Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Eeshanvi.t
E.T offers a complete holiday solutions for summer holidays to groups of any size. Our wide network of associates ensures a smooth and trouble free holidays.
eeshanvi.t@gmail.com
Monday, April 12, 2010
Post Godhra riots..The other side of the story.
Post Godhra riots..The other side of the story.
For eight long years, Gujarat 2002 has stood out as one of the worst episodes in our calendar of atrocity. Since then, the country has witnessed ugly sparring over the bloody riots between the Gujarat Government and the votaries of the Hindutva movement on one side and the human rights lobby on the other.
Setalvad
Setalvad is alleged to have included charges that were retracted later by the witnesses.
Meanwhile, the state Government, Chief Minister Narendra Modi in particular, has been repeatedly accused of direct or indirect involvement in the riots. In March 2008, the Supreme Court (SC) appointed the Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by former Central Bureau of Investigation Director R.K. Raghavan, to reinvestigate nine major cases in the Gujarat riots of 2002. Charges flew back and forth once again last week when human rights activists called for the prosecution of Modi for his involvement in the riots in response to a petition.
The latest round of sparring began after the SIT sought Modi's presence in response to an SC petition by Zakia Jafri, a riot victim and the widow of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri, accusing Modi and 61 others of being involved in riots and hatching a conspiracy to kill Muslims. Ehsan was among the 69 people killed by a riotous Hindu mob in the Gulberg Society case.
Narender
"For eight years, canards have been spread against me. But the truth cannot be suppressed."
NARENDRA MODI, Gujarat Chief Minister
Significantly, in March 2003, the SC had stalled the trial of nine Gujarat riot cases, thanks to the relentless campaign by the human rights activists seeking justice for the Muslim victims. The riot victims said they won't get justice as long as the Gujarat Government had a role in the police probe and the subsequent trial. The SIT is reinvestigating the cases under the virtual supervision of the apex court, with even the judges and public prosecutors being selected under the SC's monitoring. As the SIT goes about its task, more and more evidence is surfacing that the human rights lobby had, in many cases, spun macabre stories of rape and brutal killings by tutoring witnesses before the SC. In the process, it might have played a significant role in misleading the SC to suit its political objectives against Modi and his government.
Last week, one of the most horrible examples of cruelty resurfaced once again as the trial of the Naroda Patiya case, where 94 persons were killed, began in the SC-monitored special court in Ahmedabad. Soon after the riots, the human rights activists and the Muslim witnesses had alleged that a pregnant woman Kausarbanu's womb was ripped open by rioters and the foetus was flung out at the point of a sword. The gruesome incident was seen as the worst-possible example of medieval vandalism in the modern age.
Riots
The wait for justice for Gujarat's riot victims is still not over
Last week, eight years after the alleged incident, Dr J.S. Kanoria, who conducted the post-mortem on Kausarbanu's body on March 2, 2002, denied that any such incident had ever happened. Instead, he told the court: "After the post-mortem, I found that her foetus was intact and that she had died of burns suffered during the riot." Later Kanoria, 40, told INDIA TODAY, "I have told the court what I had already written in my post-mortem report eight years ago. The press should have checked the report before believing that her womb was ripped open. As far as I remember, I did her post-mortem at noon on March 2, 2002."
A careful study of the three police complaints, claiming that Kausarbanu's womb was ripped open by the rioters, shows several loopholes. While one complaint accuses Guddu Chara, one of the main accused in the Naroda Patiya case, of ripping open Kausarbanu's womb, extracting her foetus and flinging it with a sword; another complaint accuses Babu Bajrangi, yet another accused in the case, of doing the act. A third complaint, on the other hand, does not name the accused but describes the alleged act.
Modi will also have reasons to smile at the affidavits filed by the Muslim witnesses in the SC in 2003 at the behest of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Teesta Setalvad on the basis of which the trial in nine cases were stalled for six long years. The most glaring hole is in the affidavit of Nanumiya Malek, a key witness in the Naroda Gam case. In his affidavit before the SC filed on November 15, 2003, Malek stated that a newly married woman called Madina, who lost four of her relatives, including her husband in the riots, had been raped by the rioters.
Dr
"Her (Kausarbanu) foetus was intact and she had died of burns suffered during the riot."
Dr J.S. KANORIA
Malek's affidavit states: "I was witness to the crimes of murder and rape that took place on Madina and her family. I also saw seven people being burnt alive, including four orphans. I request the SC to keep the details of this rape victim confidential since she is alive and use it only for the purpose of trial and conviction of the rapists." But on May 5, 2009, in his statement before the SIT, Malek said: "I had wrongly claimed that Madina had been raped. I made the charge because of Teesta Setalvad's pressure. I kept on telling her not to include that charge in my affidavit, yet it was included." In her statement before the SIT on May 20, 2008, Madina, who has remarried now, said: "The charge made by Malek claiming that I was raped by a riotous mob is false. I wasn't raped. When the riotous mob put my house on fire, I tried to run but was attacked by a rioter who injured me with a knife. Later I managed to merge in a Muslim crowd."
There are six other affidavits filed by different Muslim witnesses on November 15, 2003, that wantonly allege rape in the Naroda Gam and Naroda Patiya riot cases without giving any details. Interestingly, all the affidavits have a uniform language: "Over 110 persons were not simply killed, but raped and mutilated as well, including young children. We urge the SC to stay the trials and transfer them to a neighbouring state and also order fresh investigation." The affidavits state that they had been filed at the behest of Setalvad and in the presence of her co-activist
Rais Khan.
Nanumiya
"I had wrongly claimed that Madina was raped. I made the charge because of Teesta Setalvad's pressure."
NANUMIYA MALEK
If this wasn't enough, other glaring attempts by human rights activists to tutor witnesses have come to the fore. For example, soon after the Gulberg massacre in which Ehsan Jafri was killed, nearly a dozen Muslim witnesses told the police that Jafri had fired in self-defence, killed a rioter and injured 14 others. They also said that this led the mob to resort to violence and attack Muslims in Gulberg with vengeance. But almost half of them who deposed before the special court have retracted from this statement. The statement of Imtiaz Pathan in the Gulberg trial also raises eyebrows. He told the special court that before being killed, Jafri told him that Narendra Modi abused him (Jafri) on phone when he sought protection during a mob attack. Incidentally, there is no record available of Jafri having made any call to Modi. Pathan didn't name Modi in the first police statement he made soon after the riots. Interestingly, he has also identified as many as 27 individual attackers from a mob of thousands of rioters.
When the SIT started taking statements of witnesses in the Gulberg Society case, around 20 witnesses came with typed statements. But the SIT objected to it, citing Section 161 of the CRPC, saying that the police must record the statement of a witness. So when the SIT forced the witnesses to give their statement during the interrogation, there was a vast difference between the 'readymade typed' statements and the oral evidence that the police had received earlier.
As a senior lawyer defending the accused puts it: "The witnesses under the influence of the human rights activists didn't allow videotaping of their statements while they were being recorded. There is an obvious attempt on the part of activists to dictate not just the SIT, but also the courts." Last week, INDIA TODAY quizzed Setalvad about the charge of tutoring the witnesses and creating false evidence before the courts in the 2002 Gujarat riot cases.
Her response: "I am under no obligation to respond to your questions." The human rights activists' band seems to believe that one side's suffering is greater than the other's.
Credibility Gap
Then
In his petition before the SC, Nanumiya Malek, a key witness in the Naroda Gam case, says that a married woman called Madina had been raped by rioters.
Now
Malek later told the SIT that Madina's rape was an accusation put forth at the behest of Teesta Setalvad. Madina also denied the charge.
Then
For the past eight years, human rights activists and Naroda Patiya victims have alleged that the rioters ripped open the womb of the pregnant Kausarbanu.
Now
Dr J.S. Kanoria, who conducted a post-mortem on Kausarbanu's body, says she died of burns during the riot and that her womb was intact.
Then
While reinvestigating the Gulberg case, the SIT comes across nearly 20 witnesses who came with their readymade, typed statements to which the SIT objects.
Now
The Muslim witnesses refuse to videotape their statements. The statements that are recorded by the SIT do not match the readymade statements.
Then
Imtiaz Pathan, a key witness in the Gulberg case, tells the special court that Ehsan Jafri was abused by Modi when Jafri called the latter seeking his help during the riots.
Now
The SIT has not been able to find any evidence or a record of Ehsan Jafri making a phone call to Narendra Modi.
Then
In their 2003 SC petition, Muslim witnesses accused the rioters of raping women. As a result, the trials of nine major cases were stalled for over six years. Now
In their statements made before the SC-appointed SIT, the witnesses haven't accused the rioters of raping women. by Uday Mahurkar.[India Today]
http://madhavibhuta.blogspot.com/2010/04/post-godhra-riotsthe-other-side-of.html
For eight long years, Gujarat 2002 has stood out as one of the worst episodes in our calendar of atrocity. Since then, the country has witnessed ugly sparring over the bloody riots between the Gujarat Government and the votaries of the Hindutva movement on one side and the human rights lobby on the other.
Setalvad
Setalvad is alleged to have included charges that were retracted later by the witnesses.
Meanwhile, the state Government, Chief Minister Narendra Modi in particular, has been repeatedly accused of direct or indirect involvement in the riots. In March 2008, the Supreme Court (SC) appointed the Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by former Central Bureau of Investigation Director R.K. Raghavan, to reinvestigate nine major cases in the Gujarat riots of 2002. Charges flew back and forth once again last week when human rights activists called for the prosecution of Modi for his involvement in the riots in response to a petition.
The latest round of sparring began after the SIT sought Modi's presence in response to an SC petition by Zakia Jafri, a riot victim and the widow of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri, accusing Modi and 61 others of being involved in riots and hatching a conspiracy to kill Muslims. Ehsan was among the 69 people killed by a riotous Hindu mob in the Gulberg Society case.
Narender
"For eight years, canards have been spread against me. But the truth cannot be suppressed."
NARENDRA MODI, Gujarat Chief Minister
Significantly, in March 2003, the SC had stalled the trial of nine Gujarat riot cases, thanks to the relentless campaign by the human rights activists seeking justice for the Muslim victims. The riot victims said they won't get justice as long as the Gujarat Government had a role in the police probe and the subsequent trial. The SIT is reinvestigating the cases under the virtual supervision of the apex court, with even the judges and public prosecutors being selected under the SC's monitoring. As the SIT goes about its task, more and more evidence is surfacing that the human rights lobby had, in many cases, spun macabre stories of rape and brutal killings by tutoring witnesses before the SC. In the process, it might have played a significant role in misleading the SC to suit its political objectives against Modi and his government.
Last week, one of the most horrible examples of cruelty resurfaced once again as the trial of the Naroda Patiya case, where 94 persons were killed, began in the SC-monitored special court in Ahmedabad. Soon after the riots, the human rights activists and the Muslim witnesses had alleged that a pregnant woman Kausarbanu's womb was ripped open by rioters and the foetus was flung out at the point of a sword. The gruesome incident was seen as the worst-possible example of medieval vandalism in the modern age.
Riots
The wait for justice for Gujarat's riot victims is still not over
Last week, eight years after the alleged incident, Dr J.S. Kanoria, who conducted the post-mortem on Kausarbanu's body on March 2, 2002, denied that any such incident had ever happened. Instead, he told the court: "After the post-mortem, I found that her foetus was intact and that she had died of burns suffered during the riot." Later Kanoria, 40, told INDIA TODAY, "I have told the court what I had already written in my post-mortem report eight years ago. The press should have checked the report before believing that her womb was ripped open. As far as I remember, I did her post-mortem at noon on March 2, 2002."
A careful study of the three police complaints, claiming that Kausarbanu's womb was ripped open by the rioters, shows several loopholes. While one complaint accuses Guddu Chara, one of the main accused in the Naroda Patiya case, of ripping open Kausarbanu's womb, extracting her foetus and flinging it with a sword; another complaint accuses Babu Bajrangi, yet another accused in the case, of doing the act. A third complaint, on the other hand, does not name the accused but describes the alleged act.
Modi will also have reasons to smile at the affidavits filed by the Muslim witnesses in the SC in 2003 at the behest of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Teesta Setalvad on the basis of which the trial in nine cases were stalled for six long years. The most glaring hole is in the affidavit of Nanumiya Malek, a key witness in the Naroda Gam case. In his affidavit before the SC filed on November 15, 2003, Malek stated that a newly married woman called Madina, who lost four of her relatives, including her husband in the riots, had been raped by the rioters.
Dr
"Her (Kausarbanu) foetus was intact and she had died of burns suffered during the riot."
Dr J.S. KANORIA
Malek's affidavit states: "I was witness to the crimes of murder and rape that took place on Madina and her family. I also saw seven people being burnt alive, including four orphans. I request the SC to keep the details of this rape victim confidential since she is alive and use it only for the purpose of trial and conviction of the rapists." But on May 5, 2009, in his statement before the SIT, Malek said: "I had wrongly claimed that Madina had been raped. I made the charge because of Teesta Setalvad's pressure. I kept on telling her not to include that charge in my affidavit, yet it was included." In her statement before the SIT on May 20, 2008, Madina, who has remarried now, said: "The charge made by Malek claiming that I was raped by a riotous mob is false. I wasn't raped. When the riotous mob put my house on fire, I tried to run but was attacked by a rioter who injured me with a knife. Later I managed to merge in a Muslim crowd."
There are six other affidavits filed by different Muslim witnesses on November 15, 2003, that wantonly allege rape in the Naroda Gam and Naroda Patiya riot cases without giving any details. Interestingly, all the affidavits have a uniform language: "Over 110 persons were not simply killed, but raped and mutilated as well, including young children. We urge the SC to stay the trials and transfer them to a neighbouring state and also order fresh investigation." The affidavits state that they had been filed at the behest of Setalvad and in the presence of her co-activist
Rais Khan.
Nanumiya
"I had wrongly claimed that Madina was raped. I made the charge because of Teesta Setalvad's pressure."
NANUMIYA MALEK
If this wasn't enough, other glaring attempts by human rights activists to tutor witnesses have come to the fore. For example, soon after the Gulberg massacre in which Ehsan Jafri was killed, nearly a dozen Muslim witnesses told the police that Jafri had fired in self-defence, killed a rioter and injured 14 others. They also said that this led the mob to resort to violence and attack Muslims in Gulberg with vengeance. But almost half of them who deposed before the special court have retracted from this statement. The statement of Imtiaz Pathan in the Gulberg trial also raises eyebrows. He told the special court that before being killed, Jafri told him that Narendra Modi abused him (Jafri) on phone when he sought protection during a mob attack. Incidentally, there is no record available of Jafri having made any call to Modi. Pathan didn't name Modi in the first police statement he made soon after the riots. Interestingly, he has also identified as many as 27 individual attackers from a mob of thousands of rioters.
When the SIT started taking statements of witnesses in the Gulberg Society case, around 20 witnesses came with typed statements. But the SIT objected to it, citing Section 161 of the CRPC, saying that the police must record the statement of a witness. So when the SIT forced the witnesses to give their statement during the interrogation, there was a vast difference between the 'readymade typed' statements and the oral evidence that the police had received earlier.
As a senior lawyer defending the accused puts it: "The witnesses under the influence of the human rights activists didn't allow videotaping of their statements while they were being recorded. There is an obvious attempt on the part of activists to dictate not just the SIT, but also the courts." Last week, INDIA TODAY quizzed Setalvad about the charge of tutoring the witnesses and creating false evidence before the courts in the 2002 Gujarat riot cases.
Her response: "I am under no obligation to respond to your questions." The human rights activists' band seems to believe that one side's suffering is greater than the other's.
Credibility Gap
Then
In his petition before the SC, Nanumiya Malek, a key witness in the Naroda Gam case, says that a married woman called Madina had been raped by rioters.
Now
Malek later told the SIT that Madina's rape was an accusation put forth at the behest of Teesta Setalvad. Madina also denied the charge.
Then
For the past eight years, human rights activists and Naroda Patiya victims have alleged that the rioters ripped open the womb of the pregnant Kausarbanu.
Now
Dr J.S. Kanoria, who conducted a post-mortem on Kausarbanu's body, says she died of burns during the riot and that her womb was intact.
Then
While reinvestigating the Gulberg case, the SIT comes across nearly 20 witnesses who came with their readymade, typed statements to which the SIT objects.
Now
The Muslim witnesses refuse to videotape their statements. The statements that are recorded by the SIT do not match the readymade statements.
Then
Imtiaz Pathan, a key witness in the Gulberg case, tells the special court that Ehsan Jafri was abused by Modi when Jafri called the latter seeking his help during the riots.
Now
The SIT has not been able to find any evidence or a record of Ehsan Jafri making a phone call to Narendra Modi.
Then
In their 2003 SC petition, Muslim witnesses accused the rioters of raping women. As a result, the trials of nine major cases were stalled for over six years. Now
In their statements made before the SC-appointed SIT, the witnesses haven't accused the rioters of raping women. by Uday Mahurkar.[India Today]
http://madhavibhuta.blogspot.com/2010/04/post-godhra-riotsthe-other-side-of.html
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Godhra, what happened?
Monday, March 15, 2010 The Godhra incident, what actually happened?
After the recent summons from SIT for Gujarat CM Narendra Modi, it may interest some to refresh their memory of what happened at Godhra. The following is a friend's research, of the history of the Godhra incident.
LINK
On Feb 27
The Godhra massacre occurred on February 27 at 8 AM. At 8:30 AM –Chief Minister Narendra Modi- then in Ahmedabad- was informed about the carnage. Modi then went to visit Godhra. Modi visited the railway platform-and here gave ‘shoot-at-sight’ orders.
The Hindu in its issue dated 28 February 2002 reported that-
“The Chief Minister Narendra Modi gave shoot-at-sight orders in Godhra”.
The same day (Feb 28)- The Times of India reported in a report titled
“Shoot-at-sight orders, curfew in Godhra” -
“The Gujarat government imposed an indefinite curfew and issued shoot-at-sight orders in Godhra after 57 people were killed and several injured when a mob set the Sabarmati express on fire." The Tribune also reported this.
All English dailies the next reported this- and websites like rediff.com also reported this- and so did many foreign newspapers.
The Daily Breeze- a US newspaper- reported on 28 February-
“Fearing the attack would ignite sectarian riots, Indian officials immediately stepped up security across this vast, religiously divided nation. The prime minister urged Hindus not to retaliate.”
The same day- the website rediff.com also reported that the state government had taken all precautions and tightened security to prevent riots.
After this- Narendra Modi returned to Ahmedabad in the evening. On his return to Ahmedabad- 827 people were arrested as a preventive measure. Narendra Modi said this in an interview to India Today weekly dated 18 March 2002- and this is on official records. India Today dated 18 March 2002 also says that preventive arrests were made on Feb 27- without giving the number.
The same day-on February 27- the Gujarat government deployed the entire police force of 70,000 in Gujarat- as per the report of The Hindustan Times dated 28 February 2002- in view of the apprehension that riots may break out in retaliation of burning down of Hindu pilgrims at Godhra.
The Telegraph of UK in its issue of 28th February also reported that more than 70,000 security men had been deployed in Gujarat on 27 February. These foreign dailies also reported that security had not only been tightened in Gujarat- but also in all places with sizable Muslim population in India- on 27 February.
The same day-on February 27- the Gujarat government deployed the Rapid Action Force in Ahmedabad and other sensitive areas and the Centre sent in the CRPF personnel.
This was reported by The Indian Express in its report dated 28 February 2002. The English daily Mid-Day also reported both these things in its issue of 28 Feb.
The Hindu- also reported on Feb 28 that-
“(On Feb 27) The state government has appealed to the people to maintain peace… The Home Minister said the Government was taking necessary steps to ensure that the disturbances did not spread during the bandh tomorrow (i.e. Feb 28).” This was reported by many newspapers on 28 February.
As per information put up on the site www.indianembassy.org -the state also requested for additional forces from Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan. Two companies of Maharashtra Reserve Police Force arrived and were deployed in Surat.
On Feb 28
India Today's report dated 18 March 2002 gives following information:
1- Entire police force of Ahmedabad was deployed on Feb 28–total 6000- out of which only 1500 were armed. The size of the mobs was unprecedented on Feb 28 and the police forces were woefully short.
2- Even though Rapid Action Force was deployed- it too could not prevent the violence.
3- Ahmedabad police received 3500 calls on Feb 28- against an average of 200.
4- Ahmedabad Fire Brigade- which has the capacity to handle 100 calls received 400 calls on that day.
5- The statement of the then Ahmedabad Police Commissioner P.C. Pande also shows that the situation was out of control.
The leading most English daily from South India- The Hindu reported on 1st March 2002- covering events of 28 February –
“The Army units, frantically called by the Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, as the situation seemed to slip out of hand, started arriving in Ahmedabad and are likely to be deployed in the city on Friday.(i.e. 1st March 2002)”
India Today (11 March 2002- covering events till Feb 28)reported on February 28 itself that the Army had been called into Gujarat and that the Chief Minister was caught in a difficult situation.
The police fired 1,000 rounds on Feb 28. A total of 10 Hindus were shot dead in police firing in Ahmedabad alone- and 26 were injured. These are official government figures- and also can be seen from the report of The Hindu- dated 1 March 2002-
“At least 30 others were killed in police firing, stabbing and other incidents in different parts of the city while the casualty in other cities and towns in the State was put at over 50…
Till evening, police fired 46 rounds in Ahmedabad, in which at least 10 persons were believed to have been killed.”
The Indian Express and The Hindu both reported on 1st March 2002 itself that Army units started arriving in Ahmedabad on the night of Feb 28. They reached so quickly that these dailies had time to report their arrival and publish it the next day. Indian Express also reported George Fernandes' arrival at 1:00 am in the morning of 1st March- in its issue of 1st March itself.
The Indian Express in its online edition of Feb 28 reported at 4:29 PM that 1,000 paramilitary forces are being desptached to Gujarat- on Narendra Modi's request.
CURFEW WAS PLACED IN 26 TOWNS AND CITIES ON FEB 28 ITSELF- as per the reports of all newspapers the next day. The Hindu reported on 1st march 2002-
"An indefinite curfew has been clamped in 26 cities and towns in the State, including parts of Ahmedabad, Surat, Baroda, Rajkot, Nadiad, Anand and Kaira in addition to the indefinite curfew in force in Godhra since Wednesday.”
On 1st March
On the next day- i.e. 1st March 2002- the Army staged a flag march in Ahmedabad at 11:30 AM. The Hindu reported on 2nd March 2002-
“The Army began flag marches in the worst-affected areas of Ahmedabad, Baroda, Rajkot and Godhra cities and the `shoot at sight’ order was extended to all 34 curfew-bound cities and towns in Gujarat”. The title of the report itself was- “Shoot orders in many Gujarat towns, toll over 200”.
The Indian Express reported on 2nd March-
“The police, its credibility lowest than ever, tried to salvage its reputation intervening in some clashes by opening fire. Twenty were killed in police firing across the state, 12 in Ahmedabad. (On 1st March 2002)”
On 1st March 2002- the Police saved 2,500 Muslims from certain death when they were attacked by 8,000 armed tribals in Sanjeli, a town in North Gujarat. This was reported by weekly India Today in its issue dated 22 April 2002.
On March 2
On the third day of the riots- i.e. 2nd March 2002- the police shotdead 47 people in Gujarat- including 19 in Ahmedabad- as per the report of The Hindu dated 3rd March 2002. The Hindu reported-
“Even while claiming that the situation was improving, Mr. Modi said the police fired at least 1,031 rounds in different parts of the State since last night besides bursting 1,614 teargas shells to disperse violent mobs. While 19 people were killed in police firing in Ahmedabad and eight in Godhra, six people were killed in police firing in Baroda, five in Anand, three each in Mehsana and Gandhinagar, two in Kaira and one in Bhavnagar.”
The same day- The Indian Express reported- “(One 2nd March)The toll went up to over 450 as police recovered more bodies and 77 more people were killed either in police or Army firing”.
India Today dated 22 April 2002 says-
"In the carnage that ensued after the February 27 Godhra killings, 8,000 armed tribals descended on the town of 8,000 in the tribal heartland of Dahod district (i.e. Sanjeli). Bows, stones and gunshots rained on the fleeing Muslims, killing 15. Police intervention meant another 2,500 were spared a savage death … In an identical display of insanity, around 7,000 armed tribals marched into Bodeli town in Chotte-Udepur tribal area of Vadodara district intent on massacring the Muslims who had taken shelter there after being driven out of the neighbouring villages. While hundreds were saved by the police, Vadodara District Collector Bhagyesh Jha and other senior officers were fired upon by tribals as they tried to rescue the trapped Muslims.
Tragedy was also averted by the police and army at Viramgam town near Ahmedabad where over 15,000 Hindus, mostly armed OBC Thakores, burnt 250 Muslim houses…”
The website www.indianembassy.org seems to be an official site of the Indian Embassy in USA. It says-
“In Mora village of Panchmahal district, SDM, Mamlatdar and police rushed to the spot where the crowd was gathered, dispersed the crowd and saved the lives of 400 people by shifting them to a safe place.
On receipt of information on 3rd March 2002 a madarsa in
Asoj, in Vagodia,Vadodara district was likely to be attacked, nearly 40 persons including 22 children were evacuated to a safe place.
On the night of 2/3 March 2002, in Dahod, the police escorted over 2000 persons belonging to minority community to a safe place, rescuing them from the mob that had gathered from surrounding 28 villages.
In Surat city, protection was provided to about 60 persons and mosque in Nana Varacha area.
On receipt of information that some women and children were trapped in a mosque, Surat police escorted them to a safe place.
On receipt of information that 100 persons were trapped near Rita society opposite Yateem Khana Jain Mandir, the police immediately rushed there and dispersed the mob, but found no persons trapped inside. Surat police immediately provided protection requested for by 12-15 houses of Muslims near Khoja Masjid.”
Police records and figures given by the Union Home Ministry as well as figures given by weekly India Today in its issue dated 18 March 2002 reveal that as many as 98 people were killed in the first three days in police firing.
As per official government figures given to B P Singhal-whp wrote in an article in Organsier dated 9 October 2005-
"The truth is that the total number of riot-related accused that came to light in entire Gujarat was 25,486 (17,489 Hindus and 7,997 Muslims). The efficiency of the Police can be gauged from the fact that out of the above mentioned number, as many as 25,204 accused were arrested- out of which 17,348 were Hindus and 7,856 were Muslims. The police in Gujarat was therefore not sleeping at any time.
The maximum number of relief camps opened up during riots was 159. At a given point of time the figure varied as certain camps were closed down and certain new camps were opened up. As on 5.3.2002, out of the 98 refugee/relief camps opened, 85 were for Muslims while 13 were for Hindus… On the other hand, there was a contrast of night and day in the versions of riots as projected by the national English media as against the sharply contrasting versions appearing in the local Gujarati papers of all hues…”
Until 18 April 2002-more Hindus were killed in police firing than Muslims. As per the Telegraph dated 21 April 2002- as on 6 April 2002- 77 Hindus were killed in police firing out od total 126 killed in police firing by then. The final figures are 77 Hindus and 93 Muslims- because after 3rd March 2002- riots were almost all started by Muslims.
*
Please gather some courage and read this and mull this. And try to rebut.
After the recent summons from SIT for Gujarat CM Narendra Modi, it may interest some to refresh their memory of what happened at Godhra. The following is a friend's research, of the history of the Godhra incident.
LINK
On Feb 27
The Godhra massacre occurred on February 27 at 8 AM. At 8:30 AM –Chief Minister Narendra Modi- then in Ahmedabad- was informed about the carnage. Modi then went to visit Godhra. Modi visited the railway platform-and here gave ‘shoot-at-sight’ orders.
The Hindu in its issue dated 28 February 2002 reported that-
“The Chief Minister Narendra Modi gave shoot-at-sight orders in Godhra”.
The same day (Feb 28)- The Times of India reported in a report titled
“Shoot-at-sight orders, curfew in Godhra” -
“The Gujarat government imposed an indefinite curfew and issued shoot-at-sight orders in Godhra after 57 people were killed and several injured when a mob set the Sabarmati express on fire." The Tribune also reported this.
All English dailies the next reported this- and websites like rediff.com also reported this- and so did many foreign newspapers.
The Daily Breeze- a US newspaper- reported on 28 February-
“Fearing the attack would ignite sectarian riots, Indian officials immediately stepped up security across this vast, religiously divided nation. The prime minister urged Hindus not to retaliate.”
The same day- the website rediff.com also reported that the state government had taken all precautions and tightened security to prevent riots.
After this- Narendra Modi returned to Ahmedabad in the evening. On his return to Ahmedabad- 827 people were arrested as a preventive measure. Narendra Modi said this in an interview to India Today weekly dated 18 March 2002- and this is on official records. India Today dated 18 March 2002 also says that preventive arrests were made on Feb 27- without giving the number.
The same day-on February 27- the Gujarat government deployed the entire police force of 70,000 in Gujarat- as per the report of The Hindustan Times dated 28 February 2002- in view of the apprehension that riots may break out in retaliation of burning down of Hindu pilgrims at Godhra.
The Telegraph of UK in its issue of 28th February also reported that more than 70,000 security men had been deployed in Gujarat on 27 February. These foreign dailies also reported that security had not only been tightened in Gujarat- but also in all places with sizable Muslim population in India- on 27 February.
The same day-on February 27- the Gujarat government deployed the Rapid Action Force in Ahmedabad and other sensitive areas and the Centre sent in the CRPF personnel.
This was reported by The Indian Express in its report dated 28 February 2002. The English daily Mid-Day also reported both these things in its issue of 28 Feb.
The Hindu- also reported on Feb 28 that-
“(On Feb 27) The state government has appealed to the people to maintain peace… The Home Minister said the Government was taking necessary steps to ensure that the disturbances did not spread during the bandh tomorrow (i.e. Feb 28).” This was reported by many newspapers on 28 February.
As per information put up on the site www.indianembassy.org -the state also requested for additional forces from Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan. Two companies of Maharashtra Reserve Police Force arrived and were deployed in Surat.
On Feb 28
India Today's report dated 18 March 2002 gives following information:
1- Entire police force of Ahmedabad was deployed on Feb 28–total 6000- out of which only 1500 were armed. The size of the mobs was unprecedented on Feb 28 and the police forces were woefully short.
2- Even though Rapid Action Force was deployed- it too could not prevent the violence.
3- Ahmedabad police received 3500 calls on Feb 28- against an average of 200.
4- Ahmedabad Fire Brigade- which has the capacity to handle 100 calls received 400 calls on that day.
5- The statement of the then Ahmedabad Police Commissioner P.C. Pande also shows that the situation was out of control.
The leading most English daily from South India- The Hindu reported on 1st March 2002- covering events of 28 February –
“The Army units, frantically called by the Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, as the situation seemed to slip out of hand, started arriving in Ahmedabad and are likely to be deployed in the city on Friday.(i.e. 1st March 2002)”
India Today (11 March 2002- covering events till Feb 28)reported on February 28 itself that the Army had been called into Gujarat and that the Chief Minister was caught in a difficult situation.
The police fired 1,000 rounds on Feb 28. A total of 10 Hindus were shot dead in police firing in Ahmedabad alone- and 26 were injured. These are official government figures- and also can be seen from the report of The Hindu- dated 1 March 2002-
“At least 30 others were killed in police firing, stabbing and other incidents in different parts of the city while the casualty in other cities and towns in the State was put at over 50…
Till evening, police fired 46 rounds in Ahmedabad, in which at least 10 persons were believed to have been killed.”
The Indian Express and The Hindu both reported on 1st March 2002 itself that Army units started arriving in Ahmedabad on the night of Feb 28. They reached so quickly that these dailies had time to report their arrival and publish it the next day. Indian Express also reported George Fernandes' arrival at 1:00 am in the morning of 1st March- in its issue of 1st March itself.
The Indian Express in its online edition of Feb 28 reported at 4:29 PM that 1,000 paramilitary forces are being desptached to Gujarat- on Narendra Modi's request.
CURFEW WAS PLACED IN 26 TOWNS AND CITIES ON FEB 28 ITSELF- as per the reports of all newspapers the next day. The Hindu reported on 1st march 2002-
"An indefinite curfew has been clamped in 26 cities and towns in the State, including parts of Ahmedabad, Surat, Baroda, Rajkot, Nadiad, Anand and Kaira in addition to the indefinite curfew in force in Godhra since Wednesday.”
On 1st March
On the next day- i.e. 1st March 2002- the Army staged a flag march in Ahmedabad at 11:30 AM. The Hindu reported on 2nd March 2002-
“The Army began flag marches in the worst-affected areas of Ahmedabad, Baroda, Rajkot and Godhra cities and the `shoot at sight’ order was extended to all 34 curfew-bound cities and towns in Gujarat”. The title of the report itself was- “Shoot orders in many Gujarat towns, toll over 200”.
The Indian Express reported on 2nd March-
“The police, its credibility lowest than ever, tried to salvage its reputation intervening in some clashes by opening fire. Twenty were killed in police firing across the state, 12 in Ahmedabad. (On 1st March 2002)”
On 1st March 2002- the Police saved 2,500 Muslims from certain death when they were attacked by 8,000 armed tribals in Sanjeli, a town in North Gujarat. This was reported by weekly India Today in its issue dated 22 April 2002.
On March 2
On the third day of the riots- i.e. 2nd March 2002- the police shotdead 47 people in Gujarat- including 19 in Ahmedabad- as per the report of The Hindu dated 3rd March 2002. The Hindu reported-
“Even while claiming that the situation was improving, Mr. Modi said the police fired at least 1,031 rounds in different parts of the State since last night besides bursting 1,614 teargas shells to disperse violent mobs. While 19 people were killed in police firing in Ahmedabad and eight in Godhra, six people were killed in police firing in Baroda, five in Anand, three each in Mehsana and Gandhinagar, two in Kaira and one in Bhavnagar.”
The same day- The Indian Express reported- “(One 2nd March)The toll went up to over 450 as police recovered more bodies and 77 more people were killed either in police or Army firing”.
India Today dated 22 April 2002 says-
"In the carnage that ensued after the February 27 Godhra killings, 8,000 armed tribals descended on the town of 8,000 in the tribal heartland of Dahod district (i.e. Sanjeli). Bows, stones and gunshots rained on the fleeing Muslims, killing 15. Police intervention meant another 2,500 were spared a savage death … In an identical display of insanity, around 7,000 armed tribals marched into Bodeli town in Chotte-Udepur tribal area of Vadodara district intent on massacring the Muslims who had taken shelter there after being driven out of the neighbouring villages. While hundreds were saved by the police, Vadodara District Collector Bhagyesh Jha and other senior officers were fired upon by tribals as they tried to rescue the trapped Muslims.
Tragedy was also averted by the police and army at Viramgam town near Ahmedabad where over 15,000 Hindus, mostly armed OBC Thakores, burnt 250 Muslim houses…”
The website www.indianembassy.org seems to be an official site of the Indian Embassy in USA. It says-
“In Mora village of Panchmahal district, SDM, Mamlatdar and police rushed to the spot where the crowd was gathered, dispersed the crowd and saved the lives of 400 people by shifting them to a safe place.
On receipt of information on 3rd March 2002 a madarsa in
Asoj, in Vagodia,Vadodara district was likely to be attacked, nearly 40 persons including 22 children were evacuated to a safe place.
On the night of 2/3 March 2002, in Dahod, the police escorted over 2000 persons belonging to minority community to a safe place, rescuing them from the mob that had gathered from surrounding 28 villages.
In Surat city, protection was provided to about 60 persons and mosque in Nana Varacha area.
On receipt of information that some women and children were trapped in a mosque, Surat police escorted them to a safe place.
On receipt of information that 100 persons were trapped near Rita society opposite Yateem Khana Jain Mandir, the police immediately rushed there and dispersed the mob, but found no persons trapped inside. Surat police immediately provided protection requested for by 12-15 houses of Muslims near Khoja Masjid.”
Police records and figures given by the Union Home Ministry as well as figures given by weekly India Today in its issue dated 18 March 2002 reveal that as many as 98 people were killed in the first three days in police firing.
As per official government figures given to B P Singhal-whp wrote in an article in Organsier dated 9 October 2005-
"The truth is that the total number of riot-related accused that came to light in entire Gujarat was 25,486 (17,489 Hindus and 7,997 Muslims). The efficiency of the Police can be gauged from the fact that out of the above mentioned number, as many as 25,204 accused were arrested- out of which 17,348 were Hindus and 7,856 were Muslims. The police in Gujarat was therefore not sleeping at any time.
The maximum number of relief camps opened up during riots was 159. At a given point of time the figure varied as certain camps were closed down and certain new camps were opened up. As on 5.3.2002, out of the 98 refugee/relief camps opened, 85 were for Muslims while 13 were for Hindus… On the other hand, there was a contrast of night and day in the versions of riots as projected by the national English media as against the sharply contrasting versions appearing in the local Gujarati papers of all hues…”
Until 18 April 2002-more Hindus were killed in police firing than Muslims. As per the Telegraph dated 21 April 2002- as on 6 April 2002- 77 Hindus were killed in police firing out od total 126 killed in police firing by then. The final figures are 77 Hindus and 93 Muslims- because after 3rd March 2002- riots were almost all started by Muslims.
*
Please gather some courage and read this and mull this. And try to rebut.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Badrinath temple
Badrinath temple is dedicated to Lord Vishnu. Hindus also call it Badri Vishal.
Temple is located at about 10,500 feet above mean sea level in Alaknanda Valley, in Badrinath town, Uttaranchal Pradesh. It flanked by two mountain ranges called Nar and Narayan [man and God]. It is one of the Four Dhams, in four corners of India. The temple is actually very old, being mentioned in ancient scriptures, but the present one established by Shankracharya about 810 AD and has been standing there as it is.
Badrinath Temple is opened on Basant Panchami [1st May this tear] and closes for winter on Vijaydashmi. Thus, the temple opens every year in the month of April-May and closes for winters in the third week of November. Joshimath is the winter deity of Badrinath.
On the first day of opening thousands of pilgrims from all over India and abroad line up for entry from mid night.
The hotel accommodation is not much but voluntary organizations provide free board and lodge. The devotees may drop something in the donation boxes of those places.
Temple is about 15 M tall, with a gold covered cupola. The front wall is built of stone with arched windows. The hall inside is supported by pillars of kasauti [touch stone] stone.
The present form of the temple looks quite “modern”one as it aws was renovated extensively by the king of Garhwal in 1805.
Hmm. The locaion of the temple is vulerable to land slides, but then the Himalyas are themselves unstable!
Friday, April 24, 2009
Atman or Self aka soul
Atman or Self aka soul
Chandogya Upanishad
Upanishads are philosophical works, have have discussed a wide ranging topics in philosophy. They are source of Indian philosophy. Even Buddha drew his ideas from them.
1. Prajapati said: "The Self which is free from sin, free from old age, free from death, free from grief, free from hunger, free from thirst, whose desires come true and whose thoughts come true - That it is which should be searched out, That it is which one should desire to understand. He who has known this Self from the scriptures and a teacher and understood It obtains all the worlds and all desires.
Indra, the chief god came and desired to be instructed about Self.
24.1.144. Chapter VII - The Person in the Eye
4. Prajapati said to them: "The person that is seen in the eye - that is the Self." He further said: "This is immortal, fearless. This is Brahman."
They asked: "Venerable Sir, he who is perceived in the water and he who is perceived in a mirror - which of these is he?"
Prajapati replied: "The same one, indeed, is perceived in all these."
Indra pondered on this and his doubts cropped up.
"As this reflection in the water is well adorned when the body is well adorned, well dressed when the body is well dressed, clean when the body is clean, so this reflection in the water will be blind if the body is blind, one - eyed if the body is one - eyed, crippled if the body is crippled and will perish if the body perishes.
2. "I do not see any good in this doctrine." He returned and expressed his doubts.
3. "So it is Indra," replied Prajapati. "I shall explain the Self to you further.
Prajapati accepted the objections.
*****
24.1.147. Chapter X - The Dream Self
Prajapati next taught:
1 - 2. "He who moves about, exalted, in dreams - this is the Self, this is immortal, fearless. This is Brahman."
Indra thought again, but he had more doubts. So he returned and expressed the same.
"Although this dream self is not blind even if the body is blind, nor do its eyes and nose run when the eyes and nose of the body run; although this self is not affected by the defects of the body,
"Nor killed when it (the body) is killed, nor one - eyed when it is one - eyed - yet they kill it (the dream self), as it were; they chase it, as it were. It becomes conscious of pain, as it were; it weeps, as it were. I do not see any good in this doctrine."
"So it is, Indra," replied Prajapati. "I shall explain the Self further to you."
Then Prajapati said to Indra
24.1.148. Chapter XI - The Self in Dreamless Sleep
1. "When a man is asleep, with senses withdrawn and serene and sees no dream - that is the Self. This is immortal, fearless. This is Brahman."
Indra was not automaton. He thought and found difficulties.
He (Indra) said: "Venerable Sir, in truth it (i.e. the self in dreamless sleep) does not know itself as 'I am it,' nor these other creatures. It has therefore reached utter annihilation, as it were. I do not see any good in this."
3. "So it is, Indra," replied Prajapati. "I shall explain the Self further to you and nothing else.
Then Prajapati said to him:
24.1.149. Chapter XII - The Incorporeal Self
1. "O Indra, this body is mortal, always held by death. It is the abode of the Self which is immortal and incorporeal. The embodied self is the victim of pleasure and pain. So long as one is identified with the body, there is no cessation of pleasure and pain. But neither pleasure nor pain touches one who is not identified with the body.
2 - 3. "The wind is without body; the cloud, lightning and thunder are without body. Now, as these, arising from yonder akasa and reaching the highest light, appear in their own forms,
"So does this serene Being, arising from this body and reaching the Highest Light, appear in His own form. In that state He is the Highest Person. There He moves about, laughing, playing, rejoicing - be it with women, chariots, or relatives, never thinking of the body into which he was born.
"As an animal is attached to a cart, so is the prana (i.e. the conscious self) attached to the body.
4. "When the person in the eye resides in the body, he resides where the organ of sight has entered into the akasa (i.e. the pupil of the eye); the eye is the instrument of seeing. He who is aware of the thought: 'Let me smell this,' he is the Self; the nose is the instrument of smelling. He who is aware of the thought: 'Let me speak,' he is the Self; the tongue is the instrument of speaking. He who is aware of the thought: 'Let me hear,' he is the Self; the ear is the instrument of hearing.
5. "He who is aware of the thought: 'Let me think this,' he is the Self; the mind is his divine eye. He, the Self sees all these desires in the World of Brahman through the divine eye, the mind and rejoices.
6. "The gods meditate on that Self. Therefore all worlds belong to them and all desires. He who knows that Self and understands It obtains all worlds and all desires." Thus said Prajapati, yea, thus said Prajapati.
The book ends with:
Om ! Let my limbs and speech, Prana, eyes, ears, vitality
And all the senses grow in strength.
All existence is the Brahman.
May I never deny Brahman, nor Brahman deny me.
Let there be no denial at all:
Let there be no denial at least from me.
May the virtues that are proclaimed in the Upanishads be in me,
Who am devoted to the Atman; may they reside in me.
Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !
In many of the Upanishads [108 in number], a step by step approach is followed.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Obama under Indian lens
Obama under Indian lens
It appears that Obama might visit India soon. People would be looking at the event with interest. One set of admirers would no doubt applaud his color, without reference to his stance about India. Another set, less given to emotions, would look quite critically, and comparisons with Bush would inevitable. Of course, this visit will take only after the general elections in India are over and dust settles considerably. I am sure his advisers will advise him on this aspect, and not rush such a visit.
The popular, but quite a misleading perception here is that the Bush administration was more favourably disposed towards India and that the Obama policies may be more prickly for the mandarins in New Delhi.
But, this perception is partially [only partially] true. Bush was seized with one big idea: to improve America’s bilateral relationship with India, which had been estranged over the nuclear issue. Hence the singleminded determination with which he pursued the July 2005 civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, firmly overruling the objections of the non-proliferation zealots in the Beltway. Though here too the opinions are split. In contrast, Obama is keen on pouring money into Pakistan, to the chagrin of India.
USA is generally viewed as an unreliable strategic partner, and USA does not have an exactly a big share of Indian arms shopping. Time and again American military manufacturers have submitted their hardware for evaluation, always to falter at export license. Spin off is still there for the manufacturers, as their equipment is put to exacting tests and evaluation. And Indian evaluations go far, very very far. On this score Obama is yet to tested, and who knows he might as well pass too.
The bilateral relations have been at very frustrating cusp, and only a little push is all that is required to hurtle them this or that way. The US military-industrial complex aware of this, post-May 1998, that engagement with India was in Washington’s larger interest. But Bush does not appear to have pursued this with diligence.
While Bush kept himself clear of Kashmir issue, Obama tried to rush in. But fortunately, wiser counsels have prevailed and he back tracked from a pro-active [read anti India] stance. But his initial moves are not likely to be forgotten in a hurry, and an element of suspicion would remain.
But only the future would tell.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Nomophobia
Nomophobia
While Brahma was seeing into the distant future, He murmured: This NOMOPHOBIA might be the nemesis of man.
These murmurs were heard across the universe, and Indra was disturbed, He hastened to Brahma and craved permission to ask a question. Permission was granted.
Indra: Sire, you murmured about Nomophobia. This word is so mysterious and incomprehensible.
Spake Brahma: Listen, O Indra. This word is made up of NO, MO(bile) and phobia. This is a new manifestation of FEAR, which will be apparent in in the 53rd century after the start of Kali yuga, also then known as 21st century AD.
Indra: Sire, why is this dreadful entity being allowed?
Brahma: Dear son, I am the Originator of knowledge. I permitted only the invention of mobile phones. A noble device, if used in righteous way. But man has base tendencies too. He can pervert any noble object. He will use mobile phones in a licentious ways, and thus allow it to dominate himself.
Indra: How is this phobia to be identified, Sire?? Man must be imparted this profound knowledge too, in my humble opinion.
Brahma: That will be so, Indra. Man has a right to knowledge. It is no sin to acquire it. In fact, it would be a grave injustice if this knowledge is withheld. But, son, it is for man to utilize that knowledge.
Indra: Sire, enlighten me.
Brahma: It's the fear of being out of mobile phone contact. This fear will be about running out of battery, credit, losing one's handset, being in places out of network coverage etc. Those suffering from fear of being in closed places like dungeons will suffer even more, as they may be out of the reach of the network coverage. And those dungeons, called basements, will be for righteous pursuits.
Indra: Sire, if I might ask. How wide spread will this phobia be??
Brahma: In the said century, WWW would be widespread. A godling called GOOGLE will help those men who are willing to be informed. About 53% of users will be affected by not having network coverage. Men will suffer more than women, because it is not the law that women must suffer more than men. About 48% of females and 58% of males will have manifested feelings of anxiety. Many would never switch off their mobile phones, even while they are sleeping.
O Indra, can you foresee the ill effects of the this phobia.
Indra: In my humble opinion, Sire, there will be wasteful expenditure of energy and resources. Mobile sets will run down fast, batteries will pack up quickly. Sire, only those artisans who make them will benefit by wordly riches. In an earlier audience, Sire, you had brought out the ill effects of such matters on the environments. Sire, this phobia is going to produce lots of new mess in the already messed up Kaliyuga. Sire, is their any remedy?? Sire, you must have the solution too, after all you not omniscient for nothing.
Brahma: I am pleased, O Indra, that you now have understood the perils of this fear. As for remedies, recall that the timeless message of Bhagavad Gita.
This fear is generated because of obsessive infatuation of worldly lusts. In this case, the lust will manifest as excessive desire to talk and chat. Mankind dread this phobia more than any other fear. Lusts enslave the senses of man. Man instead of mastering the senses and employing them for righteous pursuits, falls slave to them. Thus his freedom of will is weakened more and more. Those humans, who are enlightened about the righteous use of mobile phones and perils of unrighteous use thereof will not suffer. There will be few of them, but then those few are who uphold the order of the world from crumbling.
Go forth, Indra, and impart this knowledge to humans. Don't be disheartened that only a few would absorb this sacred and profound teaching.
Thus ends the dialog between Indra and Brahma about Nomophobia, and is part of the Mobile Phone Upanishad, and penned down and published by Veda Vyasa.
PS: Mobile phone was invented, WWW was invented and Googleji, the presiding deity of search engines, has manifested itself. Indra verified these figures of affliction with the help of lord Google.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)