NDTV News Modi Given 3 Days To Hindus To Kill Muslims In Gujarat - The best bloopers are a click away
Gujarat cop Sanjeev Bhatt’s revelations, contained in his affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, may come as a surprise to many. But for all those who lived in Gujarat during those fateful days and were in the thick of things, the contents only provide substantiation of what they had heard then. A top police officer of the state told me a couple of days after the riots started how director general of poice K Chakravarthy was uncomfortable on being told by Narendra Modi at a meeting to allow Hindus to vent their feelings.Though perturbed, Chakravarthy, a naturally timid person, could not muster the guts to stand up to his boss. So, instead he lamented to top police officers like the person to whom I had spoken. Or at least that is what the officer told me.
Terence Netto’s COMMENT: UMNO may not do the task of internal reform well, like cutting down on the practice of money politics, but say what you like, it does do internal dissension well.
Just look at how party deputy president Muhyiddin Yassin affects to swim in his leader, Najib Razak‘s slipstream while writing his own personal agendas. Muhyiddin’s reaction to the call by the MCA for a boycott of UMNO-owned paper Utusan Malaysia over the latter’s proposition that Malays rally behind the ’1Melayu, 1Bumi’ policy is a good illustration of the point.Muhyiddin rapped MCA across the knuckles for calling for the boycott on grounds that sounded vaguely like he believed in freedom of the press and then sidestepped the question of whether he supported or disagreed withUtusan’s ’1Melayu, 1Bumi’ rallying cry.
It was the clearest demonstration in his now delicate, two-year-old, trapeze act wherein he shows tepid support for policy initiatives of his party’s president while leaving himself enough wiggle room to hint he would chart a new course as skipper of the crew.
It is the manoeuvring of a deputy who is mulling a challenge for the top position: the controlled wriggling does not cause too big a ruckus in the party but it sports the unmistakable hallmarks of incipient mutiny.
One supposes there would be no prizes for discerning these signs of a revolt’s incubation in the folds of seemingly minor nuances of policy. After all, UMNO is a six-decade-old party that has weathered several chapters of internecine conflict.
Contestants long seasoned by the party’s intramural feuds would be skilled at the game of playing fast and loose with the pros and cons of still-fluid issues, the better to lever them to expedient advantage later when opportunity for getting up the greasy pole avails.
Once overlooked
Muhyiddin, survivor of the fallout from the Mahathir versus Musa Hitaminternal feud of the mid-1980s and the ructions between Mahathir and Anwar Ibrahim of the late 1990s, is apparently putting to good use the experiential wisdom he gained from those episodes.
In both instances, he initially backed the loser, only to imperceptibly shift course and come out looking none the worse for the wear. In each case, it was a story of plucking survival from the jaws of defeat.
There was reason to believe that when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became prime minister in 2003, Muhyiddin had the better chance of being named his deputy but Mahathir’s pressure on Abdullah forced the latter’s reluctant selection of Najib for the position.
As things turned out, it was Muhyiddin’s criticism of Abdullah’s protracted timetable for departure from the UMNO presidency that hastened Abdullah’s exit from the post which comes with the premiership of the country.
That criticism was a calculated gamble by Muhyiddin. It paid off and now Muhyiddin is poised to take another gamble by challenging for the top post that will either result in his apotheosis or in his evisceration.
Sheer tenacityIt is one of the ironies of his career that if he makes the move to challenge, he may get the support of the very man – Mahathir – who was supposed to have stalled him before. If that support materialises, it would be one of the more vivid demonstrations of how someone with an outsider’s chance can re-insert himself into the reckoning given sheer tenacity.
Of course, the larger irony inherent in Muhyiddin’s projected rise would be that an UMNO bigwig from Johor is trying to reach the top on a platform that is strident rather than liberal.
From Onn Jaffar through to Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman through to Musa Hitam, contestants for top honours in UMNO had attempted to travel on liberal wings rather than on rabid ones. Muhyiddin would represent a break in this pattern.–www.malaysiakini.com
It was also being speculated that not only had “Hindus” been allowed to vent their feelings, they had been given “three days” to do this. Then defence minister George Fernandes who had been sent to Ahmedabad by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee also knew of this “three days” and I personally can vouch for this. With a view to figure out what he was up to, I had called on Fernandes on Saturday, March 2, 2002, in Circuit House in Ahmedabad. Initially, I had some apprehension about how much time the minister would give me because he was on a mission and the riots were on full blast. But I was pleasantly surprised that he had all the time in the world for me. Very soon I could figure out the purpose Fernandes was so keen to engage me in conversation: he wanted to cross-check the facts of the riots that he had heard. It was a long three-hour meeting. At one point the chief secretary, G Subba Rao, and additional chief secretary Ashok Narain, along with a senior army officer, came into the room. They had been confabulating with the minister before I dropped in. Leaving them behind, Fernandes took me to his room. Now the officials wanted to know if they should wait or could leave. The minister asked them to leave and resumed his conversation with me. Fernandes spoke about a whole lot of things, how Ahmedabad had changed, how he had come to the city when there was a massive riot in 1969, how he had walked to the Governor Shriman Narayan’s house from the airport at that time, etc. With the evening advancing and the need for me to go back to the office, I excused myself. Fernandes persisted but I went out. As I climbed down the stairs, the defence minister beckoned me once again from the top of the stairs and said that I should have dinner with him. In the end, I retraced my path. While having an early dinner, Fernandes who was beating around the bush for so long suddenly let it out: “ I have heard that the rioters have been allowed three days time before any action is taken?” I shot back: “ Ya, I have also heard it.” The minister said: “Humm. I see.” We continued on the dinner silently. I must admit that there was no talk about the Modi meet about which Sanjiv Bhatt has now filed an affidavit. But very soon our meeting was broken. Harin Pathak, the minister of state for defence and the BJP MP from Ahmedabad and a hardliner himself, walked into the room with decisive steps and plonked himself on the sofa. In the manner that he walked in it seemed that Pathak was aware that we were having a long meeting and wanted to be privy to the conversation. Immediately after the dinner, I left the place.
A couple of months later, the Outook magazine ran an exclusive report on a serving minister of the Gujarat government having deposed before a citizens’ commission about the Modi meeting on the evening of January 27 where the chief minister had talked about allowing the Hindu reaction. The minister was not named but I instinctively knew that it was Haren Pandya. So I called Pandya and said: “So you tendered evidence before the commission?” Pandya demanded: “How do you know?” I said: “I can make out because you have told me this before. Though I am not sure about others because there is some speculation that it is Suresh Mehta ( another minister). But I am sure your boss Modi can make out too.” The minister said in a dismissive tone: “Who cares about him.” Then I told Pandya: “But your testimony is second hand. Why don’t you get me somebody who attended the meeting and confirm this to me?” Pandya thought for a moment and replied: “Chakravarthi (director general of police ) can.” I told him: “I don’t know him. But since you were close to him and once were his boss as home minister, why don’t you set up a meeting.” Pandya said: “Let me get back to you.” He was back on the line in 10 minutes. “I have spoken with him. Here is his cell number. You have to ask him the questions but he will answer only in yes or no. He is not willing to go any further.” OK, I said and kept down the phone. In the event I did not call up Chakravarthi. The reason: I had written an article for the edit page about the guilty men of Gujarat and had named Chakravarthi and this was going to appear in the paper the next day. I did not think it morally right to get information from a source one day and next day publish an article that would put him on the mat. Moreover, the prospect on a yes or no answer did not appeal to me.
A few months later when I came to know of the names of officers who were present at that fateful meeting, I asked one of them about what had transpired. The officer, Anil Mukim, then private secretary to Modi and now a joint secretary to GOI told me: “Not while I was there.” My specific query was: “Did Modi say that a Hindu reaction be allowed?”. I noted from media reports recently that this is also exactly what Mukim told the SIT on the Gujarat riots. If I recollect correctly Ashok Narayan, the additional chief secretary (home) who had attended the meeting told the Nanavati Commission that there were instructions that the bodies of all those perished in the Godhra train carnage be allowed to be brought to Ahmedabad. This is what Sanjiv Bhatt has also said as part of his affadavit about what had transpired at the meeting.
Incidentally, it seems that on the evening of February 27 there were two meetings that had been convened by Modi. The first one was a law and order meeting with top cops and secretaries, which Sanjiv Bhatt is supposed to have attended. The other was a meeting of ministers. Haren Pandya had told me that at this meeting some of the ministers said that the bodies of those who died in the Godhra carnage be brought to Ahmedabad. Haren said that he resisted because he felt that this could lead to an outpouring of sentiments leading to a serious law and order situation. Pandya said that he was outshouted at the meeting and mentioned a minister (I am withholding the name, but it was not Modi) who said that this is what we want. “Our party strength is in Ahmedabad. We want everything to happen here. It will help our party.”
Haren Pandya was murdered under mysterious circumstances in early 2003, so he cannot come back to life to testify whatever is attributed to him by me. I am acutely aware of this. I am also aware that George Fernandes is suffering from Alzhiemer’s, a disease that robs its patients of all his memories.
By Abdul Hafiz Lakhani
With more and more people admiring Narendra Modi and following him nationwide, the game plan is possibly to finish Mr. Modi legally and not politically or physically. Intelligent people are busy in writing scripts, positioning key people, influencing some others, and making chess board strategies.
While Gujarat and the people of Gujarat are continuously focusing on 2020 and working hard to add prosperity of this nation, but recent episode of IPS Sanjiv Bhatt’s affidavit needs to be looked at in perspective. This detail is based on Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT)’s leaked report few months back (now they are challenging SIT’s integrity also, they may ultimately demand Sharia court).
SIT Chairman Raghavan notes: ‘The inquiry clearly established that a meeting was in fact held at the chief minister’s residence on the night of 27.02.02 after the chief minister’s return to Ahmedabad following his visit to Godhra earlier in the day.’ (Page 3 of chairman’s comments)
According to SIT report before Supreme Court the meeting lasted for about half an hour.
There were eight confirmed participants:
1. Chief Minister
2. Acting Chief Secretary
3. Additional Chief Secretary (Home)
4. DGP
5. Ahmedabad Commissioner of Police
6. Secretary (Home)
7. Principal Secretary to CM
8. Secretary to CM
When inquiry officer of SIT examined Narendra Modi on 25 March 2010, Modi admitted that he had called a law and order meeting at his residence on 27 February 2002, after his return from Godhra where he had gone to inspect the Sabarmati carnage. Asked about who was present, Modi named the seven officers, apart from himself, listed above. Modi also said, “Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DC (Int.) did not attend, as this was a high level meeting.”
Before the SIT, three of the senior officers present — “pleaded loss of memory due to passage of time”.-Four other officers — have categorically denied that the CM had instructed the police not to control Hindu mobs for a window of time. One officer, who is presently on deputation to the Central ministry of commerce, has denied attending this meeting at all.
Wrapping up his observation, the inquiry officer of SIT states: “It can be concluded that a law and order meeting was in fact held by Modi at his residence late in the evening of 27 February 2002. However, the allegation that the chief minister instructed the chief secretary, DGP and other senior officials to allow the Hindu community to vent their anger on the Muslims in the wake of Godhra incident is not established.”
Senior IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt claims on his own that he was present at the meeting convened at the CM’s residence. Sanjiv Bhatt, presently a deputy inspector general, was posted as a deputy commissioner of police in the State Intelligence Bureau at that time.
Sanjiv Bhatt told the SIT that it was DGP who had insisted on his presence at the meeting. According to Sanjiv Bhatt, since the state intelligence chief was away on leave, the DGP had wanted somebody from the intelligence department to be present to provide answers on the intelligence failure behind the Sabarmati carnage at Godhra and tackle any other intelligence related query that might have come up at the meeting.
Sanjiv Bhatt, however, refused to say more. He told the SIT that since the probe against Modi was merely at a preliminary stage, he would not like to speak up. However, if a criminal case was registered he would be duty bound to testify and tell the truth. (Given the purely exploratory nature of the SIT’s mandate, as a serving officer, Sanjiv Bhatt’s rationale was that speaking out at this stage would jeopardise his career without necessarily having any impact.)
Other seven officers at the meeting have denied to support Sanjiv Bhatt’s claim that he was present in the meeting. While three officers have pleaded loss of memory, then DGP has categorically denied Sanjiv Bhatt’s presence. Others too have not supported Sanjiv Bhatts’s claim.
SIT has concluded on page 149 of his report, “Since Sanjiv Bhatt’s presence at the meeting is not proved his statement has to be ignored.”
The SIT has stated that, “Sanjiv Bhatt is considered an unreliable witness, especially because no official, who is known to have definitely attended the meeting, has spoken of his presence there. Also he was considered too junior to have been invited to such a high-level meeting.”
Utusan Malaysia’s increasingly strident, pro-Malay tone is a sign the ruling Barisan Nasional’s (BN) senior party has written off support from the Chinese community and is banking on Malay votes to win in the coming 13th general election, said political analysts.
They told The Malaysian Insider today the Malay-language daily’s latest call for a “1 Melayu, 1 Bumi” movement reflects Umno’s — or at least that of an influential portion within the party — decision to return to a tried-and-tested formula that has kept it politically afloat over the years since even before independence.
Political analyst Dr Abu Hassan Hasbullah called the Umno-owned paper’s latest campaign a mark of “neo-conservatism”, which shows it was returning to its pre-independence position as defender of Malay rights because that was the only space open to it.
“This space is being used by Utusan to tell the Malays they still need political strength to protect their rights from being further eroded,” he said.
The Universiti Malaya senior lecturer in media and communications studies observed that even as political parties embraced a more liberal and pluralistic approach to draw voter support, there will always be those who push a singular racial rhetoric, which resounds with the hardcore conservatives.
Abu Hassan noted that since the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) pact has seized “control” of the plural platform, championing better socio-economic opportunities for all, regardless of racial background, the only avenue open to Umno was the protection of Malay rights, and it was milking it for all it was worth.
Ibrahim said the racial formula has been proven to work, time and again. — File pix
The director of the independent research house said that the strident pro-Malay tone adopted by Umno and its owned newspaper Utusan Malaysia lately was caused by the loss of the popular vote in the recently-ended Sarawak state election.
He added that the racial formula has been proven to work, time and again, so the leadership likely figured it can pull it again for the next election.
“Perhaps in their calculation, they see it as less likely that Umno and BN can gain much in the next general election, so they’re doing this to mitigate the problem and maximise Malay support,” he told The Malaysian Insider.
“Umno knows it is the party of independence and Malay nationalism, so they’re harping on what they perceive to be their strength,” he said, noting it has been the party’s position since the landmark election in 2008 when a massive wave of Chinese and Indian support deserted the BN.
However, Ibrahim doubted the Malay electorate will be moved by this approach, noting they are have moved on from the mindset of the 1950s and 1960s and are more aware of current issues and politics.
“Nuances matter. The slight variations play a role. It’s now about the quality of the debate. This is where many players, including the opposition politicians, fail,” he said.
“It’s a question of whether the people trust the messenger. In this case, Utusan appears to be a paper trusted by party loyalists,” he said, adding that Umno does not appear to have realised that.
Pua said the DAP has not benefited from Utusan’s shift to a hardcore stand.
“I don’t think they have written off the Chinese vote entirely,” he said.
“In their mind, they are not thinking about the Chinese vote. They are so fearful that the revolt among the Chinese constituencies is so big it will infect the Malay community,” he explained to The Malaysian Insider.
“What they are doing now is an attempt to protect the Malay votes from being infected, no matter what the cost,” he added.
He also said the DAP has not benefited from Utusan’s shift to a hardcore stand as the opposition party was being dragged into a race debate against its will.
“We are not winning among the community that relies on mainstream media as their source of information... We will definitely have limited gains if GE called this year,” he said, admitting that it will have an uphill battle outside of the urban areas where Internet access is limited by poor broadband infrastructure, which curtails access to alternative views.
No comments:
Post a Comment