I/II. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Modis-concern-for-puppies-With-his-inappropriate-analogy-he-has-opened-up-the-wounds-of-Gujarat-afresh/articleshow/21090129.cms
*Modi’s concern for puppies * *With his inappropriate analogy, he has opened up the wounds of Gujarat afresh* *BRINDA KARAT | Jul 16, 2013* *In defence of the insulting and repugnant 'puppy' analogy he used when asked in an interview about the 2002 pogroms in Gujarat, Narendra Modi<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Narendra-Modi>tweeted "In our culture every form of life is valued and worshipped." Except, he could have added, if you are a Muslim or a Christian. >From another angle, his concern for puppies is as touching as was Hitler's love for his dog. In 1933, the German government enacted one of the most comprehensive animal protection rights legislations in the world, as a first step in a series of laws to protect animals - ranging from anaesthetising fish before they were cut up, to ensuring that lobsters were killed swiftly rather than having to experience the pain of being slowly boiled, before being served up as special delicacies to those accustomed to fine dining. In the moral hierarchies born and bred in Nazi minds, there was no conflict between care for animals and genocide of Jews, since, in the Nazi reading, Jews were subhuman beings lower than most animal species, comparable to vermin. Similarly, the Gujarat chief minister, brought up in schools of thought that preach hatred towards the minorities in theory<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Theory-%28designer%29>and in practice, can find it easy to express sadness for a puppy run over accidentally, but cannot bring himself to directly express sympathy for the thousands of Muslims, including women<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Women>and children, who were butchered under his watch in 2002. The analogy is inappropriate for another reason too. There was nothing accidental about the carnage. Incontrovertible evidence is now available in the voluminous records of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to show the culpability of the state. It is this SIT set up by the Supreme Court, and headed by former CBI director RK Raghavan, that gave Modi the 'clean chit' he now flaunts. The records were inexplicably kept secret by the SIT and have come into the public domain only recently, through the Zakia Jafri petition in the Gulbarg Society case. The petition is to reject the SIT's clean chit to Modi and has been admitted by a court in Ahmedabad where arguments are being heard.* *A reading of the material would lend support to the legitimacy of such a petition. Details of the post-Godhra transcripts of frantic police messages to headquarters provide a blow-by-blow account of the build-up to the massacres and the role of various players like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Bajrang-Dal> and Modi himself. They reflect the puzzlement of the police why no action was taken on their reports. Why did the government not act in time in spite of warnings? Nor was it a question of being temporarily overwhelmed by unforeseen circumstances. The transcripts of state intelligence reports prior to the kar sevaks leaving for Ayodhya, from a week before the horrific Godhra crime, also describe the highly communal public slogans that were given by their leaders. Was it good governance not to take any preventive steps? Was it good governance to allow the post-mortem of the Godhra victims on a railway platform in full public view, as Modi did? According to SIT records, he was present at the Godhra station at the time. Was it good governance to then hand over the bodies to precisely those organisations like the VHP, who the police warned, were out to create a communal conflagration? Or were these the actions of a self-described Hindu nationalist whose very idea of India has more in common with Hitler's Germany than Ambedkar's Cons-titution? Or is this an example of the decisiveness that Modi boasted of as a sterling quality for his claim to leadership in the same controversial interview?* *The question to be asked is decisiveness in whose interest. Certainly not in the interests of justice. Only recently Modi decided to send to UP as his proxy Amit Shah <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Amit-Shah>, a man chargesheeted in a fake encounter case, while defending others involved in the cold-blooded murder of Ishrat Jahan. And here it is not only a question of taking swift decisions against justice for the minorities, although that is the paramount issue in the context of the Gujarat model. It is the lack of concern in decision-making for justice to the poor, the undernourished, those deprived of the right to literacy. As analysts of the Gujarat model have convincingly shown, the indicators of social inequalities remain very high in Gujarat, even as corporates have benefited enormously from the quick decisions taken by Modi. Decisiveness without a moral compass is of little use to India's working masses. Those who have experienced the sorrow of an untimely death of a loved one know only too well the importance of moving on, of finding some kind of closure, essential for the process of healing the wounds of grief. But for loss inflicted by deliberate policy, by design, by the illegal use of power, closure only comes when those responsible are held accountable and punished. Modi was at the wheel when Gujarat burnt. In the face of his recent defiant justification, the wounds bleed afresh and force us once again to remember the horror of 2002. And to ask the question, is this the model that India needs? (The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP and politburo member of the CPM).* II. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/here-s-listening-to-you-mr-modi/1142354/ *Here’s listening to you, Mr Modi* *Kapil Sibal <http://www.indianexpress.com/columnist/kapilsibal/> : Tue Jul 16 2013* *Narendra Modi, in an interview by Ross Colvin and Sruthi Gottipati (Reuters), has unwittingly revealed his mindset. Let us examine some of his statements. * *He refers to the targeting of Muslims in the aftermath of Godhra with an analogy. He states: "... if... someone else is driving a car and we're sitting behind, even then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not?... I'm a human being... it is natural to be sad." * *In the context of the car analogy, during the course of the 2002 riots, the person sitting behind the driver's seat, we assume, was the chief minister of Gujarat. Only in two circumstances can a puppy be overrun by the car. First, the puppy is unwittingly run over, in which case, neither the driver nor the one sitting behind can be blamed. Second, the driver, rashly and negligently, seals the fate of the puppy. * *The analogy is inapt in the context of the Gujarat riots. The members of a community cannot be unwitting victims of an accident. Therefore, in the best case scenario, the man sitting behind was aware that the driver was rash and negligent in snuffing out the life of hapless victims. What would a good Hindu have done? First, he would have immediately dismissed the driver. Then, he would have lodged an FIR for prosecuting him for rash and negligent driving, and thereafter directed the investigating agencies to expeditiously deal with the accused. * *What did Narendra Modi do? First, he invoked Newton's law of motion; the state then ensured that the investigating agencies moved slothfully. Thereafter, the state attempted to derail the investigation. * *The consequence: the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court had to intervene when the courts found out that the investigators were subverting justice. Some cases were shifted out of the state. Some others were handed over to the SIT or the CBI, as the case may be. The puppy analogy discloses a mindset that is duplicitous and uncaring. What is expected of a chief minister, in these situations, is not an expression of pity for the victims, but to bring the accused to justice. The analogy is also inapt since the chief minister is not a passenger, but the driver, guiding the state to vindicate the cause of justice. * *The second statement of the chief minister that evokes suspicion is his definition of secularism. "For me, my secularism is India first". Then, he says, "our secularism (that is, the secularism of the BJP) is, "Justice to all. Appeasement to none". "India first" should reflect the emotion of every patriot. But patriotism cannot be equated to secularism. A patriot may well be communal. He may well be a dictator. He may also be a fundamentalist. Such confused thinking is a disturbing attribute if the person aspires for national recognition. * *Let us now turn to his party's depiction of secularism: "Justice to all. Appeasement to none". We will have to define what "justice" means in the context of what happened in Gujarat in the aftermath of Godhra. Justice meant protecting all those who mercilessly and wantonly extinguished the lives of children, women and the defenceless. That does not fit into the concept of "Justice to all". When the state machinery defends criminals and the public prosecutors collude with the accused in certain cases and the victims are members of a particular community, then "Justice to all" is empty rhetoric. In Gujarat, it meant no justice to the minority community. In Modi's mind, this might have amounted to appeasement. * *The third statement that deserves attention is when he says: "I always say the strength of democracy lies in criticism. So, I am against allegations but I always welcome criticism". * *In the last few years, Modi's diatribes against the Congress are based on mere allegations without substance. In Goa, he stated that the Congress party was using the CBI to prosecute the innocent. He did not inform the people that all investigations conducted by the CBI were pursuant to court orders; that too, when the court realised that the state investigating agencies were subverting justice. As chief minister, he is aware that the CBI cannot take over any investigation of criminal acts in any state. It is forbidden by law. Only in two circumstances can the CBI investigate. One, if the state consents to such investigation; and two, the court orders such an investigation. How, then, is the Congress using the CBI to prosecute the accused in Gujarat? On the contrary, the state was misusing its investigating machinery to protect the accused. * *Modi further stated that: "[The] difference between the BJP and the Congress is that the BJP is a party with a mission whereas the Congress is a party of commission." The BJP, undoubtedly, is a party with a mission. Spreading hatred and religious discord, indulging in state sponsored violence and fake encounter killings, and resorting to divisive politics, have been integral to this mission. The BJP's acts of commission have been repeatedly exposed with their own party leaders being involved in such acts. In the case of Gujarat, Modi, in fact, created hurdles in the appointment of the Lokayukta. It is apparent that he didn't want his government's acts of commission to get exposed before the people of the country. * *The fourth statement made by the chief minister is classic. He stated: "I am a Hindu nationalist because I am a born Hindu". First of all, Modi does not understand the distinction between patriotism and nationalism. It seems the chief minister believes that every born Hindu is a Hindu nationalist. With respect, there are some born Hindus who are anti-national. Some born of other faiths are also anti-national. Nationalism has no relationship to birth and yet, the chief minister is convinced about his own nationalist fervour. Brand Modi is self-ordained. * *Humility is an attribute of every good Hindu. Yet the chief minister says, "people have selected him as the best chief minister". Which people? Certainly not the people of India. In his correspondence, he told Aroon Purie that "every time I'm a winner, so next time please drop Gujarat, so someone else gets a chance. Or else I'm just winning". It is for the people of India to judge the qualities of a Hindu, who is obsessed with his own "success". * *If this is the leadership that he seeks to provide India, I can only pray for India. My abiding faith in the wisdom of our electorate is what gives me hope. * *(The writer is the Union minister of communications and information technology, and law and justice)* * * -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
