Tag Archives: Elections
Posted on 17 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
Is a Police Officer subject to a ministerial direction? Certainly not. A police officer performs his functions under law. His power to investigate, search, arrest and prosecute a suspect or an accused is regulated by the code of criminal procedure and other laws.
The celebrated British judge Lord Denning laid down this principle in 1968 when he said:
‘I have no hesitation, however, in holding that, like every constable in the land, he should be, and is, independent of the executive. He is not subject to the orders of the Secretary of State,….I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected; and the honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or not suspected persons are to be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought; but in all these things he is not the servant to anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone’.
This principle was affirmed by the Indian Supreme Court in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala Case) in 1998. A police officer is strictly bound by the law. His powers under the law are to be balanced with the citizens’ right to life and liberty. If he violates a procedural safeguard, in the course of exercising his powers, he acts contrary to the law. The battle for preservation of a person’s liberty has been more on account of procedural safeguards rather than substantive law.
Compare it with what happens elsewhere. On July 6, 2000 the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s son 16-year old son was arrested for being ‘drunk and ‘incapable’ in London’s West End. To save the embarrassment of disclosing his father’s name, he gave a false identity. He was taken to the Charing Cross Police Station. He was kept inside a cell. Subsequently, Prime Minister Blair and his wife Cherie, who were holidaying at Portugal at that time, had to accompany their son to a Police Station. The Prime Minister and Mrs. Blair acted appropriately as adults and the son was released after a final warning. Subsequently, Prime Minister Blair found nothing wrong in his having to go to a Police Station rather than the Police come to him. His comment was, ‘being a parent is tough’. The Prime Minister was subject to the powers of the police and not otherwise.
Regrettably, on account of a local minister in Delhi, some ladies who were foreign nationals had to undergo harassment. They were beaten up and forced to undergo a medical test. This included a cavity search. This was not done by the Police but the party cadres of the Aam Aadmi Party. In any civilized jurisprudence, for this unlawful act, the minister would be liable to pay them damages for his unlawful conduct. One man who stood out and has earned my respect is the unknown ACP Shri B.S. Jakhar, who defied the minister but stood by the law. We must all salute ACP Jakhar.
Posted on 16 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
India was promised alternative politics. I had personally hoped that alternative politics promised by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), would lead to larger footprints on the Indian society. Conventional political parties and politicians would realize the importance of probity and accountability. The country is being presented with gimmickry and the road to anarchy.
There is an in-built danger in establishing a political party and then going out to search its members and its ideology. In the process, a group of disparate, self-opinionated persons have flocked to the new outfit. A former airline owner from Bangalore and a banker from Mumbai appear to be protagonists of the market economy. An important Maoist sympathizer from Chhattisgarh is a member of the party. Yet, another one from the Jawaharlal Nehru University was advising various groups of Kashmir to unite against the Indian state. His commitment had taken him to depose before an US Federal Committee (USCIRF) against the Gujarat government. One key member espouses the idea of referendum in the Kashmir valley and the Maoist dominated areas whether security is required to be provided in these areas or not. An activist from Ahmedabad who converted Anti-Modism into full time occupation wants to know the opinion of other members of the Party amongst others on the issue of gay sex. She has reservations on admitting those into the party who have conservative views on gay sex.
The new party has a distinct concept of new jurisprudence, that judges now will have to report to the executive. An accused minister has the power to decide whether a judge is right or otherwise. He rejects the order against him. The initial enthusiasm of mobocracy as an instrument of decision making has somewhat died down. Initial indication of the economic policy of the party appears to be for nationalization of natural resources and Airports, higher subsidy and hence higher taxes. A sense of idealism has been replaced by desire for job seeking, resulting in fissures within the party.
All this has been achieved in less than three weeks. My fear is that the failure of this experiment should not be confused by other parties as a failure of the good message of higher standards of probity and accountability.
Posted on 15 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
Mr. Rahul Gandhi has got it right. Political parties cannot be personality centric. Political parties must have a structure, an ideology and inner party democracy. They cannot be run on the whims of an individual. We may now try to analyse as to what went wrong with a number of political parties in India that they became unstructured and personality oriented.
Pt.Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister was charismatic. The Congress in the 1950s started identifying with him. This led to the marginalization of a large number of political leaders who did not agree with him. When he made Mrs. Indira Gandhi President of the AICC in the late 1950s it was the beginning of Congress Party’s official acknowledgement that dynastic rule was ushering in. Many senior leaders were by-passed in order to enable the daughter of the Prime Minister to become the Party President.
Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s personality dominated her politics. This led to the Congress split in 1969. In 1973 her attempt to undermine India’s judiciary became a part of the Congress’s ideology. In 1975 when Emergency was imposed, authoritarianism became a part of the Congress ideology. Institutional destruction was accepted as the Opposition, the Parliament, the media and the Judiciary were shown their place. “India is Indira and Indira is India” was officially proclaimed by its AICC President as the Party’s slogan. Her commitment to a regulated economy through economic programmes announced during the Emergency became the Congress Party’s philosophy.
In 1984 the anti-Sikh sentiment was generated through Operation Blue Star. Justification of the massacre of a community became a part of Party’s programme. Initially Mr. Rajiv Gandhi gave an impression of breaking away from the past. However, by 1987 defending and covering up scams became a part of the Party’s commitment. When the senior leadership was involved in trying to implicate Mr. VP Singh’s son in the fake St.Kitts case, the whole party stood up for the fabrication. What better evidence does one need of the Party’s personality centric politics?
When Mrs. Sonia Gandhi entered politics in her own right, the Party accepted the principle that a person of foreign origin can be the Prime Minister of India. She eventually decided not to accept the post. The virtues of renunciation were now sung by the Party. Mr.Rahul Gandhi’s decision to overrule the central Cabinet through his ‘non-sense’ comment were pointer to the fact an individual was taller than the party. In a structured party like the BJP or the Left, Mr. Rahul Gandhi would still have been struggling to get his first assignment as an office bearer in the Party structure or in a legislative body. It is only in a personality and family dominated set-up like the Congress that he can be nominated as the unquestioned supremo.
Outside the personality cult there have been two Congress Prime Ministers who have stood apart. Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri was a Prime Minister for a brief period. His simplicity and high credibility inspired the whole country. His goodness is not a part of the Congress legacy. Despite some failings Mr. PV Narasimha Rao has a place in history as a leader who transformed India’s economy and foreign policy. He never appears on Congress Party’s billboards.
Having popular leaders like Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Mr. Narendra Modi is very different from the BJP becoming personality centric. These leaders were and will always remain subject to the Party structure. Mr. Rahul Gandhi has got the principle against personality centered party right, he has got his facts all wrong.
Posted on 14 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
‘Operation Blue Star’ in June 1984 will remain one of the most controversial acts of the Government in independent India. In order to marginalize the moderate Akalis, a build up of the extremists was ignored. Instead of preventing extremists hardliners from collecting in large numbers with arms and ammunitions inside the Golden Temple, the Government of India decided to look the other way. It had hoped that moderate Sikh politicians would become irrelevant. It probably had planned that on the eve of the 1984 elections a police-military confrontation with the extremists would take place and the 1984 elections would be won by the Congress on the patriotic slogan of saving Punjab and saving India from Terror.
Those in the Government of India have recorded these incidents differently. I was amongst those present at the release of Dr. PC Alexander’s memoirs a few years ago. He was the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister in May-June 1984 and perhaps one of the best witnesses to what was going on. A chapter in his book on the Operation Blue Star gives an impression that it is only when the dialogue between Dr. PC Alexander and Sant Longowal failed that General Vaidya was called towards the end of May 1984 and asked to get ready for a military operation. Did the Government of India take the necessary intelligence and political inputs as to the impact the military action would have on the Sikhs, one of the most patriotic communities? Indeed that was not a consideration for the Government of India. The fall-out of ‘Operation Blue Star’ was not only the alienation of the Sikh community but the eventual assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and the massacre of Sikhs across the country.
While we in India still continue to debate on the judgement we wish to make on the controversial ‘Operation Blue Star’, a new set of documents now published in Britain throw a different light on the subject. Declassification of secret documents takes place in England after 30 years. Documents for the period February 1984 have now been published. These are top secret classified documents.
The Principal Secretary at 10, Downing Street on 6th February 1984 writes to Brian Fall of the Foreign and Commonwealth office on the plan for removal of dissident Sikhs from Golden Temple. He records that “The Prime Minister is content that the Foreign Secretary should proceed as he proposes. She will look forward to receiving a report on the advisor’s visit and notes that the Home Secretary would be informed if the Indians seemed likely to proceed with the plan.” Was the ‘Operation Blue Star’ being planned on British advise?
Thus, contrary to what we have been told that it was the collapse of the dialogue in May, 1984 that led to the ‘Operation Blue Star’, the Government of India was in dialogue with the British Government on the plan to remove the dissident Sikhs from the holy Golden Temple. This letter is followed by Brian Fall’s letter to the Home Secretary’s office dated 23/2/1984. This letter mentions the repercussions it will have on the Sikh community in England. It categorically states that “The Indian Authorities recently sought British advice over a plan to remove Sikh extremists from the Golden Temple in Amritsar. The Foreign Secretary decided to respond favourably to the Indian request and with the Prime Minister’s agreement, an SAD officer has visited India and drawn up a plan which has been approved by Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The Foreign Secretary believes that the Indian Government may put the plan into operation shortly.” Making public of this classified document after a period of thirty years as a part of declassification of confidential documents shows that there was a significant foreign hand behind the advice given to Mrs. Indira Gandhi to proceed in a particular manner. The Indian Army is informed only towards the end of May 1984. The political consultation within the Government on the subject was minimal. Was any other country also consulted on this subject? If British Government was being consulted in February 1984, it only lends credence to the fact that Government of India neither believed in nipping the problem at the initial stage nor in exploring alternative methods of evacuating the extremists from the Golden Temple. It wanted to invade the sacred precincts of the Golden Temple no matter even if it hurt the national interest and certainly the interests of the Sikhs.
We are now having some of the British documents becoming public. In the next few months, more documents between the period February to June 1984 would become public on account of the expiry of the limitation of 30 years. It is about time that the Government of India decided to tell us the truth as to what the real facts were. This would enable the people of India to conclude whether ‘Operation Blue Star’ was a strategic miscalculation.
Posted on 13 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
I have in the past few weeks made two comments which I wish to refer to. Firstly, that the Congress has lost the will to effectively fight the 2014 election. It is squeezing itself out of the contest. Secondly, with the result of the elections to the State Assemblies declared on 8th December, 2013, the UPA Government has evolved from a lame duck to a dead duck. Notwithstanding these two comments, political experience dictated that the Congress will at least make an effort to fight back. Resilience after all is an essential aspect of Indian politics.
I am, however, surprised at the complete collapse of the Congress to fight back in adversity. Except for routine functioning of the government such as meetings, file clearance or approval of routine items at the weekly meetings of the Union Cabinet, paralysis has completely engulfed the government. Even the arrogant responses and the exaggerated tweets of some of the ministers have disappeared. The blame game has started. Some Union Ministers privately refer to the non political approach of the Prime Minister’s Office and the others maintain a position of “the boy doesn’t listen to anybody”.
We in the BJP have been in power only in 1997, 1998 and 1999. We supported a government for a brief period from outside in 1989. For the remaining we have been in opposition. Our lowest point was when we got two seats in Lok Sabha in 1984. Notwithstanding the debacle we did not compromise on ideology. We did not lose heart. We did not wait for a day before deciding to fight back. Even in 2004 when we lost the election we went down fighting and were proud of our performance. The Communist Parties have remained confined to only a few States. Their strength at national level is limited and yet they continue their politics with a sense of purpose.
Why is it that the Congressmen find themselves so demoralized today? Is it because they have been in power for too long and cannot survive without being in office? Is it because of arrogant behavior, scams and misuse of institutions like the CBI? They are scared of the very idea that without power their accountability may increase. A lot of ministers are now planning life after May 2014. Disillusionment is writ large in their attitude. Does anyone remember a single decision that the UPA government has taken in the past few months? Are Congressmen willing to seriously introspect what has gone wrong?
The problem of dynastic parties is that their strength is co-existent with and co-terminus with the potential of that generation of the dynasty which controls the party. A Pt.Nehru or Indira Gandhi could carry on the party on the strength of their personality. If the contemporary generation does not have that potential, the party collapses because of inadequate charisma of that generation of the dynasty. A structured party with a galaxy of leadership and a defined ideology still survives even in adversity. A dynastic party will sink or swim with the dynasty.
Posted on 12 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
Governance involves policy formulation and its implementation. Policies have to be sound, based on established principles and implemented in a transparent and honest manner. Getting positive publicity for serious governance can be a part of clever politics blended with good governance. Publicity without governance is gimmickry.
The new government in Delhi formed by the Aam Admi Party has a historic opportunity to respond to confidence which a section of the voters have reposed in it. Voters are ruthless in making their choices. That is the inherent strength of the democracy. They vote in a government and can turn their anger towards the same if it fails to perform. The AAP government has so far confused substantive governance with style of governance. It may be entitled to its unconventional style of governance. The unconventional style is not a substitute for substantive governance.
There are two challenges before Delhi. There is an unprivileged Delhi which does not possess even basic amenities. There is a Delhi which aspires to be a global city. The Government of Delhi has to respond to both these challenges. Publicity with regard to the style of governance without any substantive governance is simply gimmickry. Responsible governance has a long lasting impact. Gimmickry is always short lived. Gimmickry does not leave its footprint behind. Excessive gimmickry becomes an object of ridicule.Continued gimmickry without substance invites public ridicule and anger. The AAP government is now becoming a victim of its own style. The sooner it realizes this, it would have an opportunity to correct the error into which it is falling.
Posted on 11 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
The founding fathers of our Constitution envisaged the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution. Article 44 of the Constitution states “The state shall endeavour to ensure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. Uniform Civil Code can only deal with rights of the citizens and not religious rituals. However, some people misguided themselves to believe that a uniform civil code would be an interference in their religious rights. The framers of our laws while still permitting separate personal laws dealing with civil rights did not make any exception with regard to criminal law. A crime is a crime irrespective of the birth marks of the criminal. His religious beliefs cannot determine his guilt or innocence.
The Union Home Minister, Shri Sushil Kumar Shinde, has announced that he would be writing to all Chief Ministers to review terrorism cases against members of the minority communities. Obviously, he has only religious minority and not linguistic minority in his mind. He expects the State Government to set up Review Committees to deal with cases against a category of citizens and not all persons who have been charged for terrorism offences. This raises certain fundamental questions with regard to the propriety and the legality of the move initiated by the Home Minister.
The move is clearly political. There are several persons charged with offences of terror in India. The provisions have been invoked against those associated with certain radical Islamic groups. In the last few years there are a few members of the majority community also who were charged in a set of cases. Maoists have been charged in terror offences in several parts of the country. The provisions of the anti-terror laws have been invoked against some persons in the North-East and Jammu & Kashmir. There are pre-2004 cases pending under POTA. Subsequent cases are predominantly under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. A move that only a certain category of cases would be reviewed on the eve of election is intended to link the otherwise uniform application of criminal law with vote bank politics.
Such a move is clearly unconstitutional. Article 14 guarantees to every citizen a right to equality. There can be a reasonable classification based on an intelligible and distinctive criteria. The criteria that the facility of reviewing terror cases would be extended to persons depending on which faith they believe in or are born into is clearly unconstitutional. A crime does not cease to be a crime because a criminal practices in a particular faith. States are now being mandated by the Union Home Ministry to review cases of only persons belonging to a certain faith. An atheist, agnostic and believers in the Hindu faith would admittedly be kept out. A contradiction would also be there. The believers of Hindu faith would constitute a minority in Jammu & Kashmir and certain States of North-East. Would they be eligible for review in these States or would the majority in these States be treated as national minority and be eligible for review of cases? What would happen to cases (say against the Maoists) where some of the co-accused belong to one religion and others belong to a different community. There can be no doubt that the criteria adopted by the Union Home Minister is clearly violative of the constitutional guarantee of equality since it is not based on rationale or intelligible criteria.
The power to withdraw a prosecution is circumscribed by section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is only a Public Prosecutor who after application of mind for ‘good reason’ has the power to move the court seeking withdrawal of a case. The judge has to apply his mind to allow the withdrawal of a case. Criminal law does not provide for any review Committee for withdrawal of pending cases where charge sheets have been filed. Whenever law makers have felt the need, they have specifically provided for such a Review Committee. An extra legal review committee which substitutes the discretion of the public prosecutor and the judge follows a procedure unknown to law. The same is clearly violative of even the provisions of criminal law.
The directive/advisory of the Union Home Minister to the States to discriminate between criminals on basis of religion is based on an improper policy. It violates the constitutional guarantee of equality. It is violative of the fundamental principles and provisions of criminal law. The States are not bound by such unconstitutional directives of the Home Minister.
Posted on 10 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
The results of the State Assembly elections were declared over a month ago. There is a significant shift in the agenda of national politics since then.
Prior to 13th September,2013, when the BJP declared Narendra Modi as its Prime Ministerial candidate, doubts were being raised about BJP’s ability to put its house in order and declare a Prime Ministerial candidate. The post Narendra Modi declaration witnessed a huge support for Modi. The Party cadres and the support base have been hugely enthused. His personal ratings as Prime Ministerial candidate have touched a record high. The results of the assembly elections on 8th December, 2013 indicated that Modi versus Rahul debate was being overstated. Both Modi and the BJP had a decisive edge. The Delhi election witnessed the emergence of Aam Aadmi Party as a new challenger. In the last one month, the Aam Aadmi Party has occupied a large part of media and mind space. It is a party born out of a reaction. Political hopefuls who have in the past contested elections without a party platform have queued up to join the new party. Some of the recruits have traditionally received more air-time than actual votes. Today, they have found a platform for their aspirations.
The AAP’s Delhi Government’s performance post the results has not been too inspiring. It has no agenda to evolve Delhi into a global city. Its Delhi activities have centered around the vehicles in which the Ministers travel, kind of houses they occupy, the freebies that they can distribute, how to sting people and other similar activities intended to occupy media centre stage. Some of these symbolisms may be important but they do not improve the quality of life of the ordinary citizens. These gimmicks do not have a lasting impact. However, no one can deny that at least transiently there is a space in several parts of the country for the new outfit.
The AAP is trying to alter the corruption agenda. There is no reference to corruption allegations which can embarrass the Congress. The CWG scam, the 2G spectrum allocation, Coal block allocation or corruption of the Sheila Dixit Government are not mentioned by it. It is deflecting the attention to petty corruption.
A random poll taken by a leading newspaper was based on a small sample and a limited class. The poll conveys three messages. The most important message is that the Congress is being squeezed out of the contest for the Lok Sabha elections. The second message is that the AAP is making its presence felt. Third, that Modi’s choice for Prime Minister is miles ahead in his national acceptability.
The challenge before the BJP is to consolidate its gains. Its candidates and organizational structure should inspire confidence through its credibility. With Congress getting squeezed out, the BJP is the front runner. It has to increase its pace of activity and penetrate into every house. The ‘Modi for Prime Minister’ campaign has to be blended with the ‘agenda for India’. That agenda must necessarily be specific, clear and comprise of big ideas. The big ideas have an ability to eclipse a new party which has a narrow focus only on petty corruption. Needless to say that the journey of the Congress in the recent past has been from arrogance towards extinction. Never has the Congress’s prime ministerial candidate’s rating been so low. Its senior leaders are a despondent lot. Its strategy of promoting AAP in Delhi has only led AAP to occupy the Congress space. There is hardly a State where the Congress is capable of improving its tally for the Lok Sabha. Its final tally may touch a surprising rock bottom.
The constituency of Anti-BJP activists have lost hope in the Congress. They are shifting their inclination towards the new outfit. Who benefits from the Congress eclipse? For us in the BJP this is a rare opportunity which we cannot hope to miss. In Narendra Modi the BJP has the most acceptable Prime Ministerial candidate. The Party and its leader must now convey its’ big idea of the future agenda for India.
Posted on 09 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
On the eve of the Prime Minister’s Press Conference I had posed five questions that I would have liked to ask the Prime Minister. My first question was “In the Prime Minister’s opinion how would history judge him”. The Prime Minister in the course of his media interaction repeatedly said that his performance was for history to judge and he hoped that history would be kinder to him than the contemporary media.
If the Prime Minister had chosen to assert himself at the right time would the situation had been different today? Let us consider three different cases which admittedly brought a bad name to the Government.
The image decline of this government commenced with the reports that all was not well in the organization of the Commonwealth Games. The government itself received several reports of the wrong doings in the Organizing Committee. Months before the Games, the Prime Minister could have stepped in and changed the Organizing Committee. The Chairman of the Organizing Committee, Shri Suresh Kalmadi could have been asked to quit or sacked. A Special Secretary of the Government of India should have been asked to chair the Committee. The country would have got the message that the Prime Minister asserted himself at the right time.
In November-December 2007, the Prime Minister started receiving reports that all is not well with the 2G Spectrum allocation. Spectrum was being undervalued and the allocation was being done through an arbitrary process. The goal post had been shifted to favour a few. The Prime Minister Office was fully aware of the goings-on. It exchanged correspondence with the Telecom Minister but lacked the courage to stop the allocation and scrap it altogether. In January 2008 the Prime Minister remained a mute spectator when the allocation had taken place to a favoured few. If before this situation he had stepped in, scrapped the allocation and constituted a committee to oversee an auction (as was done in 3G) he could have prevented a huge loss to the Exchequer. There would have been no adverse CAG report and no adverse impact on the government’s reputation, no cancellation of the licenses by the Supreme Court. And obviously no impact on the investment environment in the country. The Prime Minister would have been quoted “as a man who asserted himself at the right time”.
In the coal block allocation, his culpability was higher since he himself was the Cabinet Minister for Coal. His choice of the Ministers of State was a suspect. The coal blocks were being allocated on the basis of recommendations of the party. The allocation had been linked to the Party’s fund raising campaign. There was no objectivity. There was no objectivity in the criteria for allocation. If in 2006 and 2007, the Prime Minister as a Coal Minister had followed the criteria of auctioning – something which he himself had decided in 2004, the coal scam would not have taken place. He allowed Congressmen to act as sweat equity beneficiaries and rentiers. Media reports indicate that his Attorney General had admitted before the highest court that the allocation could have unintentionally gone wrong. In the process power generation which is vital to this country’ economic development has suffered. India with 200 years coal reserve is today importing coal. It is a drain on the foreign exchange reserves. Additionally, our goal of ‘power on demand’ has not been realized. The power generation has not become a success story. There was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to have refrained from making these allocations. When the CAG report was submitted he could have utilized that as another God sent opportunity to scrap the allocations. Today when the Government admits through its principal law officer that things could have unwittingly gone wrong, there is yet another opportunity to correct the error. If this opportunity is not availed, the country stands to suffer in terms of delay in power generation. The Prime Minister and the Government continue to suffer from an image of indecisiveness and a taint of corruption.
Posted on 07 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
I was invited on January 4, 2014 to Pune for the launch of the Marathi edition of the book ‘Modinama” written by Madhu Purnima Kishwar, an academic and activist. Madhu has never been a BJP supporter. If at all I remember her as a critic of the Party on several occasions in the past. The English and Hindi edition of the book are yet to be released. The Marathi edition has been printed by Vineet Kuber of Pune. The book is based on several months of research by the author. In relation to the 2002 riots she has recorded interviews of several people and has based the book on the factual impressions that she got. While speaking at the launch function, I referred to several steps taken towards a sustained campaign (or conspiracy) to implicate Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots. I further explained some of these attempts which collapsed because they were based on falsehood.
I refer to three important facts that I mentioned in my Speech.
The First – Who set fire to the Sabarmati Express.
It was clear from day one that a misguided mob at the Godhra Railway station, of members belonging to one community had set the Sabarmati Express compartment No. S-6 on fire. The case was initially investigated by the Gujarat Police and subsequently transferred by the Supreme Court to the SIT. The trial was completed based on the SIT’s investigation which established that a meeting was held in Godhra a day prior to the incident. Fuel was transported in vehicles to the railway station. The doors of compartment S-6 were bolted from outside so that nobody could come out and the mob armed with weapons had set the compartment on fire.
A fraudulent attempt was made by a section of the media and certain NGOs to allege that nobody set the fire from outside; that the fire started inside the compartment. The trial upon completion resulted in conviction of a large number of people against whom the charge of conspiracy, rioting and murder was held. The appeals of the convicted persons are pending. Notwithstanding this voluminous evidence, UPA-I through its Railway Minister Lalu Yadav appointed a Committee under the Railway Ministry headed by a retired judge, Justice U.C Banerjee, The Committee came out with a scandalous report alleging that the fire could have started inside the compartment. This report carried no credibility with the people and has been consigned to the dustbin. The judicial verdict proved every fact of this report to be false.
The motivation of this false campaign was established that the Hindu community had set the compartment on fire so that the provocation could lead to riots in Gujarat.
Secondly, the Modi interview of action-reaction which was never given.
In order to establish that Narendra Modi was rationalizing the violence taking place in Gujarat, a leading national newspaper in the first week of March 2002 published an alleged ‘interview’ of Modi. The said interview quoted Modi as saying that every action has a reaction and therefore the post Godhra violence was justified as a reaction. Narendra Modi maintained that he had not given any such interview. In fact no reporter from the newspaper had ever met him for the interview. It was therefore surprising that the interview could appear in Question-Answer form and create an impression that Modi had justified the violence. The Gujarat Government wrote to the newspaper alleging that no such interview had been given since nobody from the newspaper had ever met the Chief Minister. The statement was not published in the next 20 days. Thereafter, it appeared as a letter in the Letters to Editor column with a clarification that in fact no reporter had met Modi or had interviewed him and the interview was ‘created’ on basis of comments and replies of the Chief Minister which had appeared on certain electronic channel.
Thirdly, the meeting at Chief Minister’s House on 27/2/2002
This was the third limb of the falsehood on basis of which the allegation against Narendra Modi was made. A meeting attended by the then Chief Secretary, the DGP, the Principal Secretary (Home) etc and other Senior Officers was held at the CM’s residence. There were eight senior-most officers of the State Government and the Police. There was no occasion for a SP level officer Sanjeev Bhat to be present in the meeting. For the first time in 2006, the complainant Zakia Jaffrey, alleged that in the said meeting Narendra Modi had told the officers that the Hindu community must be allowed to exhaust its anger. The CM denied that he had made any such statement. On the contrary, stringent steps were planned to ensure that no violence takes place, Contemporaneous statements appealing for peace and against any form of retaliatory violence were also issued by the Chief Minister. Eight years after the alleged meeting Sanjeev Bhat alleged that he was present in the meeting where such a provocative statement was made. The SIT examined all the eight officers. All eight denied that any such statement was made or that Sanjeev Bhat was present in the meeting. The SIT further recovered contemporaneous evidence of how an attempt had been made to show that Sanjeev Bhat could have been present in Gandhi Nagar whereas voluminous evidence showed that he was present in Ahmadabad. These included the Call Data Records which could establish the movement of a person. Further evidence was available of how NGOs, Activists and even the Pradesh Congress Committee persons were being consulted on the draft affidavit to be presented in support of the allegation and a conspiracy to destabilize the State Government was being undertaken. The SIT concluded that Sanjeev Bhat was not present in the meeting and no such statement was made by the Chief Minister. It further concluded that contemporaneous statement of the Chief Minister were absolutely contrary to what was being alleged. The magisterial court has endorsed that view of the SIT.
The above three steps had subverted the media debate for almost a decade. It certainly calls for introspection of those who either perpetuated this falsehood or became victims of this propaganda. I have always believed that falsehood falls apart and truth holds together. There can hardly be a better illustration to substantiate this belief than what is stated above.