It is a useless report. Those who think Modi is guilty won't read it and those who think Modi isn't guilty won't read it.
BTW, why are we not seeing updates on the original scoop of how Raghavan's foreign trips were being financed by the Gujarat government? Did our media just take Raghavan’s rebuttal at face value? No scope for further smearing? Seriously, this SC and SIT episode has exposed the kind of gutter rats that thrive in our media circles.
@SHANKAR, What I mean is - You see a 'gem' because the 'r' is missing.
>> Again the same mantra! Let me see if I can make it simple.
It will never be simple for biased bigots who don't want to understand.
>> Sometimes my keyboad too behaves like that
did you by any chance buy a junked second hand keyboard from teestas Sabrang, CAIR or LET ?
#155/D-49
">>Oh yes I still consider Teesta Setalvad a gem of a person
Thanks, you gave a very good display of your moral compass."
@SM, Sometimes my keyboad too behaves like that. So when I say "I conside Teesta Setalvad a gem of a peson", don't comment on my moal compass.
>>Oh yes I still consider Teesta Setalvad a gem of a person
Thanks, you gave a very good display of your moral compass.
>>The audio tape of testimony of Haren Pandya before the citizens tribunal was not examined by SIT though SIT was told of the existence of it, Raju Ramachandran was not doing any fresh invesigation.
Again the same mantra! Let me see if I can make it simple. An audio tape of Pandya with some Citizen tribunal claiming that he heard something is pure hearsay unless it can be proven that he was present at the meeting. The SIT has through INVESTIGAIONS and EVIDENCE has successfully demolished the claim that Pandya was present in any meeting. Hence what blah blahs Pandya did in front of some Kangaroo tribunal is inadmissible and irrelevant! Hence this alleged tape was deservedly IGNORED.
The audio tape of testimony of Haren Pandya before the citizens tribunal was not examined by SIT though SIT was told of the existence of it, Raju Ramachandran was not doing any fresh invesigation. The tape will turn up at appropriate time.
Oh yes I still consider Teesta Setalvad a gem of a person and yas yes yes I am terrified of your pathetic name calling and stalking.
(Sorry, small correction; couldnt avoid hasty typing). The last sentence should read
This argument is further strengthened by the endorsement of the attendees (including the alleged "attendant" Bhatt. this "lying proxy" anyway was thrown away by SIT)
To add to RSM's previous post, SIT conclusively established that Late Mr.Haren Pandya didnot attend the said meeting on 27-Feb. The CDRs (Call data records) show that he was in Ahmedabad at that time the meeting was convened. In addition to this, all of the participants of the meeting had denied his presence, categorically. The alleged "participant" Mr. Sanjeev Bhatt said that per his recollection he didnot see any politician or ministers in the meeting. The Citizen's tribunal didnot record the deposition of Haren Pandya. SIT also demolishes the point in report of the Citizen's tribunal that Gordhan Jadaphia was present in the meeting, saying/establishing that he was present in Godhra at that time. This argument is further fostered by the endorsement of the attendees (including Bhatt). This is from SIT report Vol-I
Saroja kept on chanting the mantra of Haren Pandiya when both SIT and the secular darling AC rejected his testimony as hearsay. After showering Teesta with honours, when her true colours have been brought out, she wants others to file a police complaint. Nice.
Saroja >> If Teesta had made the statement that you ascribe to her,
Still having doubts that Teesta made that statement ? Fact is she did make that statement on 28th which she never retracted. Dont try to shift goal posts gain or run away byt saying stupid things like ascribe now. There is absoltely no doubt on the veracity of that statement by teesta.
>> my advice is, Lodge a Police Complaint. And follow it through.
The issue was not about your "advice ". or what I should or should not do.
Issue is you called Teesta a "gem of a person" & that that you will consider it an honour to be with Teesta , Now you know she made statements saying 52 innocents roasted in godhra , were asking for it as they were coming back from ayodhya.
Do you still call her a " gem of a person" an consider it a honour to support her ? and if you still do it will expose you once again as a jihadi sympathiser who has no value for a hindus life but will go all tearful when post godhra violence is discussed.
Saroja,
The Daniel Pipes website that you have posted has been posted here several times before. Daniel Pipes has spent his life in anti-Muslim propaganda. There is small group of neo-con Muslims in America who are on his side.
>>Teesta's comment: "Let us not forget the provocation," is meant to add some background information to the news. It is not an attempt to justify arson.
That’s the point! There can be no background to the alleged provocation when the Kar Sevaks were not even going for an illegal assembly but returning from Ayodhya. It is really pathetic how people can still defend Teesta’s words effectively meaning ‘they were asking for it’.
Look at Teesta and riot industry’s line of argument. Kar Sevaks along with women and children can ‘provoke’ mullahs just by returning from Ayodhya in a train at 8AM. But Jaffri firing at a mob outside his house just cannot be taken as provocation!
Shankar
teesta , who said that 52 passengers, including women & children , who were roasted alive by islamic thugs in godhra were asking for it , as they were coming back from AYODHYA "
You can go by my experience. In the past, whenever I found any offending communal banners or posters, I would go to the nearest police station, complain and insist on lodging an FIR. The police would dodge, say the area comes under the jurisdiction of another police station, then make enquiries and say that actually it is a "patriotic" banner etc, while I would say that I am an ordinary citizen and get disturbed by words like blood etc on banners, since I want the city to be calm. and so it would go like this for a few days. After a few days all those banners would be gone without any FIR.
If Teesta had made the statement that you ascribe to her, my advice is, Lodge a Police Complaint. And follow it through.
Anwaar,
I am replying to your comment in the Chomsky thread, since I think it belongs here. The issue was raised earlier and my response is here. news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx . I stand by what I wrote there. My understanding is more indo centric and I do not like to take a stand on issues that I do not understand. However I understand that Free muslims against terrorism (www.freemuslims.org/issues/terrorism.php) do not support CAIR but
CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that "almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states." Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance calls CAIR "the most accomplished fifth column" in the United States.And Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism writes that "CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA. www.meforum.org/916/cair-islamists-fooling-the-establishment archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx On the other hand I appreciate that you sometimes try to educate others on the nature of communalism, even though you face a lot of abuse. Actually I do not like abusive speech and that is that. But about Madhu Kishwar, you just say that you have different views and you think the matter ends there. So I do not really know who you are.
CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that "almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states." Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance calls CAIR "the most accomplished fifth column" in the United States.And Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism writes that "CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA. www.meforum.org/916/cair-islamists-fooling-the-establishment
archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx
On the other hand I appreciate that you sometimes try to educate others on the nature of communalism, even though you face a lot of abuse. Actually I do not like abusive speech and that is that. But about Madhu Kishwar, you just say that you have different views and you think the matter ends there. So I do not really know who you are.
Whatever,
>> "While I condemn the riots, you cannot pick them up in isolation"
The reaction of mobs to the Godhra train fire is understandable. The issue however is the complicity of Modi and the state government. By the way, please do not call me "Honorable Anwaar".
By the same standards, anyone saying the following should also not be considered justifying the riots:
"While I condemn the riots, you cannot pick them up in isolation. Let us not forget the provocation. These people indulged in a blatant and unlawful activity of burning 59 people including 40 women and children to death. The indulged in this activity to deliberately provoke the Hindus in Gujarat."
As the saying goes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
As for Honourable Anwaar's contention "She should have stopped there." - that's the problem. She does not know where to stop. But then, maybe she did not stop because she truly felt "they were asking for it".
RSM,
>> This can only translate to ‘they were asking for it".
Only if you have an inclination to translate it that way. Teesta's comment: "Let us not forget the provocation," is meant to add some background information to the news. It is not an attempt to justify arson. She did say, "I condemn today's gruesome attack." She should have stopped there.
>>While I condemn today's gruesome attack, you cannot pick up an incident in isolation. Let us not forget the provocation. These people were not going for a benign assembly.
This can only translate to ‘they were asking for it’. Besides there cannot more disgusting action reaction statement and yet Modi is criticized for invoking Newton’s Law without any evidence. What takes the cake with this queen of scavenger army is that she didn't even know whether they were coming or going! For these closet jihadis, any excuse is good enough to murder kar sevaks.
Shankar and others,
Do not stalk me other threads where interesting discussions are on. I did not respond as I thought your questions have been adequately answered by others.
Here is the link to the NCERT book on Political Theory that is in news
ncert.nic.in/NCERTS/textbook/textbook.htm
It is an extremely good book. Sibal should have defended the book. Please read it.
>> However when saffronite hate merchants quote her as saying "they were asking for it"
The statement posted by Anwaar was indeed the one I read Teesta making. I don't know if she or anyone else from the sickular parivar literally said "they were asking for it".
However, Vir Sanghvi, not a Saffronite hate merchant by any standard, certainly felt that about his fellow (more extreme) sickulars
And yet, the sub-text to all secular commentary is the same: the kar sewaks had it coming to them
virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx
Frankly, how is this logic, and even Teesta's statement, different from the action-reaction theory, supposedly propounded by Modi.
Teesta Setalvad's full comment on February 27, 2002 was, "While I condemn today's gruesome attack, you cannot pick up an incident in isolation. Let us not forget the provocation. These people were not going for a benign assembly. They were indulging in blatant and unlawful mobilization to build a temple and deliberately provoke the Muslims in India." Granted that It was not an appropriate comment to make, especially on a day like that. However when saffronite hate merchants quote her as saying "they were asking for it", they are indulging in their habitual demonization of a person who has fought valiantly and selflessly for the victims of the post-Godhra pogrom. www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13791-2002Feb27
127/D-19
R. Saroja Bombay, India
Already SC monitored the whole investigation and read all the report so far filled and then they ask SIT to approach Local court...
So CAG dont have any locii stand on this whole issue...Same wasy as local court saied to Teesta that she is not petitoners for SIT Report..............
124/D-14 May 12, 2012 01:46 AM
Anwaar
Lets SIT Report get rejected at same time for burning school teacher alive and 40 Ladies and Children inside train for that whole Muslim cummunity should be branded as terrorist....Let your so found love for CAG will be able to do it???
122/D-10 Anwaar Dallas, United States
Coping things from The Hindu just today of Vidhya Subramanium article tried to correlate the postulates between SIT's and Nanavathi's report wont serve why because same murky media and NGO called Nanavathi as State Govt agent today all of sudden media trying to take shelter under Nanavathi's report.........
Just different statement by different officer still doesnt establishsed either before SIT or Nanavathi that Bhatt was present at that meeting..
His wireless message are not outside CM's house infact which you are hidding the name of place is that he was sending message from Ahmedabad almost 40KM from Gandhinagar..
SO media'a, NGO's good friend must have some Bhramashakthi gifted by God to be present at 2 different places in one time....
correction in D - 31 / 131
" I am also glad that you proclaimed your unflinching support for teesta , who said that 52 passengers, including women & children , who were roasted alive by islamic thugs in godhra were asking for it , as they were coming back from AYODHYA "
saroja >> I am glad you called Modi a mass murderer
I am equally glad you called the resident namak haraam , who still funds LET to fire against Indian soldiers in Kashmir, the finest example of human spirit.
I am also glad that you proclaimed your unflinching support for teesta , who said that 52 passengers, including women & children , who were roasted alive by islamic thugs in godhra were asking for it , as they were coming back from godhra.
shame on the closet jihadis.
>>> Coalition Against Genocide (CAG), a broad coalition of over 40 organizations dedicated to the cause of justice and accountability, condemns the report filed by the Special Investigations Team (SIT)
CAG was never an impartial observer here. This is the same group which opposed modis visa.Now they were roped in by tessta & bhatt to influence the sit report.
As per released emails , Sanjiv bhatt was in touch with Nasir chippa of CAG for Inputs, to aact as a pressure group & for drafting his fake affidavit.
now that chippas cover is blown, CAG has to condemn the SIT report.
Typical closet jihadi mentality.
Irreverent,
>> SIT also ignored the Justice Tewatia report.
A report that only Irreverent remembers!
>> In the most funny verdict I have seen, the court exonerated them on charges of murder but confirmed the charges of conspiracy to kill and attempt to murder!
This is false! The charges of conspiracy were about a different case. Why do you lie so much?
"That will be done by Indian court(s). "
THen can CAG shut up and wait until Indian court decides it ?
"Can the esteemed CAG refute SIT report point by point to educate us how SIT has distorted the evidence. "
That will be done by Indian court(s).
"Coalition Against Genocide (CAG), a broad coalition of over 40 organizations dedicated to the cause of justice and accountability, condemns the report filed by the Special Investigations Team (SIT) as shoddy investigation and a deliberate distortion of evidence"
Can the esteemed CAG refute SIT report point by point to educate us how SIT has distorted the evidence.
>>Appoint a separate investigative body, with an explicit mandate to probe the role of the state administration, law enforcement personnel, politicians and other accused in the perpetration of violence and subsequent subversion of justice to the victims.
Now the case has gone to trial court. Appointment of separate investigating body etc. can come in due course of trial. Let the trial establish whether or not there is enough evidence to convict.
Coalition Against Genocide (CAG), a broad coalition of over 40 organizations dedicated to the cause of justice and accountability, condemns the report filed by the Special Investigations Team (SIT) as shoddy investigation and a deliberate distortion of evidence. "The line of investigation seems focused on finding excuses to discard the available evidence by casting doubt on the credibility of the victims and those that have come forward with evidence.", said Biju Mathew, one of the founding members of the coalition. CAG expresses its dismay that the SIT has summarily dismissed the testimonies of two senior police officials that had made specific allegations against the Gujarat state government and Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
The Coalition appeals to the Supreme Court to intervene to:
Reject the SIT report and its line of investigation, especially in light of amicus curiae's diametrically opposite conclusion based on the same evidence. Appoint a separate investigative body, with an explicit mandate to probe the role of the state administration, law enforcement personnel, politicians and other accused in the perpetration of violence and subsequent subversion of justice to the victims. Order the new investigative body to probe allegations brought against the SIT, since its officers are themselves accused in some instances.
@ Saroja
Firstly, you seemed to have missed my sarcasm when I called Modi a mass-murderer. I should have probably said "mass-murderer".
As for Ramchandran being a lawyer, a water-tight argument was what wass required from him - which in my opinion, he did not deliver. Now, what his motivations or constraints were, only he knows. He probably did not want to get into the cross-hairs of the seculars.
I will not comment upon the genesis of the Hindu identity or the rise of religion based politics as I fear that my post would be deleted and I too do not save a copy.
Finally, regarding South Africa, I have met a lot of South Africans (primarily whites) who would rather live in India than in their own country as they consider India to be safe (how ironic) compared to the high levels of crime that they are witnessing in their country. When I tell them our cities are not safe for women, they say their cities, especially Johannesburg (which like our Mumbai is considered the financial capital), are not safe for men too.
Anyways, my team, RCB has won the match. And I'll call it a night.
In trying too hard to establish that Mr. Bhatt did not attend the meeting, the SIT misses noticing crucial contradictions in the testimonies it recorded. A critical point relating to the 27-2-2002 meeting was the absence of an officer from the State intelligence. This is surely strange, considering Godhra was acknowledged as an intelligence failure and the meeting would have benefited from a briefing by the man in the know. There is only one explanation for this. The man in the know was Mr. Bhatt. Because as the SIT admits, Mr. Bhatt was standing in for Mr. Upadhyay, Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence (Communal and politics), and had sent many wireless messages through the day on the Godhra developments as well as on the communal situation in Ahmedabad. It made perfect sense for him to go to the meeting and pass on his intelligence inputs.
In 1989 I think, when Shiv Sena alighed with BJP, they proclaimed that from then onwards, they were not going to be anti south indians or anti north indians but pro hindu.
>>Putting away a mass-murderer depends on it.
Remember Raju Ramachandran is a Lawyer. Actually I think it is not Modi alone who is or rather who should be under the scanner. Without his foot soldiers he would have been a zero. Yesterday I had tried to trace the development of anti muslim feelings as I saw it. They deleted it and I didn't save any copy. It was not offensive. Actually I was trying to understand this 'Hindu' identity. Back in 70's I think language was more important. I remember a heated debate at home (my father used to organize monthly meetings of intersting people of different backgrounds, but all Tamil ) over seperate Tamil country. Lot of loose talk over how north indians try to impose hindi etc. Now this group had mostly atheists but also hindus, muslims and christians. I objected about how language alone can be a unifying or divisive factor and not say religion which had resulted in partition. Everyone laughed at me. Things have changed so much now. Idli has conquered north and salwar kameez has conquered south. Now who remembers hindi imposition? Everyone is busy picking up English. And look at Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa. During apartheid the latter was far more cruel. Now SA had Truth and Reconciliation commission and something seems to have clicked. Now look at Zimbabwe.
It is so easy for everyone to be happy and lead productive lives. I mean not easy but possible. Why are we so destructive. And funny. On one hand with internet we can keep alive memories, and on the other hand everyone's attention span is getting smaller and smaller. I am glad you called Modi a mass murderer. Only he was not alone. DMK, Telugu Desam Party,etc allies of BJP could have withdrawn support.
@ R Saroja: "I don't know if it is lazy or brainy logic. What will you say about the above link."
I don't about what Justices Krishna et al said, but this is what the AC had to say about Pandya (point 46 of the AC report)
"46. I may now deal with the other findings of the SIT and give my comments on the same. Though I had observed in my note dated 20.01.2011 that late Shri Haren Pandya (who supported Shri Sanjiv Bhatt), could have been present in the meeting on 27.02.2002, considering the material gathered by the SIT and the Further Investigation Report of the SIT, I agree with the SIT (in paragraph 106 of its Report) that Shri Haren Pandya could not have been present in the meeting on 27.02.2002. Therefore, his statement regarding the alleged statement made by Shri Modi in the said meeting may be disregarded."
The SIT says that Pandya was not present at the meeting. The AC agrees with this. If the AC wants to disagree with the SIT, then let him atleast come up with something concrete other than "serving officer will not allege without basis".
The SIT gave clear reasons as to why Bhatt's statements could not be beleived. Let the AC destroy the SC's lazy logic with his brainy logic. Putting away a mass-murderer depends on it. The "serving officer" stuff does not meet the cut.
>>SIT also ignored the Justice Tewatia report.
Should not have in my opinion. After so much expense, at least we could have had more of the comedy show
>>that report doesn't have nice things to say about Arjun Modhvadia, Gordhan Zadhapia, Rahul Sharma and Meghsinh Chowdhary either. But, the sickulars don't have the honesty to accept that.
When did I defend Zadaphia et al. ? Good that you accept that the people behind the report are not sick****
Let us assume Modi said hindus should be allowed to vent their anger. How was this wish of his transmitted down the chain? It must have gone thro' word of mouth to the lower and lower levels. How come, apart from the heroic Bhatt, not one person has come forward and said he received a similar instruction from his superior?
I am just wondering about the operational part of this. Can some one explain?
@ R Saroja
>> "There is deposition of Haren Pandya (ironically himself accused of leading riotters in Ahmedabad) in front of citizen's tribunal"
Phone records conclusively proved that Haren Pandya was not even in Gandhinagar on 27th. He deposed that he "heard" someone say that he he heard Modi saying so.
>> "SIT refused to call for the tapes and so it does not appear in the SIT report. "
SIT also ignored the Justice Tewatia report. But, that does not get the Sanghis to whine all day. Sickulars must understand that investigations are not copy-paste stuffs. And, don't jump too much about it. From what I have heard, that report doesn't have nice things to say about Arjun Modhvadia, Gordhan Zadhapia, Rahul Sharma and Meghsinh Chowdhary either. But, the sickulars don't have the honesty to accept that.
In fact, Haren Pandya was the mascot of hatred till he "deposed" before that "tribunal". It is a group of Muslims who were hauled up his "revenge" murder. In the most funny verdict I have seen, the court exonerated them on charges of murder but confirmed the charges of conspiracy to kill and attempt to murder!!
Whatever Bangalore, India,
It is not just what Bhatt said. There is deposition of Haren Pandya (ironically himself accused of leading riotters in Ahmedabad) in front of citizen's tribunal. His deposition has been taped and the audio copy exists. SIT refused to call for the tapes and so it does not appear in the SIT report. We can expect this tape to come up when Zakia gets to appear before the court. Here is what Justices Krishna Iyer, Hosbet Suresh and P.B.Sawant had said and it has been in public domain for long.puclmangalore.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/what-did-justices-krishna-iyer-pb-sawant-and-suresh-say-about-the-role-of-modi-in-2002/
I don't know if it is lazy or brainy logic. What will you say about the above link.
Let's look at the lazy logic that the SIT used to disbelieve Bhatt:
a) Bhatt says he was at the meeting 27/02. 7 senior officers and the CM say he wasn't.
b) Bhatt says he accompanied DGP Chakravarthi to the CM's house on 27/02. DGP Chakravarthi categorically denies this.
c) Bhatt says he went to the CM's house in DGP Chakravarthi's car. DGP Chakravarthi says he went directly from the DD studio to the CM's house and did not make a detour to pick up Bhatt on the way. DGP's personal security advisors say they did not see Bhatt in the car.
d) Bhatt says two of his people, Panth and Yadav, followed him in his official car while he travelled in the DGP's car. Panth says he was forced by Bhatt to sign the affidavit. Yadav says he followed DGP's car (in which Bhatt went) along with Panth.
e) Bhatt says he briefed his boss on 28/02 about the 27/02 meeting at 10 am in the morning and then attended a meeting at the CM's house at 10.30 am. Yadav (who corroborated Bhatt's attendance of the 27/02 meeting) says Bhatt went to office at 9 am in the morning on 28/02 was did not step out that day. Bhatt's boss says Bhatt did not brief him about the 27/02 meeting. Telephone records show that Bhatt was in Ahmedabad (and not Gandhinagar) at 10.57 am on 28/02 and not at the CM's house attending the 10.30 meeting.
Let's look at the brainy logic that the AC used to say that there is no reason to disbelieve Bhatt:
a) Bhatt is a serving officer in the government. So he would not make allegations without basis.
And the seculars are singing hosannas to the AC saying that the AC is right and the Bhatt is a descendant of Raja Harischandra and the 7 senior officers (who were also serving officers of the government officers) are lying, Panth is lying, Yadav is telling the truth regarding incidents relating to 27/02 but lying about the incidents relating to 28/02, DGP's two PSOs are lying, Bhatt's boss is lying.........
Having said that, the SIT's "inside four-walls" statement is stupid, to say the least.
"Exactly why Raghavan, Modi and the whole cabal are out to destroy Bhatt!"
It was not enough for them to assert that Bhatt was not present at the 27/2 meeting. They had to unloose the whole power of the state government to scare him, suspend him, fire him, get witnesses to change their testimony, promote and give plum post-retirement jobs to those who were present in the meeting and now are willing to lie about it.
And even this was not enough. Lest it emerges that Bhatt was in fact present at the meeting, and Modi did say what he was alleged to have said, the SIT report took the additional precaution of makings the most absurd assertion: " The interpretation made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by Sreekumar and Bhatt appear to be without basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for the sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute an offense."
Does not constitute an offence? The Chief Minister telling his senior police officers to let Hindus vent their anger does not constitute an offence? Has the Raghavan SIT gone mad?
"orget ambiguity in AC's report......Raju met each and everyone whoes opposing modi but he did not even made courtsey call to see modi or gujarat government as if he was appointed to frame modi? "
Forget about courtesy call or seeing Modi he cant even dare to think of meeting Modi, for to do that he must have that guts to pick a phone and make a call..
See what mistake SIT did they met him interrogated for 10 long hours and table turned around, if same SIT would have heavely relied on NGO's testimony or Bhatt's word without meeting Modi then today things would have been different.
What was hidden for this many year has come out today in The Hindu Newspaper Hyderabad Edition that before train burning incident and a school teacher too was burnt alive in Godhra which was a hidden incident till today but today it is out...For doint this 2 shamefull incident whole community should have been branded a terrorist...Lets International cummnutiy (US, Europe and others)and NGO's, Secular answer for doing this 2 henious crime and provoke majorities of Gujarat state.
>> "Exactly why Raghavan, Modi and the whole cabal are out to destroy Bhatt!"
Wrong!! Exactly why Bhatt, Congress, sickulars and the whole cabal are out to destroy Modi and Raghavan. Just imagine how much better Modi could have performed for your state if these scoundrelss had not been trying to pull him down.
Sanjiv Bhat what ever is his involvement is being used as an informer and an insider for the congress.He is fighting BJP more than fighting his case.
>>>> "More importantly, there are strong bonds between Rajagopalan and Raghavan as their wives are closely related. " >> It were the sickulars who got the SIT reconstituted. You cannot lob theses points now. That is false. Raghavan has been the head of SIT since its very inception. Why do you lie so much?
>> "More importantly, there are strong bonds between Rajagopalan and Raghavan as their wives are closely related. " - Kishoredas
#1. It were the sickulars who got the SIT reconstituted. You cannot lob theses points now.
# 2. The wives of MMS and the new army chief are cousin sisters. Should it be seen as the reason for what the goverment did to the current army chief? Is this what the debate has now come to?
>> "I would rather have Teesta Setalvad and Justice Banerji on a separate list. " - R Saroja
You can split them into as many lists as you want. Jehadis splitting their teams into Mujahideens, Taliban, LeT, Al Qaeda etc. does not make them worthy of admiration for most of the world.
>>The SIT, in the closing report, has chosen to believe the word of the senior officers, i.e. senior bureaucrats and police officers. However, the SIT itself, in its Preliminary Report, has observed as follows:- "Some of the public servants, who had retired long back, claimed loss of memory as they did not want to get involved in any controversy. The other category of public servants, who have recently retired and provided with good post-retirement assignments, felt obliged to the State Government and the present Chief Minister and therefore their testimony lacks credibility.
What about DGP Chakravarti who categorically denied the allegation and does not fall in any of these categories?
>>Why is the Closing Report submitted by Raghavan in 2012 so much friendlier to Modi than the Preliminary Report submitted by Malhotra in 2010?
Because it was written after detailed investigations.
I request everyone to read the voluminous SIT closure report. It puts to rest 10 years of vicious anti Modi propaganda spread by Teesta's and her scavenging industry with the aid of the discredited Indian media.
Example 1: We were told Ashok Bhatt was in the police control room to allow the rioters to vent their anger against Muslims as per Modi’s February 27, 2002 statement. Fact: As per the SIT, he was there with George Fernandes for 10 minutes.
Example 2: VHP took a procession of all the dead bodies across Ahmedabad which inflamed passions and started the genocide! Fact: as per the SIT, dead bodies were escorted by the police from Godhra to Sola Civil Hospital Ahmedabad and handed over to legal heirs or cremated quietly. 54 dead bodies were transported in 5 vehicles from Godhra with police security and reached Ahmedabad by 4AM on 28th Feb 2002.
I think it’s the despicable scumbags in the Indian media who should apologize if they have any conscience left. Those who still consider being with Teesta an honour are off course exempt!
"I would rather have Teesta Setalvad and Justice Banerji on a separate list. I will defend them and what they stand for."
Be our guest! This is between you and your chillum!! It wont change the facts about them!
>>To be on the same list as Teesta Setalvad Or Justice Banerji will be an honour.
Ofcourse to be on the same list with some one who justified the burning alive of 52 innocents is an honour for any jihadi. wear your honour with pride ! After all what is the life of 52 hindus for a honourable jihadi?
>>>I would rather have Teesta Setalvad and Justice Banerji on a separate list. I will defend them and what they stand for.
The same Teesta who justified the burning alive of 52 people in Godhra , saying they were after all coming back from Ayodhya , celebrating fall of babri..
Only a closet jihadi will justify & defend the roasting alive of 52 innocent people including women & children in a rail bogie. Shame on you .
>>Look in your mirror
To be on the same list as Teesta Setalvad Or Justice Banerji will be an honour. But I don't deserve it. I am happy defending them
THE IRREVERENT INDIAN
I would rather have Teesta Setalvad and Justice Banerji on a separate list. I will defend them and what they stand for.
>> "Give some example of <<bigots of pseudo-secular/sickular variety.>> so I can understand" - R Saroja
An incomplete list: Teesta, Mahesh Bhatt, Digvijay Singh, Anwaar, Mulayam Yadav, Bukhari, Justice Banerjee, Ashis Nandy, Burney.......
>> Give some example of <<bigots of pseudo-secular/sickular variety.>> so I can unerstand
Look in your mirror
>> Raju Ramachandran has a sorry record of defending Ajmal Kasab. What kind of secularism will inspire someone to defend Pakistani terrorists?
Ramchandaran is not a defence attorney in the Kasab case.He was appointed amicus curiae in the Kasab case by the Supreme Court. In Zakia Jafri's case, Prashant Bhushan was the original amicus curiae, but Modi objected saying Bhushan had criticized Modi about the 2002 pogrom. Ramchandran then replaced Bhushan as amicus curiae.
Manish,
>> On top of it Raghavan is a policeman , Ramachandran a lawyear. Since when we started trusting policemen ?
Good point!
>> Your world view is allowing only two types of people, people who live off others misery and people who cause the misery and you find the latter better
You have no idea about me or my world view, and I don't know much about you either.
But one thing that is clear from your posts is that you try to change the subject every time you get your ass kicked (seculars to my world view, Godhra verdict to Ishrat), or just run away to save your ass some more beating.
>> The world actually has a lot of good people
I know lot of them. All of them are secular, none pseudo secular.
"I can't believe this guy is a lawyer. "
He is the eminent type.
"There is no documentary material of any nature whatsoever which can establish that Shri Bhatt was not present in the meeting on 27.02.2002."
I misread it last time. It is really hilarious. I can't believe this guy is a lawyer.
>> By calling people like us pseudosecular and thus implying you are truly secular, you acknowledge that it is prestigeous to be "secular".
What a stupid statement. Of course it is better to be secular than communal.
Calling people pseudo-secular or sickos is certainly not calling them secular. It essentially means that they are communal slimeballs, who label themselves secular, and live off the misery of others. Sikand acknowledged it recently.
>> Now whether there was a conspiracy to burn the train
This is settled by the courts.
Unless a higher court overrules the verdict, shouldn't the sickos accept it (they can disagree with it)? Isn't that what is demanded of the Sanghis all the time?
"He understands it perfectly. He is saying, "Let the judge be the judge, not Mr. Raghavan"!"
Apart from the amicus curiae, you also have no idea what prima facie is.
Manish Banerjee >> how the courts cut through these legal cobweb created by its own dragging of feet ?
Not only courts, every single institution in our country (including Press), has refused to critically look at itself. The belief was, if you ignored a problem, it would go away. Now things are changing, with SC taking a proactive role in 2G issue. Though one does feel a bit queasy over judiciary directing executive..Let us see if we are seeing a process whereby judiciary is on self-correcting mode or is it a false dawn ?
Something he seems particularly unwilling to do. Why not just go throughthe process and clear his own name if he's innocent? He should be demanding the chance.' Zafar
And what should he do for that ? Stand outside the Chambers of the Judge ( which-Banerjee ) and shout loudly :
Narendera Modi Hazeer hein without summons . Janaab e Ali Karwai Chalu karo !
Zafar if you are unbiased then for all intent and purpose even Raju Ram Chandran could not find any shred of evidence against Modi.
No Court can reject the plea of 30 plus responsible Officers and accept the statement of Bhat who remembered after 9 yrs that he too was in the Meeting.Even his only witness turned hostile .
Otherwise too we have read the most hurting submission (for any loyal Indian ) as to what Raju Ram Chandran said in defense of KASAB our murderer including 90 Hindu Muslims killed by him and his partner .46 of them were Muslims .
His credibility is big Zero in eyes of any Indian now whatever may be the legal systems and duties .
>> "By calling people like us pseudosecular and thus implying you are truly secular, you acknowledge that it is prestigeous to be "secular".
Let me be more brazen to make you understand this.
Raju Ramachandran has a sorry record of defending Ajmal Kasab. What kind of secularism will inspire someone to defend Pakistani terrorists? Mukul Sinha, who has been at the forefront seeking justice for Muslims suffering in 2002 was also defending the Godhra Muslims accused of burning the train. Is this how they seek justice?
Even Kasab is more secular that these jokers. At least, he did not differentiate between Hindus, Muslims etc. when he went on a killing spree. Most of the jokers strutting around as seculars today, are - simply put - Mullah apologists. It is a fashionable thing to do, and gets you lots of petro-dollars.
>> "Can you explain to me why Haren Pandya was killed ? He did depose before the citizens tribunal. Do you know anything about his testimony?"
Nobody knows why. Whatever the sickulars say, are mere allegations. By that logic, many others like Teesta, Mukul, Javed Anand, Sarabhai, Bhatt etc. would have been long dead. And, in legal terms, his deposition counts as "hearsay". The sickulars need more than that for their pet Modi project of "death by thousand cuts".
The paradox is both R. K. Raghavan & Raju Ramachandran were appointed by the Supreme Court to do more or less the same job. Ramachandran was appointed only when a section of the civil society including some serving & retired policemen started doubting Ragahvan's inpartiality.
So if Raghavn's clean-chit is considered vindication of Modi, why Ramachandran indictment will not be considered Modi's culpability , espcially when Ramachandran was there in the first place to have a critical look at the way Raghavan was going about his job. On top of it Raghavan is a policeman , Ramachandran a lawyear. Since when we started trusting policemen ? Wel, if it can be avoided , one do not like to go to a lawyear either.
It will be very interesting indeed how the courts cut through these legal cobweb created by its own dragging of feet ?
"His opinion based on one person namely Bhatt who is discredited long time back.Even SC did not consider his opinion to order FIR to Modi.If one look at Raju backgroung then he is nothing but another pseudosecular guy"
By calling people like us pseudosecular and thus implying you are truly secular, you acknowledge that it is prestigeous to be "secular".
Can you explain to me why Haren Pandya was killed ? He did depose before the citizens tribunal. Do you know anything about his testimony?
Raju is a looser.Sit throw away his opinion.He is desperate and frursteted person.His opinion based on one person namely Bhatt who is discredited long time back.Even SC did not consider his opinion to order FIR to Modi.If one look at Raju backgroung then he is nothing but another pseudosecular guy who can be lumpup with all other pseudosecularist in Indian who are against Modi
“Why not just go through the process and clear his own name if he's innocent? He should be demanding the chance.”
And how does one go about the business of “clearing one’s own name”? You mean he should demand that the courts call him for questioning?
Congress and media action to punish Modi is like the street showman fooling the crowd that he will let the Cobra and mongoose fight which never happens till the show is wound up.
It is not the place of the SIT or the AC to declare Modi innocent or guilty.
They can only say if they think that he has a case to answer in court.
Something he seems particularly unwilling to do. Why not just go throughthe process and clear his own name if he's innocent? He should be demanding the chance.
“Regarding the weight that should be put on Bhatt's testimony, the amicus curiae is fair and reasonable as the following two paragraphs in his report indicate…”
What AC is saying can be summed up as, “I have no reason to believe that Bhatt is above board or speaking the truth, but he should be cross-examined”.
How that opinion “rips apart” the SIT clean chit to Modi? I am curious.
But then I don’t want to snatch the chillum away form the afeemchis!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>.“ I am conscious of the fact that though Shri Bhatt has been contending that he would speak only when under a legal obligation to do so, his conduct after making his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not been that of a detached police officer who is content with giving his version. I am left with no doubt that he is actively strategizing, and is in touch with those who would benefit or gain mileage from his testimony. But these factors, in my view, cannot be grounds for ignoring his statement at this stage”
Amicus admits: - that the explanation for 9 year delay that “he would speak only when under a legal obligation to do so” is hogwash, if you go by his behavior afterwards. - that he is in active collusion with Congress, note his words: “no doubt that he is actively strategizing”. - that Bhatt has behaved more as Congress party ka karyakarta than a Police officer
and yet, he says, we must not disbelieve Bhatt at this point of time! Why?
Because “ a serving police officer wouldn’t make such allegations against CM, without some basis” but ……………..dear Amicus didn’t you just now say that Bhatt is more a Congress lackey than a Police Officer ?
Regarding the weight that should be put on Bhatt's testimony, the amicus curiae is fair and reasonable as the following two paragraphs in his report indicate:
The stage for believing or disbelieving a witness arises after trial i.e. once the entire evidence is placed before the court for its consideration. It would not be correct to conclude, at this stage, that Shri Bhatt should be completely disbelieved unless there is clinching material available to the contrary, for example, if there is indisputable material which proves that he was not present at the meeting, but somewhere else. No such material has been found. Hence, it cannot be said, at this stage, that Shri Bhatt should be disbelieved and no further proceedings should be taken against Shri Modi.
I reiterate here that I am fully conscious of the fact that the statement made by Shri Bhatt has possible limitations inter alia (a) the delay of 9 years in coming out with his version, and (b) the statements of other senior officers contesting his claim. I am also fully conscious of the fact that Shri Bhatt has made attempts to get other witnesses (i.e. Shri Tarachand Yadav, Shri K.D. Panth etc) to support his case, and has been part of a strategizing effort. However, it is ultimately for the competent court to decide whether Shri Bhatt is to be believed or not. As long as some material indicates that the allegation may be true, the case must proceed further in accordance with law.
10 years of Babri dicussion,and then 10 years of Godhra discussion.TV channels are having their hands full.No time for Mumbai suburban train serial bombing ,or for Dawoods network in the country,nor for Sonia's black money in Swiss banks.
All said and done, the Amicus Curiae DOES NOT prove anything regarding Modi's involvement. All he does is give bread and butter to all the "like minded Seculars" for next few years. AC is no more than feeding the hate Modi cottage industry (which earns a lot of money).
In absence of EVIDENCE, even supreme court cannot do anything. It is another matter that the SC can still hang modi (as it hanged the poor Kehar Singh in Inidra Gandhi Murder case!).
But with a media as vigilant as today's, it is a distant possibility!
Apparently for Mr. Ramchandran, anybody who gives testimony in support for Mr. Modi has questionable credibility, but what Mr. Bhutt alleges should be investigated. Did Mr. Ramchandran try to evaluate Mr. Bhutt's credibility? Did he know that Mr. Bhutt has had a very close contact with congressional leaders? That he is communicating with them via e-mails? That Mr. Bhutt asked for a cell phone and these leaders provided one to him? If Mr. Ramchandran knew about all this would he still think that a police officer of his status may not falsely implicate a Chief Minister?
If one cuts through all the legalese crap that fills both the SIT and AC reports, the bottom line (s) are as follows:
a) SIT says "Bhatt cannot be believed. So, it is for the court to decide if it wants to prosecute Modi or not."
b) AC says "I have no reason to believe Bhatt is telling the truth. I also have no reason not to believe that Bhat is not telling the truth. So it is for the court to decide if it wants prosecute Modi or not".
Raghavan and Ramachandran would be sitting in some corner having a drink and sharing a laugh right now while the seculars and communalists battle it out in TV studios and on the net.
Ganesan,
>> I am not sure the amicus curaie has understood the meaning of prima facie.
He understands it perfectly. He is saying, "Let the judge be the judge, not Mr. Raghavan"!
>> Both from the same poster!
It is not necessary to either fully agree or fully disagree with the whole report.
Both from the same poster!!
"he following comment by the amicus curiae is a good example of how an objective person would analyze evidence."
And this
"The following two paragraphs in the report of the amicus curiae contradict each other:"
Apparently when writing paras 48 and 49, the usually objective amicus curiae became less objective I guess. And ended up writing contradictory statements.
The amicus curiae's conclusion, "As far as the observations of the Chairman, SIT on the handing over of the bodies of the Godhra victims to Shri Jaydeep Patel are concerned, the same may be accepted,' may be premature. Raghavan was acting as if he was Modi's defence attorney. His observations must be questioned during the course of a trial.
The following two paragraphs in the report of the amicus curiae contradict each other:
"48. As far as the SITs conclusion with regard to the steps taken by the Chief Minister Shri Modi to control the riots in Ahmedabad is concerned, the same may be accepted, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
"49. As far as the SITs observations with regard to the alleged inaction of Shri P.C. Pande, the then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad are concerned, no comment by me is necessary at this stage, since an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. has been filed in respect of Shri P.C. Pande also, and the same may be dealt with by the concerned Court in accordance with law, in the same manner as suggested by me in respect of Shri M.K. Tandon and Shri P.B. Gondia."
If the question of inaction on the part of Pande, Tandon and Gondia are still at issue, then SITs conclusion with regard to the steps taken by the Modi to control the riots cannot be accepted.
The tendency of the SIT to dismiss material out of hand is again countered by the sober judgement of the amicus curiae in the following remark:
"The material collected by the SIT does not indicate that these 2 ministers interfered with the working of the police department at the time the riots were taking place. However, there is the possibility that the very presence of these 2 Ministers had a dampening effect on the senior police officials, i.e. the DGP and the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, if indeed Shri Modi had made a statement (as alleged) the previous night. This is again one of the circumstances which can be taken into account and examined during the course of trial."
The following comment by the amicus curiae is a good example of how an objective person would analyze evidence. It is in direct contrast to the analysis of SIT:
" The delay in making the statement cannot be the sole ground to disbelieve the statement at this stage, especially in view of his explanation that as an Intelligence Officer who was privy to a lot of sensitive information, he would make a statement only when he was under a legal obligation to do so....... Thus, it is quite possible that Shri Bhatt was directed to attend the meeting on 27.02.2002 at the residence of the Chief Minister. The phone call records do not contradict the statement given by Shri Bhatt to the SIT. Considering the important and emergent nature of the meeting, the relative juniority of Shri Bhatt need not have come in the way of his attending the meeting, especially since the ADGP (Intelligence), Shri Raiger was not available..... Hence, I disagree with the conclusion of the SIT that Shri Bhatt should be disbelieved at this stage itself. On the other hand, I am of the view that Shri Bhatt needs to be put through the test of cross-examination, as do the others who deny his presence."
The following paragraphs from the report of the amicus curiae are interesting as well as insightful:
"The SIT has chosen to believe the word of the senior officers, i.e. senior bureaucrats and police officers. However, I find that the SIT itself, in its Preliminary Report, has observed as follows [at p.13]:-
"(3)Some of the public servants, who had retired long back, claimed loss of memory as they did not want to get involved in any controversy.
(4)The other category of public servants, who have recently retired and provided with good post-retirement assignments, felt obliged to the State Government and the present Chief Minister and therefore their testimony lacks credibility.
(5)The serving public servants, who have been empanelled for the higher posts, did not want to come into conflict with the politicians in power and incurred their wrath which affected their frank response.""
It seems the attitude of the SIT changed dramatically from its Preliminary Report to its Final Report. Why?
" It would not be correct to disbelieve the version of Shri Bhatt, at this prima facie stage, on the various grounds set out by the SIT or because other participants in the meeting have denied (either categorically, or to the best of their memory) his presence and the alleged statement made by Shri Modi."
I am not sure the amicus curaie has understood the meaning of prima facie.
SIT conclusively stated that Mr. Bhatt was NOT present in the said meeting. Mr. Bhatt's only witness has filed a suit against Mr. Bhatt for pressuring him to lie. So it is obvious what Mr. Bhatt is saying about that meeting is a concocted allegation. If a case against anybody is proceeded based on such proven concocted allegation, our courts would be inundated with fake cases. Moreover, the SIT has concluded that even if, Mr. Modi said what Mr. Bhatt is alleging, there was NO evidence that police officers obeyed that instruction or the police officers relayed that instruction to their sub-ordinates.
Just curious. How does points 24 and 29 square off?