There was already a crowd waiting for him. They had come before us. Most of them were simple looking commoners, visibly astounded to be in the presence of royalty. Men and women, some in their 60s and 70s touched Rahul’s feet and begged for his blessings. Most of us were quite shocked to see it. Of course, we were just students and were not used to see the culture of ‘Maibap Sarkar’.

Finally, he came and our conversation begun. I still recall his first few words. “Let me set down rules of the game. You are students of media. You must be used to ask questions. But, let me ask you few questions,’’ he said. He started talking about journalism as corrupt institution. Then he delved into the debate of system and corruption. “There are two boys in my constituency. They are very talented cricket players. But they would not get a chance to play in Indian Cricket Team due to this corrupt system. People from small villages and rural parts would never get a chance,’’ he said. To which, one of our friends pointed out – “There are number of players in the current team who come from a very modest background. Players like Munaf Patel or Mahendra Singh Dhoni have come from sub-urban or entirely rural background. And there are number of them. They do not represent big, cosmopolitan cities like Mumbai or Kolkata’’. He seemed little disturbed to know this. In fact, the show had just begun. Most of his opinions and statements were countered with evidences. He appeared little anxious.

Then suddenly, out of nowhere, a question came as a salvo. “Apart from your surname, what do you think, what you are?,’ one of my friends asked. I still can feel the lethal silence this question caused. Few anxious moments passed. Then Rahul muttered, “I think I am a simple guy trying to develop myself in a struggle against the system’’. From what I could see, he seemed very fond of using the word ‘system’! Most of us had a same question after this fateful meeting. “Rahul Gandhi is a sitting MoP. He also represents the party in power. He talks about the privileged, elites of the system and how they become an impediment for the progress of a poor. Does he know that he is the system, he talks about? How can he blame others (people or institutions) if he is not ready to take up the challenge even when he is in power? Does he even understand that he is the problem, he talks about’’. More than 9 years have passed. Problem till persists. Rahul is blaming others for his sheer ineptitude. In fact, problem has grown manifold. Not just the ‘system’, Rahul is practically blaming entire country for the debacle.

This resignation is as useless as the rationale provided for it. Even the statement published on his twitter account had very ordinary contradictions. For example; in the fourth paragraph of statement, Rahul opines that it would not be correct for him to select next president of the party. Yet, in the very next paragraph, he says the way forward to select new president would be to entrust a group of people. The group of people he has empowered to work. A simple meaning of empowering someone is to authorize someone for a particular task. Needless to say, that a person empowers must be the person of higher authority!

Now, if Rahul empowers someone who is empowered to select the next president of Congress; what’s the point him resigning from that very post in the first place? This is practically a joke. He feels that it is not correct to nominate the president directly, but to empower the group who would technically elect the president seems fine. It seems that he still lives in his ideal, hunky dory state of mind where no one would ask such basic questions. India witnessed such super structure of authority without a shade of authority in the last decade of UPA rule. Rahul is trying to implement the same. Fortunately, India has changed to tolerate such nonsense.

It is absolutely vital to consider another fact. Congress faced a series of electoral defeats in the last decade. This is unprecedented for Congress as it is for BJP. Congress was never reduced to such rubble since its inception. BJP on the other hand, never rose to such prominence in the last 5 decades. What happened then? Do we get an honest analysis from Congress leaders regarding the situation? No. We generally get ill-founded accusations, blatant indictments and personal attacks. Consider the case of the so called EVM hacking. Prominent leaders of Congress including Rahul Gandhi accused central government of EVM hacking in the elections.

As Election Commission clarified that EVMs cannot be hacked, integrity of the institution was questioned. As Supreme Court of India firmly supported the EVMs; even the motives of the judiciary were questioned. Congress leader Kapil Sibbal accused that the Supreme Court was misled by the Election Commission. Appealing in the Supreme Court, asking to adjudicate is just fine. But to question integrity of judiciary once the verdict is declared against you is plainly childish. Democracy doesn’t get threatened if your false accusations are turned down by the highest arbitrary authority in the country. Entire political journey of Rahul Gandhi is marked with such incompetent, childish attitude.

Consider another case of “Chowkidar hi chor hain’’. Whole country witnessed him and his party using this slogan to target the ruling party. And he had to tender unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for his ‘unintentional, non-willful and inadvertent’ linking of the SC order with his baseless jibe. Examples of such situations where Rahul had to eat his words can just go on. His casual approach to everything is hurting Congress to core. No has disgraced Congress more than Rahul Gandhi. Not Modi, not Amit Shah and certainly not RSS. Do we get an honest introspection from Congress leaders regarding this? It is vital for not only Congress; but for the entire country that this party must go through genuine contemplation to get the things right.

Problem with Rahul Gandhi is not that he makes mistakes. Problem is much deeper. Problem is his sheer incompetence to comprehend the complex nature of our country and our problems. Problem is he thinks that he can lead India with such maladroit nature. And it is a shame that no one in his own party has guts to tell him that. In fact, total surrender of your own wisdom at the feet of a Gandhi is the basic and foremost condition to be a member in this party. ‘King can do no wrong’ seems to be the motto of this party since independence. You must avoid to become a ‘Arif Mohammad Khan’ at every cost! It worked well till the party owned the monopoly of information. It is certainly not going to work now. We surely know that Nehru was great, Indira Gandhi was great. And we must know – Rahul Gandhi too would have been great in the absence of social media!

It sounds really funny when Gandhis talk about democracy and importance of the voice of dissent. Rahul has accused that entire state machinery was directed against Congress. He must explore a little history of his own grandmother, great grandfather and virtually all political ancestors. He would find plenty of wisdom there about how the state machinery and institutions can be blatantly exploited to earn and maintain power. It feels useless even to cite examples of such violations continued over generations. They are abundant and omnipresent.

This resignation is historic as it is a sign of change. Not in the party; but the way this nation thinks now. While the party still seems delusional or whatever it is; this nation has certainly entered a new era. An era of performance. An era where you would be judged and valued irrespective of your social, political, economic background. An era where your family legacy would not matter and at the same time, your humble social background also would not matter.

We surely are ushering in the age where everyone who thinks that he deserves to excel in his respective field can get the opportunity. Ground has really started to turn into a leveled playfield. There is a silent awakening of underprivileged, downtrodden sections of our society who have nothing but sheer talent to start their journeys. They do not have family legacy, they do not have shortcuts waiting for them, and they certainly do not have the entire ecosystem waiting for them to takeover. In fact, they have to struggle against every odd. But at least, things have started to change for the better.

There is a corollary of this new situation. It means that success in future would be hard earned gradually. Things would not be just accepted on their face values. Surely, someone would still have a head start; but the race would still be on for number of underprivileged contestants or Kamdars! System would gradually throw away the non performing legacy holders or proclaimed heirs.

Hence, Rahul Gandhi must look around. Today’s superstars are Ranvir Singhs, not Kumar Gauravs, cricket sensations are MS Dhonis, not Rohan Gavaskars and needless to say, this has affected the Indian politics to a great degree. Thus, Rahul must forget RSS, BJP or even Savarkar. He must only concentrate on what he can offer as a political persona just like the current Prime Minister has successfully accomplished. If he has to find relevance in this new India; he must stop blame games and must ready to adapt and learn in a real sense.

In that casual meeting 9 years ago, I heard him using the word ‘system’ habitually. I hope he knows that system he intended to change has indeed changed. And it is not surprising at all that he now feels threatened by this change…