SIT report uncovers the murky world of anti-Modi cottage industry, where cops, journalists, NGOs, politicians are in nexus
(our Thanks to DeshGujarat.com and Japan Pathak)
Ahmedabad, 9 May 2012
In its closure report, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) has clearly expressed an opinion that “certain vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, different NGOs, and some political leaders were trying to use honorable Supreme Court/SIT as a forum for settling their scores”. The SIT has in its report noted 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.” The report has quoted some email communications of Sanjiv Bhatt that clearly make a point that Bhatt had attempted to influence Amicas Curiae through NGOs, media campaign and pressure groups.
The SIT in it report says: 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 and 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 Defense), Gujarat regarding misuse of official resources, some revelations have been made having direct bearing on the cases being monitored by SIT. The material forwarded by Govt. of Gujarat has been scrutinized and the salient features of the same are summarized as below:
(1) That top Congress leaders of Gujarat namely Shri Shaktisinh Gohil, Leader of Opposition in Gujarat Legislative Assembly and Shri Arjun Modhwadia, President of 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 point for arguments in honorable Supreme Court matter, allegations to be made against the members of SIT and to establish that the burning of a coach of a 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 mentions that he was ‘under exploited’ by the lawyer representing Congress before Nanavati Commission of inquiry.
2. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been persuading various NGOs and other interested groups to influence the Ld. Amicus Curiae and the honorable Supreme Court of India by using ‘media card’ and ‘pressure groups’.
3. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been exchanging emails with one Nasir Chippa and in the email dated 11-5-2011 Shri Bhatt has stated that he (Nasir Chipa) should try to mobilize support/pressure-groups in Delhi to influence Ld. Amicus Curiae Shri Raju Ramchandran in a very subtle manner. In another email dated 18-5-2011, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had requested Shri Nasir Chippa to influence Home Minister Shri P.Chidambaram through pressure groups in U.S. It is believed that Shri Nasir Chippa has strong U.S. connections and his family stays there.
4. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt arranged an appeal from Shri M.Hassan Jowher, who runs a so called NGO titled SPRAT(Society for Promoting Rationality) to Amicus Curiae on 13-5-2011, 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 Ms. Shabnam Hashmi, Ms. Teesta Setalwad, Shri Himanshu Thakker, journalist, Shri Leo Saldana, journalist and Shri Nasir Chippa to encourage the prominent persons/organizations to write to Amicus Curiae on the similar lines so as to pressurize him.
5. In emails exchanged on June 1, 2011 between Shri Sanjiv Bhatt and Shri M.H.Jowher, it was proposed that a PIL may be field through a lawyer named Shri K.Vakharia( a senior 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 and others for his alleged involvement in 2002 riots which would be taken to appropriate judicial forums in due course.
6.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 honorable Supreme court. Vide email dated 10-4-2011, Shri Bhatt solicited “Co-ordinates” from Ms. Teesta Setalwad, who had also arranged for a meeting with her lawyer Shri Mihir Desai at Ellis bridge Gymkhana, Ahmedabad. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt sent the first draft of his proposed affidavit to Shri Manoj Mitta on 13-4-2011, 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 honorable Supreme Court of India as suggested by Shri Mitta.
7. 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 27-2-2002. Significantly, Shri Bhatt had sent his mobile phone details of 27-2-2002 to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary and had also suggested that probable timings of his meeting to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary on 15-5-2011. Simultaneously, these details were sent to Ms. Teesta Setalwad on 16-5-2011, 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 honorable 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 honorable Supreme Court.
8. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been exchanging emails with one Leo Saldana, a Narmada Bachao Andolan activist, with a view to mobilize public opinion in their favor. On 1-5-2011, 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.
9.That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was trying to contact Shri K.S.Subramanyam, a retired IPS officer, through Shri Nasir Chippato make an affidavit supporting his stand with a view to convince the Amicus Curiae and through him the honorable Supreme Court of India that Shri K.Chakravarthi, former DGP of Gujarat, was a liar.
10. 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.
11. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had 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 27-2-2002. 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 27-2-2002, with a view to introduce him as a participant of the meeting of 27-2-2002 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 27-2-2002 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 honorable 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.
– Peace and prosperity after bloodshed in Gujarat
(The Telegraph, Friday, March 2, 2012)
It may sound callous, but there was something patently disgusting about the way the media and activists colluded to turn a grim 10th anniversary of the 2002 Gujarat riots into a celebration of victimhood. From star anchors rushing to Ahmedabad to hug victims to the overuse of the photograph of the unfortunate Qutubuddin Ansari pleading for his life, every tear-jerking potential was cynically exploited. What should have been a solemn occasion of remembrance, perhaps leading to a pledge to make sectarian violence a thing of the past, was, instead, turned into an all-too-familiar Indian tamasha, culminating in riotous television discussions.
The reason for this ugly turn of events should be obvious. Ten years after the arson attack on the Sabarmati Express in Godhra became the trigger for murderous violence throughout Gujarat, the issue of ‘justice’ has been transformed into a political blame game. The activists who have doggedly kept the issue alive, despite the apparent lack of responsiveness in Gujarat, have shifted their priorities markedly. The issue is no longer one of securing the punishment of the rioters and those responsible for inhuman conduct, but the political targeting of one man: the chief minister, Narendra Modi.
The unspoken assumption is that justice will be served if Modi can be prosecuted for personally facilitating the carnage. As an additional bonus, the framing of charges against Modi is calculated to ensure his exclusion from the political arena and consequently bring to an abrupt end any possibility of him being in the reckoning for the prime minister’s post. In short, if you can’t beat him, disqualify him.
Had Modi shown himself to be electorally vulnerable, the need to fight him judicially would have evaporated. A Modi defeat in either 2002 or 2007 would have prompted the self-satisfied conclusion that “Gujarat has redeemed itself”— in the same way as, it is proclaimed, Uttar Pradesh redeemed itself by rejecting the Bharatiya Janata Party after the demolition of the Babri shrine in 1992. However, the prospects of the clutch of activists moving on to the next available cause have dimmed following the realization that not only has Modi strengthened himself politically but that the Congress in Gujarat lacks the necessary qualities to mount an effective challenge. Consequently, the only way they see to fight Modi is to remove him from politics altogether.
There is another factor at work. Over the past 10 years, Modi has transformed Gujarat spectacularly. After winning the 2002 assembly elections in a communally surcharged environment, he has deftly shifted the political focus of Gujarat from sectarian identity issues to rapid economic development. Gujarat was always an economically vibrant state and entrepreneurship is deeply ingrained in the DNA of the average Gujarati. Modi has played the role of a great facilitator by creating an environment that is conducive to the double digit growth of the state’s gross domestic product. He has toned up the administration, improved the finances of the state exchequer, brought down corruption markedly and made every rupee expended on government-run schemes a factor in economic value addition. Modi has been the model rightwing administrator pursuing the mantra of minimal but effective governance. His election victory in 2007 wasn’t a consequence of Hindu-Muslim polarization; it was based on his ability to deliver good governance.
Secondly, Modi successfully shifted tack from Hindu pride to Gujarati pride. This meant that hoary grievances centred on sectarian hurt were subsumed by a common desire to take advantage of the dividends flowing from a prolonged period of high economic growth. The popular mentality of Gujarat has undergone a discernible shift in the past decade. In the 30 years since the Ahmedabad riots of 1969, which left nearly 650 people dead in just five days of mayhem, Gujarat had become a riot-prone state.
With its sharp communal polarization, Ahmedabad epitomized that trend. After the 1969 flare-up, there were riots in 1971, 1972 and 1973. Then, after a period of lull, rioting resumed in January 1982, March 1984, March to July 1985, January 1986, March 1986, July 1986, January 1987, February 1987, November 1987, April 1990, October 1990, November 1990, December 1990, January 1991, March 1991, April 1991, January 1992, July 1992, December 1992 and January 1993. This chronology, assembled by the political scientist based in the United States of America, Ashutosh Varshney, in his Ethnic Conflict and Civil Life (2002) tells a story of unending curfews, social insecurity and escalating hatred affecting the two communities. It was a story replicated throughout Gujarat, including the otherwise integrated city of Surat that witnessed fierce riots in 1993.
Since March 2002, Gujarat has been riot-free. Curfews have become a thing of a distant past. What has occasioned this exemplary transformation? The facile explanation, often proffered unthinkingly by secularists anxious to find fault with Modi, is that Muslims have been too cowed down by the sheer intensity of the post-Godhra majoritarian backlash. Such an explanation presumes that riots are invariably begun by a section of the Muslim community — a problematic proposition and not always empirically sustainable.
More compelling is the explanation that factors in the larger administrative and economic changes in Gujarat over the past decade. First, both the civil administration and the political leadership have internalized the lessons from their inability to control mob violence in 2002. The police have been given a free hand to operate without the interference of small-time politicians attached to the ruling party. There has been a crackdown against the illicit liquor trade and the underworld that gained its muscle power from its proceeds. At the helm, there is an unspoken understanding that another riot, with its attendant TV coverage, would extract an unacceptably high political cost. That is why there is special attention paid to curbing Hindu extremism — a phenomenon that will affect Modi most adversely.
The biggest change has, however, been at the societal level. Gujarat today is a society that is obsessively preoccupied with making money and taking advantage of the economic opportunities that have presented themselves. With the end of boredom, a happy present and an appealing future, the belief that riots are bad for dhanda has seeped into society. This is not to suggest that the bitterness of the past has been replaced by idyllic bonhomie between communities. Far from it. Sectarian conflict persists in cities such as Ahmedabad, and less so in Surat. But there is a distinction that Varshney makes between sectarian conflict and sectarian violence. One need not necessarily lead to the other if contained within the parameters of economics and politics. The Muslims of Gujarat don’t possess the political clout they enjoyed earlier under Congress rule. But this has been compensated for by growing levels of prosperity. Those who argue that the economic development of Gujarat has bypassed Muslims should look at the economic empowerment of communities such as the Bohras, Khojas and Memons.
To many, Gujarat’s obsession with economic betterment may seem an expression of denial for the larger societal involvement in the 2002 riots. This may be partially true, since Gujarati Hindus view the post-Godhra troubles as something they don’t want to be reminded of incessantly — a point which the state Congress has grudgingly acknowledged. But it doesn’t distract from Modi’s undeniable success in changing the agenda dramatically in 10 years to the point where hardened Hindutvawadis now regard him as an enemy of the cause.
The riots of 2002 were horrible. But the important thing to note is that 10 years after the butchery, Gujarat is basking in peace and unprecedented prosperity. Now, that is something to celebrate.
It was not long ago that P.Chidambaram appealed to the Sikh community to put the massacre of the Sikhs at rest and to move forward. This when 100 times more persons of the minority community were massacred-brutalized, raped and killed. Time to move on was his appeal. But when it comes to the Gujarat riots it has to be fixed at that riot incident-Time and again it has been used against Modi. Come elections the NGOs canvass with the CDs of the riots-the wailing and the weeping of the victims and their relatives must be kept ever fresh. Why this double standard? Did the Congress leaders not lead the massacre brigade and supervise the killings of the Sikhs? Did not the Delhi government abet it by silently watching the burning and the killings? Did not Rajiv Gandhi justify this? So what moral right has the Congress to fault Modi and his government? It must be also noted that this is not the first time Gujarat witnessed riots-not only Gujarat but all over India there have been any number of riots. No one person has been maligned as Modi has been.
Vote bank politics has marred every single perception and action of the UPA government. There have been 7 attacks since 2010 after P. Chidambaram became the Home Minister. The Sept 7th bomb blast at gate 5 of the Delhi High court is the 8th attack. This left 13 dead and 88 injured. PC has suddenly become color blind. He who was so obsessed with ‘saffron’ terror suddenly finds just these as terror attacks and is quick also in his briefing to Parliament to caution the country of Naxal terror. No lessons learned. The issue before him is Islamic terror and he is afraid even to term it so. It becomes just terror. And our PM joins in the chorus to mouth hollow words that the perpetrators would be punished. In which terror attack has the perpetrators been punished may we know? So why mouth such promises?
Rahul Gandhi goes to visit the victims of the Sept High court bomb blast at the RML hospital. He has forgotten to think because he had earlier stated after his famous draft reading in Parliament that he took so long to react to the LokPal bill because he had to think. Well one does not know if to read a draft one has to put on the thinking cap and take such a long period of thinking. When he visited the hospital he did not utter a single word. Either he forgot to put his thinking cap on or there were no draft writers by his side. Can this crown prince not spontaneously offer a few words of comfort and listen to the anguish of the grieving victims. And we are promised that this youth icon will bring in much desired change.
This brings up corruption. The Congress advises the rest not to politicize corruption. The same song it sings for every issue ‘Don’t politicize terror attacks’-‘don’t politicize corruption is the litany the Congress leaders chorus. But there is politics in corruption. It is the vested interest of the politicians that gave birth to corruption. It is the greed for power that makes the politicians abet corruption and it is the attraction to status and power that makes the politicians to sell his/her conscience and become corrupt. In the process they corrupt others too. And as long as the Congress is the mother head of corruption one cannot expect the Congress to fight corruption. It is now blatantly stated in the emails which are circulated that “Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the most powerful woman is the most corrupt”. It is not just only one person nay the family too. No wonder it is also said that it took 100 years for Tata to become a billionaire, it took 50 years for Ambani to become a billionaire but it has taken only ten years for Robert Vadra to become a billionaire. From where does this money for chartered planes-treatment in the USA-special facility apartment there et al and lavish spending come from? So it is understandable when one is so filthy rich that Mrs Priyanka Vadra can toss her head and order her two storied house in Himachal Pradesh to be razed to the ground. A new site to be bought and new house to be built. A house in which crores and crores would have been spent is just to be demolished because it did not suit the environment and her fancy. All this after she had been supervising and instructing while the construction was on. Did she not know what materials were used for it? This I narrate only as an example of the arrogance of money power. No second thoughts .We see children by the seaside kick the sand castles and built new ones according to their whims. The same kind of attitude and mindset was displayed by Mrs Vadra which is a dangerous streak and exhibits a disdain for loss of money and labor. The mention of this is also meant to prove that Rahul Gandhi’s multi prong strategy to fight corruption is a farce and mere rhetoric. He has to clean up his own household first.
We had Chidambaram the other day stating that communalizing violence is dangerous. We are no fools and we know what made PC make such a statement. This government will not fight terrorism because it will not embarrass the Muslims. This is clear in it bringing up the Communal violence bill which just will not fight communalism but abets communalism. First the National Advisory Council had no business to draft such a bill. The NAC which is an unconstitutional body acts as a super cabinet and a mini Parliament. This was meant to give a cabinet ranking to Mrs. Sonia and legitimize her face in all the GOI advertisements. Second it has also all Modi bashers and baiters as members. It has a hidden agenda and is biased. Hence the communal violence bill is pro minority and anti majority. How can it fight communalism when the very premise of it abets communalism?
Dr Mrs Hilda Raja,
Seven years without Lokayukta:Chronology of dates and events reveal fact
Gandhinagar, 29 August, 2011
Following is the state information department release on facts related to the entire Lokayukta controversy in the state. While it is fact that Gujarat had no Lokayukta for last 7.5 years, the details given below throw light on who was responsible for that – then Governor and the leader of opposition can not escape from being responsible for the delay.
Unconstitutional appointment of Lokayukta in Gujarat
Chronology of dates and events
|7.8.2006||Hon’ble Chief Minister held a meeting with the Leader of Opposition in the Gujarat Legislative Assembly, to consult him on the subject of appointment of a suitable person as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.Hon’ble Chief Minister had suggested the name of Justice (Retired) Shri Kshitij R. Vyas and the Leader of Opposition suggested some other names. At the end of discussions, Hon’ble Chief Minister asked whether the Leader of Opposition had any specific objection against the name suggested by him. The Leader of Opposition specifically mentioned that he had no objection to the name suggested by the Hon’ble Chief Minister but he wanted that the names suggested by him should also be taken into consideration.|
|7.8.2006||A letter was sent to Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court as a part of consultation process to know his views on the name suggested by the Hon’ble Chief Minister for appointment as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.|
|8.8.2006||Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court conveyed his consent to the name suggested by the Hon’ble Chief Minister for appointment as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.|
|10.8.2006||The file was sent to H.E. the Governor for appointment of Justice (Retired) Shri Kshitij R. Vyas as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.|
|25.8.2006||H.E. the Governor desired that a copy of the minutes/ record of proceedings of the meeting held with the Leader of Opposition by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 7.8.2006 may be furnished.|
|13.9.2006||A letter was received from the Raj Bhavan wherein, it was mentioned that H.E. the Governor desired to know the procedure adopted to fulfill the requirement of consultation with the Leader of Opposition and Hon’ble Chief Justice, etc. in the different States like Maharashtra, West Bengal, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa and Tamil Nadu.|
|27.2.2007||The information as called for by H.E. the Governor vide his letter dated 13.9.2006 was sent. Such information was to be obtained from different States and hence it took some time in gathering the information.|
|6.2.2009||H.E. the Governor returned the file with some observations.|
|2.7.2009||The file was resubmitted to H.E. the Governor explaining as to how the provisions of section 24(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 do not come in the way of appointment of the person suggested by the Government for appointment as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.|
|10.||10.9.2009||H.E. the Governor returned the file with the following observation:“In view of sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, since the person recommended by the Government has held the office of the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Maharashtra, the Government’s proposal for his appointment as Lokayukta, Gujarat State cannot be agreed to.”|
|11.||10.9.2009||The then H.E. the Governor sent a letter to Hon’ble Chief Minister mentioning that it was not possible to appoint Shri Kshitij R. Vyas as Lokayukta, Gujarat State in view of the clear provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.He also requested the Chief Minister to send a fresh proposal for appointment of Lokayukta after due consultation with the Chief Justice of the Gujarat high Court and the Leader of Opposition in the State Assembly as per the provisions of section 3(1) of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986.|
|12.||8.2.2010||A confidential letter was sent by Hon’ble Chief Minister to the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court requesting him to suggest a panel of three Retired Judges of the High Court of Gujarat as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.|
|13.||24.2.2010||Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court sent the panel of four Retired Judges of High Court of Gujarat for consideration for appointment of Lokayukta, Gujarat State.|
|14.||2.3.2010||A letter was sent by Hon’ble Chief Minister to the Leader of Opposition in the State Assembly to participate in the meeting at 11 am on 4.3.2010 as a part of consultation process for appointment of Lokayukta, Gujarat State.|
|15.||3.3.2010||The Leader of Opposition objected to such process of consultation being initiated by the Hon’ble Chief Minister. He also refused to join the consultation process with Hon’ble Chief Minister.|
|16.||3.3.2010||Hon’ble Chief Minister sent a letter to the Leader of Opposition explaining the legal and Constitutional position obtaining in the matter and once again requested to remain present in the meeting of 4.3.2010.|
|17.||3.3.2010||A confidential letter dated 3.3.2010 was received from H.E. the Governor, wherein she inter alia mentioned that she had deemed it appropriate to initiate the matter of appointment of Lokayukta and had decided to hold consultation with the Leader of Opposition on 4.3.2010 at 10.30 a.m. in her office in Raj Bhavan, Gandhinagar.|
|18.||4.3.2010||The Leader of Opposition sent a letter saying that in the matter of appointment of a Lokayukta, the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers should not have any say. He also requested the Hon’ble Chief Minister to forthwith terminate the process of consultation initiated by him in the matter.The Leader of Opposition also informed that H.E. the Governor had already initiated the process of consultation with the Leader of Opposition and a meeting for the purpose was to take place at 10.30 a.m. on 4.3.2010.|
|19.||4.3.2010||Hon’ble Chief Minister sent a letter to the Leader of Opposition once again requesting him to participate in the consultation process and to remain present in the meeting at 1 pm on 5.3.2010.|
|20.||4.3.2010||Hon’ble Chief Minister sent a letter to H.E. the Governor wherein, he mentioned that since certain legal and Constitutional issues have been raised in her letter dated 3.3.2010, he considers it necessary to have a discussion on the subject with her. Hon’ble Chief Minister sought suitable date and time for such discussion/ meeting with H.E. the Governor.|
|21.||4.3.2010||Hon’ble Chief Minister held a meeting as per the schedule at 11 am on 4.3.2010 as a part of consultation process. However, the Leader of Opposition did not remain present in the meeting.|
|22.||5.3.2010||A letter dated 4.3.2010 was received from the Leader of Opposition intimating that he had already participated in the consultation process at 10.30 am on 4.3.2010 with H.E. the Governor of Gujarat and in view of the consultation already held by H.E. the Governor of Gujarat, he regretted his inability and unwillingness to be present in the meeting to be held by Hon’ble Chief Minister at 1 pm on 5.3.2010.|
|23.||5.3.2010||Hon’ble Chief Minister held a meeting as per the schedule at 1 pm on 5.3.2010. However, the Leader of Opposition did not remain present.|
|24.||5.3.2010||A letter was received from the Principal Secretary to H.E. the Governor conveying that H.E. the Governor had given the time for the meeting with Hon’ble Chief Minister at 16.00 hrs. on 8.3.2010.|
|25.||8.3.2010||Hon’ble Chief Minister along with the Hon’ble MoS (Law) called on H.E. the Governor and discussed the point at issue at length. Hon’ble Chief Minister also gave a folder containing all the relevant details pertaining to the issue and requested to resolve the issue at the earliest.|
|26.||18.3.2010||With a view to ensuring that the consultation process with the Leader of Opposition in the State Assembly takes place, Hon’ble Chief Minister sent one more letter to the Leader of Opposition intimating him that he (Hon’ble CM) proposed to hold meeting for consultation process at 11 am on 22.3.2010 (Monday). He also inter alia made it clear that it was for the last time that he was making a request to attend the meeting for consultation process in the matter. Hon’ble Chief Minister had also quoted all the relevant judgments of High Courts/ Supreme Court including the relevant and operative portion to emphasize the factual, legal and constitutional position obtaining in the matter.|
|27.||22.3.2010||A letter dated 22.3.2010 received from the Leader of Opposition wherein, he inter aliamentioned that he had already been called for the consultation process by H.E. the Governor on 4.3.2010; the said process was already over; there can never be consultation twice: once by Her Excellency the Governor and second by the Chief Minister and/ or the Council of Ministers.At the end of the letter, the Leader of Opposition mentioned that Hon’ble Chief Minister should not persist in undertaking an exercise of consultation by him which lacks legal, moral and constitutional authority.|
|28.||22.3.2010||Hon’ble Chief Minister held the meeting as per the schedule at 11 am on 22.3.2010 in his office in Vidhan Sabha Complex. However, the Leader of Opposition did not remain present.|
|29.||31.3.2010||The name which was decided by the Hon’ble Chief Minister was placed before the Council of Ministers in the meeting of 31.3.2010. The Council of Ministers gave approval to the name.|
|30.||1.4.2010||The name which was approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers was sent to H.E. the Governor for obtaining approval.|
|31.||5.5.2010||The file was returned by H.E. the Governor with the observation that in terms of the recent judgment of the Apex court, the Chief Justice of the High Court is not required to send a panel of the names but he has to send only one name. Accordingly, H.E. the Governor has referred the whole matter back to the Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court requesting him to re-examine the matter once again.|
|32.||31.12.2010||The Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court sent the fresh proposal to the State Government recommending only one name for appointment as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.|
|33.||21.2.2011||The Hon’ble Chief Minister sent a letter to the Chief Justice of the Gujarat high Court explaining as to how the process of appointment of Lokayukta could be expedited by appointing the person whose name was recommended earlier by the Government to H.E. the Governor instead of considering a new name.|
|34.||22.3.2011||The Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court sent a letter to Hon’ble Chief Minister saying that he would again request the Government to consider the name recommended by him vide his letter dated 31.12.2010.|
|35.||1.5.2011||The person whose name was recommended by the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court vide his letter dated 31.12.2010 sent a Fax Message to H.E. the Governor requesting her to recall his nomination.|
|36.||4.5.2011||Hon’ble Chief Minister sent a letter to the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court requesting him to recommend the name of the person in whose case the whole process of consideration had been gone through by the State Government for appointment as Lokayukta, Gujarat State. The matter is pending with the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court.|
|37.||7.6.2011||The Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court recommended another name.|
|38.||16.6.2011||Hon’ble Chief Minister wrote to the Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court quoting detailed reasons as to why the name recommended by the CJ was not acceptable.|
|39.||2.8.2011||Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court has sent a letter which was received by the State Government and the State Government, in turn, has addressed a letter dated 18.8.2011 to the Chief Justice reiterating its earlier stand and this letter is still under consideration of the Chief Justice.|
|40.||25.8.2011||Despite the aforesaid developments, to the utter shock and surprise of the State Government, the H.E. the Governor issued the warrant dated 25.8.2011 appointing Justice (Retd.) Mr. R. A. Mehta as Lokayukta, Gujarat State, the copy of which has been received along with a letter dated 25.8.2011 addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 26.8.2011.|
I think Govindacharya has been out in sun too long. Wonder what weed he has been smoking lately? We knew he was a gadfly but did not realize that he was a screwball too.
Gaurang G. Vaishnav
AHMEDABAD: Former BJP idealogue and founder of the Rashtriya Swabhiman Andolan (RSA) Govindacharya led a scathing attack on the issue of governance in Gujarat.
At a workshop organised by the Mahagujarat Janata Party (MJP) at Preksha Vishwabharti near Koba circle, he said, “Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi functions like a dictator. The people of Gujarat will not tolerate this dictatorial style of functioning for long. In Gujarat, the extreme centralization of the decision making process has already hit the confidence level of the state machinery. Government officers are low on morale and are averse to taking initiatives because they fear reprimand. These tiers also lack opportunities to exercise their power of quick decision making. You cannot function like this for long.”
“The impression I get of the Gujarat government is that it only favours the rich and the industries, and ignores the poor farmers and people from small towns. On the appointment of justice R A Mehta as Gujarat’s Lokayukta, Govindacharya said, “By appointing an alternative, M B Shah commission, to probe major corruption charges against the state government, Modi has only lost his credibility before his own people. One should ask the chief minister’s office why the state dilly dallied on the appointment of Lokayukta for eight years,” he said.
Acharya further added, “The state government has not yet clarified or made public the points of reference and the scope of the M B Shah commission. Merely forming a commission does not give this government a clean chit. Let these cases be referred to the newly appointed Lokayukta.”
I am not too sure about the long term impact of this decision. Unlike meat, vegetables of all kind are considered edible by all Hindus. Forcing non-Jain population to abstain from eating root vegetables by banning them in the entire city (as is envisaged) is wrong. One can understand the ban in 500 or 1000 meter radius.
If we extend this logic to several places where a variety of religious injunctions and customs prevail, we will create islands of group of people which will lead to divisive tendencies instead of unity when our country is facing great threat from outside and within.
How far we would be from banning certain types of attire? Would we ask that all male residents of Palitana wear a white dhoti or that they do not brush teeth (a strict Jain injunction) or they all sport a sandlewood bindi?
What will happen when Muslims make certain exclusive demands?
Don’t we have enough of ghetto mentality?
It should not be government’s business to impose one sampradaya/religion’s thinking and customs on the rest of the population.
I give Gujarat government a negative vote on this gimmick.
Gaurang G. Vaishanv
Ahmedabad, 11 July, 2011
In a historic move, core part of pilgrim town Palitana in Gujarat will be free from not only non-veg but also from root vegetables such as onion, potato, garlic etc.
New decision has been in implemented in 500 meter area around Shetrunjay hill, a holly place of Jains who don’t consume root vegetables.
After Gujarat Pavitra Yatradham Vikas Board’s month-long efforts, more than 40 restaurants and 30 hawkers have been agreed to leave cooking root vegetables that are banned in Jain religion. This means in 500 meter area around the holy mountain, only Jain food will be catered.
Gujarat Pavitra Yatradham Board intends to increase the limit of pure Jain food area to 1000 meter in later stage. Ultimately the goal is to make entire Palitana town free from root vegetables that are banned in Jain religion.
Last Updated : 11 Aug 2011 08:17:26 AM IST
The facts unfolded here reveal a conspiracy – a hostile political strategy to communalise, thus weaponise, an illegal encounter killing to demonise a selected State; to oust its leader, outside ballot process. That State is the least sinner in fake encounters, just one in a hundred. Yet, its leader is vilified as ‘Maut Ka Saudagar’ [merchant of death]. So, the selected State’s leader is the target, not fake encounters as evil.
The State selected? Needs no guess. It is Gujarat, certified as the best governed, most prosperous.
The leader targeted? Needs no mention. Narendra Modi, known as the cleanest, also the ablest.
The National Human Rights Commission’s list of 440 fake encounters from 2002 to 2007 under inquest shows the share of Gujarat as just 5, almost the lowest. Uttar Pradesh tops the list with 231, followed by Rajasthan 33, Maharashtra 31, Delhi 26, Andhra Pradesh 22, Uttaranchal 19, Assam 12, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka 10 each, Tamil Nadu 9, West Bengal 8, Bihar and Haryana 6 each. More. At 7.25 am, on 8.8.2011, the NewX channel reported a further 120 fake encounter deaths in UP after 2007!
Yet, from 2006, the ‘secular’ media has been obsessed with, not the most guilty in encounter sins, but the least — Gujarat; and with only one of the 440 encounters — of Syed Sohrabuddin in Gujarat, none from the rest. Baying for Modi’s scalp, the media relentlessly pursued Sohrabuddin’s case, charged Gujarat with killing him [and his wife, Kausar Bi] only because of his religion. It made Sohrabuddin the poster boy of secularism, insisted on CBI probe to cover Amit Shah, Gujarat Home Minister then, and Modi himself. The judiciary too chose for CBI probe only Sohrabuddin’s case out of the 440 encounters. Later when CBI misused the court mandate, resorted to patent illegalities to fix Shah and target Gujarat and Modi, the media even seemed relieved.
Interrogatories to ‘secular’ media on its role in the Sohrabuddin case are overdue. Here are some.
- Did the media even hint that, like Sohrabuddin’s in Gujarat, there were 435 other encounters outside, being inquired into by NHRC? No.
- And did it ever ask for CBI probe into them? No.
- Did it ever tell the true facts about Sohrabuddin, other than about his religion, like that he was a dreaded criminal, a crony of Sharif Khan, Dawood Ibrahim’s Gujarat head; or that he was arms carrier for ISI; or that a huge cache of 24 AK-47s, 22 grenades, 5250 rounds of AK-47 ammunition, and 81 magazines, adequate for a 1993 Mumbai blast were recovered from his farm house; or that he served a 5-year jail term under terror law? Never.
- Did it ever say that he had 21 big crime cases against him – two, under anti-terror law and nine, under Arms and Explosives law – in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan? No
- Did it even remotely hint that he had had connections with LTTE’s drug peddlers or that he contract-murdered in broad day light in Chennai an advocate who had tipped off the Narcotic Control Bureau about LTTE or that he killed a gangster, Karim Lala, in Udaipur in December 2004 and took over his extortion business in Rajasthan – for which Rajasthan was after him? Never, ever. In contrast, one magazine even profiled him as a ‘Muslim businessman’!
- The media hid Sohrabuddin’s criminality and sanitised him as Modi’s victim. The Congress party improved it. It made him the main issue in the 2007 Gujarat Assembly elections, thus adding communal poison to an illegal killing to make it deadly. Sonia Gandhi, adopting Sohrabuddin as the party’s poster boy, charged Narendra Modi as “Maut Ka Saudagar”. The media even saw the use of Sohrabuddin – an extortionist, arms-carrier, a murderer and the point man of Dawood – in the elections as strategic.
Now begins the sickening story of how the CBI subverted the Sohrabuddin probe to suit Congress party’s politics.
Not just BJP governments in Gujarat and Rajasthan, the Congress government in AP, headed by Sonia Gandhi’s pet YS Rajasekara Reddy then, too was deeply involved in the killing. Did the media ever highlight this fact? No.
If it had, the encounter would lose its all-BJP – read ‘communal’ – character; with the Congress-mix, the killing would become secular! The Gujarat police probe in the Sohrabuddin case led by Geeta Johri, an honest police officer, showed that seven AP police officials, including two drivers, were involved in the offence; that one Kalmuddin, had invited the Sohrabuddin couple to Hyderabad; that after their stay Sohrabuddin couple boarded a bus to Sangli; that the AP and Gujarat police officials, acting in concert, intercepted the bus, disembarked the couple, took them in their vehicles; the caravan which included two Tata Sumo vehicles used by AP police reached Ahmedabad where the couple were killed. The Gujarat CID probe on the encounter in Hyderabad was moving right, but slowly, when the CBI took over the case in January 2010. The CBI charge sheet of 23 July 2010 itself admits that AP police were party to the offence. But where did the Gujarat CID probe hit the roadblock in Hyderabad?
Geeta Johri, who uncovered the fake encounter, arrested her own colleagues, had sought the co-operation of Balwinder Singh, the Commissioner of Police at Hyderabad then, for three purposes: one, to question the AP police officials who had assisted the Gujarat police; two, to trace the missing Vehicle Entry Register of the AP IPS Officers Mess for the period August 2005 to May 2006 that would identify the two Tata Sumo vehicles, their drivers and also AP officials who went in them all the way to Ahmedabad; three, to track down Kalimuddin, who hosted Sohrabuddin at Hyderabad. But Balwinder Singh would not co-operate.
QED: the Congress was determined not to expose its role in the sin. See what it did instead. Who did it choose to head the CBI probe? Balwinder Singh! The very officer who shielded the AP police officials now heads the CBI to probe the role of the very AP – Congress? – Police! Shocked? It is just the beginning, with more shocks to come.
I am truly disappointed in the financial reward. It is a cruel joke. It would have been better not to offer a reward. I can see that amount for an informant but here is a lady who got hold of live bombs and took timely action to save many lives at the risk of her marriage and facing possible ostracizing from her community. I urge Narendrabhai Modi to rectify this mistake and announce suitable reward.
This is Narendra Modi’s Gujarat where a Muslim woman comes forward to expose her own husband’s nefarious, anti-national activity and they (anti-Modi brigade) say that Muslims live in fear in Gujarat!
MoS Home,CP,DGP visit brave Muslim lady Reshma, present her award announced by Modi(photos)
Ahmedabad, 18 July, 2011
Shehzad nabbed by police on Sunday
The government of Gujarat has taken a decision to honor a brave Muslim lady Reshma of Ahmedabad who yesterday informed the police about her husband’s activity of making crude bombs and his plan to do bomb blasts in the city. Reshma’s husband Shehzad was later arrested by police with 8 crude bombs and two desi tamanchas.
Reshma living near Chandola lake of Ahmedabad’s Muslim dominated Danilimda area had helped the police earlier also. Few years back, with Reshma’s help, police had nabbed Bangladeshi intruders living illegally in this area.
After her husband’s arrest, Reshma had said that she wanted to save lives of many people by informing the police about her husband’s activities.
Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi today announced on Tweeter :”Gujarat Home minister will felicitate brave Reshma with prize of Rs 25,000 for exposing her husband in national interest.”
Reshma was today visited at her residence by Gujarat Minister of state for Home Shri Praful Patel, Ahmedabad Police Commissioner Shri Sudhir Sinha, Gujarat Police Chief DGP Chitranjan Singh. Shri Patel, Sinha and Singh appreciated and congratulated her for her brave act of public good.Minister Praful Patel presented Reshma a cheque of Rs. 25,000 as a bravery award.
Mr. Patel profusely praised Ms. Reshmaben’s courage despite being a woman, rising above her concern for a close relationship, its repercussion and likely reaction in her close society. He described the act as a great personal sacrifice in the larger interest of the national security.
Chief Minister Narendra Modi described the Ms. Reshmaben’s sacrifice as an exemplary act for the security of six crore Gujaratis, displaying a rare example of communal amity.
Mr. Singh in a word of praise for Ms Reshmaben for setting a rare example of paying more importance to the motherland and nation’s interest rather that her own family. He said that such information or tips lead to solving several criminal cases.
Mr. Sinha offered Ms. Reshmaben a job in the Traffic Brigade and assured to provide her all possible security if required.
Talking to newspersons present on the occasion, Ms. Reshmaben, who studied up to Standard XII in Mumbai, said that she would always side with the law of the land and fearlessly expose criminal activities, even if they were her close relatives, and asked all womenfolk to do the same.
Meanwhile Shehzad was sent to ten days remand by the court today in Ahmedabad.
In another development, the Gujarat Police has taken a decision to hand over the Shehzad case to Anti Terrorist Squad. This decision was taken in view of Shehzad’s confession that he wanted to throw bombs indiscriminately during Ahmedabad’s annual Rath Yatra. Seven ATM cards and sim cards are recovered from Shehzad’s possession.
Count down of MahaGujarat Janata Party begins
Ahmedabad, 11 July, 2011
It seems the MahaGujarat Janata Party formed by former BJP minister Gordhan Zadafia is on the verge of finishing.
After one of the founders Balubhai Tanti rejoined BJP last week and other founder Sunil Oza resigned from the party, now another important MJP leader Arvind Rana has also left the party.
Rana is former Councillor of Surat. He was MJP’s Surat city unit President and main supporter of Fakirbhai Chauhan, prominent face of MJP in Surat.
Gordhan Zadafia, a loyalist of Keshubhai Patel and Pravin Togadia was offered ministry birth by Gujarat Chief Minister Shri Narendra Modi. Zadafia remained present in oath taking ceremony but refused to go on stage and accept the ministry when his name was announced. Zadafia was slapped notice by the party. Later he formed MahaGujarat Janata Party along with some other BJP disidents.
MJP has not been able to make its mark in Gujarat’s mainstream political arena so far. The party has not been able to cut BJP’s vote share. Its founder person Zadafia lost Lok Sabha election. The party has not been able to win a single assembly seat in any by-election. The party lost badly in civic and district panchayat polls.
Sources told DeshGujarat that without any notable victory and sufficient amount of fund, it is now difficult to sustain.
It is interesting to note that in Gujarat’s politics, the third party has hardly survived. Be it late Chimanbhai Patel’s Kisan Majdoor Lok Paksha or Shankarsinh Vaghela’s MahaGujarat Janata Party, no third political party has been successful to win the people.
Here is a good article about Gujarat’s progress. Of course, just as it is customary to touch steps of a temple before entering it, for all the media it has become customary to harp on 2002 riots (result of burning of 59 Hindus by Muslim mobs in a train at Godhra) whenever writing about Gujarat or Narendra Modi.- Moderator
A north-western state offers a glimpse of a possible industrial future for India
SO MANY things work properly in Gujarat that it hardly feels like India. In a factory packed with kit from Germany and China, slabs of rubber and bags of carbon black are turned into tyres. After being X-rayed for imperfections, they will be distributed across India or sent for export within three days. Sandeep Bhatia, a manager for CEAT, the firm that owns the project, says it took only 24 months to complete, including the normally fraught process of buying land. There is constant electricity, gas and abundant water. The state government, he says, kept red tape to a minimum, did not ask for bribes, and does not interfere much now.
The tyre plant is not the only sign of prosperity in Gujarat. A nearby village may have fodder strewn all over its alleys and mice scuttling across shampoo sachets in the local store, but it also has satellite dishes poking up from the roofs and power metres on the wall of every house. Most of the men, the villagers say, work for small industrial firms for a wage about 50% higher than they would get in the fields. The road to Ahmedabad, Gujarat’s main city, is privately operated and boasts four lanes. It passes through a countryside that is visibly industrialising.
With a long coastline and too little rain for decent farming, Gujarat has always been famous for its traders. When it was hived off from Bombay to form a separate state in 1960, “the question was how Gujarat would survive,” says Narendra Modi, who has been chief minister since 2001. These days Gujarat accounts for 5% of India’s population but 16% of its industrial output and 22% of its exports. Its growth has outpaced India’s (see chart) and it wins accolades from business people. A recent comparison of Indian states by McKinsey, a consultancy, waxed lyrical about Gujarat. It might yet play the role of industrial locomotive for the country, as Guangdong province did for China in the 1990s. There is lots of excited talk about exporters switching from China to India. Sanjay Lalbhai, the chairman of Arvind, a textiles maker and clothing retailer based in Ahmedabad, says such a move is “imminent” in his industry.
Chinese-style, big-ticket projects are part of Gujarat’s formula, including refineries and ports, but so are networks of smaller firms and foreign companies which have now achieved critical mass in industries such as cars and pharmaceuticals. The state government uses the usual tricks to try to jump-start growth, including special economic zones. But more important, it has provided the bog-standard things that businesses pray for across India but often do not get—less onerous labour laws, passable roads, reliable electricity and effective bureaucracy.
Against the charge that some people have been left behind, Gujarat can point to reasonable growth in agriculture, helped by irrigation schemes. But the state has a black spot, which dates back to 2002 and an outbreak of sectarian violence. As many as 2,000 people (the official toll is lower) were killed in a month of riots, most of them Muslims. Some say Mr Modi and the state government were complicit in the violence or could at least have done more to stop it.
Might prosperity help heal the wounds? In Juhapura, a district on the outskirts of Ahmedabad dominated by the Muslim minority, a young mason grows angry when asked if he feels lucky to make 250-300 rupees a day ($6-7), saying he only gets work for 15 days a month. Others are more content. A bearded man down the road says his party-decoration business is booming. Behind the till of a shop selling top-ups for mobile phones and stationery for the nearby school, a man in a skull cap says life has undoubtedly improved, although his 82-year-old father, sitting in a deckchair, complains that everything went to the dogs when the British left.
Gujarat could be a vision of India’s future, in which manufacturing flourishes, soaking up rural labour. Its economy is expected to grow by double digits, even as India’s rate slows to 7-8% this year. The state may also be a springboard for Mr Modi, who may contest the national leadership of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, perhaps after state elections due in 2012. Mr Modi is enigmatic on this subject. He has yet to shed his polarising image, but he has at least built up an enviable record on the economy.