Yet again ruling out any apology for the 2002 Gujarat riots, Narendra Modi tonight said he should be "hanged" in public if there is even a grain of truth in the allegations against him.
An apology would serve no purpose because that is not the right way to deal with such allegations, he said when asked about demands that he should apologise for the post-Godhra riots in which over 1,000 people were killed.
"I am convinced that if there is even a grain of truth in the allegations, I feel for India's bright future and traditions, Modi should be hanged in the street square. There should be such exemplary punishment that no one dares to commit such a crime for 100 years.
"If he has committed a crime, Modi should not be pardoned. What is this system of pardoning people through apology? There should be no apology. Modi should never be pardoned," he told in an interview to ANI telecast tonight.
He said the issue of apology would not have arisen if he had lost the elections in 2002 or 2007. "There is a small coterie who think they have worked hard and created a storm. But Modi does not lose, does not die. It is their (coterie) obsession to pull Modi down," he said.
Asked about the storm created over his "puppy" remarks earlier in reference to his expression of sadness over the killings of Muslims, Modi said even if an ant dies it pains.
"That does not mean I am comparing the dead to an ant. In India, there is a difference between language and expression," he said suggesting that there has been misinterpretation of remarks, which he did not intend.
Asked about his refusal to wear a skull cap during his sadhbavna fast a couple of years ago, Modi said he followed his own tradition and respected the traditions of other.
"I am against the policy of appeasement. I will never follow the symbols of appeasement. If someone plays with a Muslim's cap, I will not tolerate. There should be exemplary punishment."
To a question about his recent statements that MLAs and MPs facing cases would be put behind bars, the BJP's PM candidate said criminalisation of politics is a serious issue.
If elected to power, he would urge the Supreme Court to appoint special court to try cases of MLAs and MPs against whom criminal cases are pending and deliver a verdict a within a year.
Those convicted will lose their seats and the vacancies can be filled by those without criminal charges, he said.
"Everybody says this but nobody does it. But I have decided to do so. But if there is a better way I will look into it. I do not want that cases against politicians be dragged for long," he said adding he wanted the credibility of institutions be enhanced.
However, he made it clear that he would not work vindictively but utilise his time and energy for doing good things for public at large.
keep parroting that and one day soon it will become a self-fullfilling prophecy!
# 27 and # 28.
If you read sanghi revisionist history you become a Hindutva hate spewer. Condemning Modi or Sonia is part of normal political discourse. By answering it with venom against a whole community or against 700 year Muslim rule you unwittingly laid bare the whole Hindutva agenda which Modi and Rajnath are trying their best to conceal!
@ Anwaar - "Juxtaposing the criticism of a sociopathic individual with your despicable venom against centuries of Muslim rule in India"
1. Juxtaposing is a perfecly valid way of debating
2. How can your criticism be pure criticism and mine be pure venom? You have used terms like sociopath and despicable, not me I put it to you that you have used venom,, not me.
3. You have talked of vengefulness. Those despots I refered to are long dead. There is no way one can be vengeful towards them. All I ask for is honesty about that period of history, not a sanitised verrsion.
4. As far as Modi is concerned, wait for the couts to decide. He does not become a sociopath just because you think so.
" Hindus also have intense distrust of those who behaved abominably for hundreds of years and whose apologists are trying to morph them into enlightened rulers who enriched their civilisation in a most benign manner."
Instead of displaying self-righteous "secular anger," answer the following questions:
1. Have not some Muslim rulers not behaved abominably towards Hindus, the most recent of them being Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan?
2. Have the collective scars of those memories not had a negative impact on the psyche of the Hindus?
3. Isn't there a systematic effort by the like of Thapar and Habib to morph those despots into paragons of virtue?
A simple yes or no will do.
I am merely an insignificant individual whose opnions don't matter at all. You may all me a hate monger or sociopath or any other name you want to. Name calling takes us nowhere.
What matters is whether the above events have happened or not. Let's stick to the issues.
>>>> ""It is based on an intense distrust of someone who has behaved abominally for many years and who now is trying to morph himself into a saint! "
>> Hindus also have intense distrust of those who behaved abominably for hundreds of years and whose apologists are trying to morph them into enlightened rulers who enriched their civilisation in a most benign manner.
Juxtaposing the criticism of a sociopathic individual with your despicable venom against centuries of Muslim rule in India reveals the true hatefulness and vengefulness of Hindutva. You have been a much more effective exponent of this poisonous ideology than even Modi or Savarkar.