Hindustan Times
New Delhi, May 16, 2009
First Published: 18:34 IST(16/5/2009)
Last Updated: 18:42 IST(16/5/2009)
Hours later the people's verdict did not turn in the favour of Bhartiya Janata Party on Saturday, its veteran leader LK Advani has decided to quit as the leader of Opposition and possibly retire from active politics.
Talking to the reporters, BJP general secretary Arun Jaitely said that BJP board has not yet accepted Advani's offer to resign.
Till afternoon, the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance was a distant second, with leads in just about 100 seats.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Great moment
One of the greatest moment in history of India. Fascists forces have been defeated! A celebration time!
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
On Babri, it was BJP which made CBI crawl
Ritu Sarin Posted: Tuesday , May 05, 2009 at 0819 hrs IST
New Delhi: For all the moral high ground taken by the Bharatiya Janata Party that the CBI is the “Congress Bureau of Investigation” — especially after it brazenly took Bofors-accused Ottavio Quattrocchi off the wanted list — the fact is that the BJP-led NDA regime, in perhaps the most high-profile political case in its tenure, also over-ruled the agency reducing it to a rubber stamp. And, in the process, set the CBI up for another round of arm twisting by the UPA.
The matter: the decision of the CBI not to challenge the 2003 discharge of then Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani in the case related to his alleged inflammatory speeches during the Babri Masjid demolition.
Confidential files obtained by The Indian Express reveal how handling of the Advani discharge was as partisan as the CBI’s conduct in other politically sensitive probes reported by this newspaper in its ongoing investigative series. Top CBI officers, including at least two DIGs, one Joint Director and the Special Counsel proposed filing a revision petition after Advani was discharged by a Rae Bareli court. But it was once again the agency’s Director of Prosecution, S K Sharma, on whose opinion, the agency referred the matter to the Government’s top Law Officers.
New Delhi: For all the moral high ground taken by the Bharatiya Janata Party that the CBI is the “Congress Bureau of Investigation” — especially after it brazenly took Bofors-accused Ottavio Quattrocchi off the wanted list — the fact is that the BJP-led NDA regime, in perhaps the most high-profile political case in its tenure, also over-ruled the agency reducing it to a rubber stamp. And, in the process, set the CBI up for another round of arm twisting by the UPA.
The matter: the decision of the CBI not to challenge the 2003 discharge of then Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani in the case related to his alleged inflammatory speeches during the Babri Masjid demolition.
Confidential files obtained by The Indian Express reveal how handling of the Advani discharge was as partisan as the CBI’s conduct in other politically sensitive probes reported by this newspaper in its ongoing investigative series. Top CBI officers, including at least two DIGs, one Joint Director and the Special Counsel proposed filing a revision petition after Advani was discharged by a Rae Bareli court. But it was once again the agency’s Director of Prosecution, S K Sharma, on whose opinion, the agency referred the matter to the Government’s top Law Officers.
And, in a bizarre turn, these officers, Attorney General Soli Sorabjee and Solicitor General Kirit Raval referred the matter to an outsider, Chennai-based lawyer N Natarajan. Clearly, the issue of expressing an opinion in a case involving the Deputy Prime Minister was too hot to handle.
The CBI’s Advani headache got worse when the Congress came to power in 2004. Perhaps, for the first time in the agency’s history, the CBI received several strongly worded missives from the Congress-led UPA, asking for written explanations on how and on whose advice Advani’s discharge remained unchallenged.
When the CBI defended its stand, via a letter dated August 12, 2005, CBI Director U S Misra was asked by the Department of Personnel to “send the opinions of Attorney General and N Natarajan with your comments.”
The saving grace for CBI was the fact that even as this correspondence was being exchanged, on July 6, 2005, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Rae Bareli Magistrate’s discharge and directed the trial against Advani and seven others to commence.
The CBI was also made a respondent in this case where two private persons, Haji Mehboob and Hafiz Siddiq, had challenged Advani’s discharge. And during early arguments — announcing its volte face in a changed political scenario — CBI’s counsel, this time with UPA at the Centre, argued just the opposite: that the discharge be quashed!
A scrutiny of the sequence of events in the NDA regime, as per official records, reveals the carefully calibrated manner in which the CBI was forced to abandon the appeal against Advani’s discharge:
n The tone was set by S K Sharma, a Joint Secretary in the Law Ministry who for several years has been holding the post of Director of Prosecution in the CBI. In a 15-page opinion dated December 4, 2003, he concluded: “I feel the impugned order is evenly balanced and, to a considerable extent, the prosecution is on a weak wicket. However, considering the important question of law and fact involved, we should seek the opinion of any of the law officers of the Government of India on the point of feasibility of filing against the impugned order.”
n In a one-page note, U S Misra (then Special Director) reveals how the agency’s officers pushed for challenging the discharge. “I have gone through the comments of DIG (M Narayanan), DLA (Deputy Legal Advisor), Special Counsel (S S Gandhi), DIG (Lok Nath Behra), Joint Director (Vivek Dubey) and the DoP,” he wrote. “(These) Officers...except the DoP have recommended filing of a revision petition in the High Court.”
n Barely two days before he demitted office — December 4, 2003 — then CBI Director P C Sharma endorsed the DoP’s stand. And signed off: “I doubt whether we have a prosecutable case. Taking resort to such a course, I am afraid will only prolong the proceedings...I agree with DoP that the matter should be referred to the Attorney General...”
n But Attorney General Sorabjee, on December 11, 2003, skirted the issue. “It would be advisable and prudent, in order to obviate needless controversy, that the CBI consult N Natarajan, who is an eminent senior counsel..and seek his opinion in the...matter and act in accordance with it,” he wrote.
n Natarajan’s opinion came in six days later with the conclusion: “I am of the view that his (L K Advani’s) discharge is justified in the circumstances of the case and it is not appropriate to file a Revision Petition against his discharge.”
n With the Attorney General out of the country, it was Solicitor General Kirit Raval who gave the green light to the CBI. In his carefully worded opinion, on December 26, 2003, he endorses Natarajan’s view and tries to distance himself from it: “I am in agreement with the opinion of N Natarajan and therefore the CBI should act in accordance with Natarajan’s opinion, as stated in the latter of learned AG...”
Given all this, few in the CBI were surprised when Misra, who had by then taken over as Director, ruled in a six-page note: “No revision is to be filed against the order of discharge of Shri Advani...”
Reprisal followed when the UPA came in and struck back. In a letter dated August 12, 2005, the Department of Personnel asked the CBI to explain: “internal deliberations;” “the sequence of events” leading to seeking the AG’s opinion; “at what level it was decided” not to file an appeal; “internal mechanisms” of filing appeals; why the case was called “complex and sensitive” and to submit all opinions “with comments” to the Government.
Meanwhile, in the Rae Bareli court, developments were on track as far as the UPA Government was concerned. With the revision being allowed, charges against Advani and seven others were framed on July 28, 2005 and prosecutors handling the case say hearings are being held every month or so although frequently interrupted by adjournments.
The CBI’s lawyers say that to date four witnesses have been examined and of their list of 40 witnesses, they propose to call around 20 to depose. The next hearing is scheduled for May 16 — when the results come in and another set of wheels starts moving in the Law Ministry and the CBI.
The CBI’s Advani headache got worse when the Congress came to power in 2004. Perhaps, for the first time in the agency’s history, the CBI received several strongly worded missives from the Congress-led UPA, asking for written explanations on how and on whose advice Advani’s discharge remained unchallenged.
When the CBI defended its stand, via a letter dated August 12, 2005, CBI Director U S Misra was asked by the Department of Personnel to “send the opinions of Attorney General and N Natarajan with your comments.”
The saving grace for CBI was the fact that even as this correspondence was being exchanged, on July 6, 2005, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Rae Bareli Magistrate’s discharge and directed the trial against Advani and seven others to commence.
The CBI was also made a respondent in this case where two private persons, Haji Mehboob and Hafiz Siddiq, had challenged Advani’s discharge. And during early arguments — announcing its volte face in a changed political scenario — CBI’s counsel, this time with UPA at the Centre, argued just the opposite: that the discharge be quashed!
A scrutiny of the sequence of events in the NDA regime, as per official records, reveals the carefully calibrated manner in which the CBI was forced to abandon the appeal against Advani’s discharge:
n The tone was set by S K Sharma, a Joint Secretary in the Law Ministry who for several years has been holding the post of Director of Prosecution in the CBI. In a 15-page opinion dated December 4, 2003, he concluded: “I feel the impugned order is evenly balanced and, to a considerable extent, the prosecution is on a weak wicket. However, considering the important question of law and fact involved, we should seek the opinion of any of the law officers of the Government of India on the point of feasibility of filing against the impugned order.”
n In a one-page note, U S Misra (then Special Director) reveals how the agency’s officers pushed for challenging the discharge. “I have gone through the comments of DIG (M Narayanan), DLA (Deputy Legal Advisor), Special Counsel (S S Gandhi), DIG (Lok Nath Behra), Joint Director (Vivek Dubey) and the DoP,” he wrote. “(These) Officers...except the DoP have recommended filing of a revision petition in the High Court.”
n Barely two days before he demitted office — December 4, 2003 — then CBI Director P C Sharma endorsed the DoP’s stand. And signed off: “I doubt whether we have a prosecutable case. Taking resort to such a course, I am afraid will only prolong the proceedings...I agree with DoP that the matter should be referred to the Attorney General...”
n But Attorney General Sorabjee, on December 11, 2003, skirted the issue. “It would be advisable and prudent, in order to obviate needless controversy, that the CBI consult N Natarajan, who is an eminent senior counsel..and seek his opinion in the...matter and act in accordance with it,” he wrote.
n Natarajan’s opinion came in six days later with the conclusion: “I am of the view that his (L K Advani’s) discharge is justified in the circumstances of the case and it is not appropriate to file a Revision Petition against his discharge.”
n With the Attorney General out of the country, it was Solicitor General Kirit Raval who gave the green light to the CBI. In his carefully worded opinion, on December 26, 2003, he endorses Natarajan’s view and tries to distance himself from it: “I am in agreement with the opinion of N Natarajan and therefore the CBI should act in accordance with Natarajan’s opinion, as stated in the latter of learned AG...”
Given all this, few in the CBI were surprised when Misra, who had by then taken over as Director, ruled in a six-page note: “No revision is to be filed against the order of discharge of Shri Advani...”
Reprisal followed when the UPA came in and struck back. In a letter dated August 12, 2005, the Department of Personnel asked the CBI to explain: “internal deliberations;” “the sequence of events” leading to seeking the AG’s opinion; “at what level it was decided” not to file an appeal; “internal mechanisms” of filing appeals; why the case was called “complex and sensitive” and to submit all opinions “with comments” to the Government.
Meanwhile, in the Rae Bareli court, developments were on track as far as the UPA Government was concerned. With the revision being allowed, charges against Advani and seven others were framed on July 28, 2005 and prosecutors handling the case say hearings are being held every month or so although frequently interrupted by adjournments.
The CBI’s lawyers say that to date four witnesses have been examined and of their list of 40 witnesses, they propose to call around 20 to depose. The next hearing is scheduled for May 16 — when the results come in and another set of wheels starts moving in the Law Ministry and the CBI.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The reasons why Advani should not be Prime Minister
In India as electoral process is under way and the rightist groups led by BJP have been trying their best to capture power once again. Given the volatility of Indian electorate the right wingers might succeed in that and install their designate Prime Ministerial candidate into the chair. In a democracy, it should not pose any problem and it would constitute no big deal. However, a careful consideration of the record of previous NDA regime in which Advani was interior minister raises serious questions about his suitability to occupy the position of a Prime Minister. Advani through his own admission in his memoirs has confessed that he was not privy to the decision of handing over terrorists lodged in Indian jails to meet demands of hijackers of an Indian plane. That should speak volumes about his efficiency and also of the then government. It would be irresponsible to over look the consequences of that infamous decision of the NDA government because BJP brands itself as a party that is committed to fight terrorism. Two of the terrorists released in 1999 and escorted shamefully to Kandhar by the then external affairs minister Jaswant Singh were Azhar Masood and Omar Saeed Sheikh. Subsequent to their release, the name of Azhar Masood appeared in so many terrorist operations and many of which were directed again India. And Saeed Omar Sheikh infamously organized the kidnapping and subsequently brutal murder of The Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl. The civilized governments all over the world adhere to the principle of no-negotiation with terrorists under any threat, notwithstanding the seriousness of consequences. But one has just to recall how pitifully NDA government of the day crumbled under pressure and meekly surrendered. For all subsequent acts of terrorism by the released individuals, the part of blame, if not entirely, should belong to officials of that regime, which includes Advani. Advani was Deputy Prime Minister in that government and therefore should be answerable to some awkward questions that arose from the handling of that hijacking episode. How was the plane let to be flown from Amritsar? And who else was could be held responsible for that lapse other than the minister for internal security of the day, which was none other than Lal Krishan Advani. When and why was the decision to enter into negotiations with hijackers and surrender made? Why was the international standard of not any negotiations with terrorists shunned? And what was Advani as a member of the then cabinet doing if he was not aware of the decisions made as he has claimed in his book. It not only reeks of inefficiency but his earlier statements immediately after nuclear blasts by India also smack of immaturity. The age is no guarantee of wisdom and maturity and it is clear Advani is not up to the prime ministerial task that too in a period of complex international situations that require perseverance and maturity and not the outrageous view like scrapping of article 370.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The world view : Afghanistan
It is quite refreshing to see overall optimism and definitely a new sense of purpose on the world stage ever since Obama ascended Presidency of United States. The gratification stems from the fact that despite economic down turn one can see a glimmer of hope over the horizon. Down side of such a world view is that it can accompany complacency as the towering problems, regional imbalances and the wide spread chasm and deprivations cannot and will not disappear without being addressed squarely. The wrongs committed since time immemorial and aggravated and neglected during the Bush presidency due to lack of shear willingness or capacity to understand have created fragile situation which demand immediate genuine address. Unfortunately, there are no solutions, which can be pulled out by use of a magic wand but would require delicate hard work, willingness to understand and work towards assuaging the hurt sensibilities caused by years of ignorance and arrogance of powers to be. The region that requires immediate and without fail any attention is the conundrum in Afghanistan, which has has now almost overtaken much of polity and geography in Pakistan. One can be forgiven for being cynical about genuineness of the efforts being made, which brings the realization if problem is really understood. In the absence of basic and unbiased understanding no solution is going to have any lasting effect. Increase in the number of NATO troops in spring and a decrease in autumn, in an imitation of out of depth federal reserve and other world bankers in a desperate attempt to save capitalism, will definitely will not have any impact and will certainly not stop swelling of jihadi ranks. The impending implosion of Pakistan has its roots in its very creation and subsequent failure in establishment of a genuine political system and long unchecked periods of unbridled military regimes who did bidding for Western alliance up to the near end of cold war era. And the Western power while prophesying democracy had no scruples to deal with and encourage dictatorial military regimes in the country starting from Ayub Khan during to cold war era to Parvez Musharraf in the reign of war on terror. The parallel happenings in Afghanistan with deposition of King Zaheer in 1973 and subsequent violent changes of regimes until the ill conceived Soviet invasion in 1979 created a ground for the proxy battle between two super powers and both had no scruples in forwarding own interests at the cost of the fragile region including its impoverished population. The turmoil in Afghanistan spilled over to Pakistan in the form of refugees and the overlapping ethnic affinities in the frontier regions of two countries generated a common state of crisis, which regime in Pakistan set out to exploit to the hilt. The new found status as a front line state against spread of communism brought legitimacy to Zia-ul-Haq regime in Pakistan and opened the flood gate to Western and Middle Eastern aid in the form of cash and weaponry. Fighters of all hues, nationalists to fundamentalists, were all heavily rewarded for fight against soviet occupation and opium cultivation never was never a problem. In fact, the cash generated from the proceeds of drug pedaling was spent on arms for fight against Soviets. Westerner and Pakistan intelligence agencies joined hand in training jihadis. The scenario started unraveling aftere the collapse of soviet block and withdrawal of occupation force. Mujahideens and ward lords who had made profession out of their fight against communism, now turned on each and like never before a total chaos over took Kabul and rest of Afghanistan. This was the very oppurtune moment when west took its leave from the forsaken place and left it to fend itself.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Prime Minister in lurking: Narender Modi
Criminality always comes to haunt, notwithstanding the time elapsed. Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar will testify how their misdeeds over a quarter of century back refuse to be wished away. So the moral conclusion for Narender Modi should be very clear, whom sycophants have been trying to project as a latter day saviour of India. He cannot escape the day of reckoning for his crimes of either direct abetment or of criminal negligence of governance during 2002 Gujrat riots. The administration under his control watched congress MP Ehsan Jafri die and still apologists claim that Modi is innocent and he is the person who can lead India into future. If that is future India is heading, may be it is time to delve into the desensitized Indian conscience. If that was the fate of a MP, it should not take too much of an imagination to imagine happenings to less fortunate from minority community. That does not even concern corporate captains, who blinded by a common greed, see a visionary in Modi. The only problem with that so-called visionary is that his vision is flawed and bigoted.
BBC E-mail: Gujarat Muslims the 'living dead'
** Gujarat Muslims the 'living dead' **
The BBC's Soutik Biswas meets displaced victims of the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat for whom the Indian elections hold little meaning.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/8011615.stm >
Monday, April 27, 2009
Probe Narendra Modi's role in Gujarat riots: SC
New Delhi, April 27, 2009
Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, April 27, 2009
The Supreme Court on Monday asked a special probe panel formed by it to look into the allegations that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi along with over 50 other politicians and government officials had aided and abetted statewide communal riots in 2002.
A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly directed the panel headed by former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director R K Raghavan to particularly look into the allegations that Modi was involved in the killing of an MP in Ahmedabad's Gulbarga Society arson case.
The panel was asked to file its report within three months.
Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, April 27, 2009
The Supreme Court on Monday asked a special probe panel formed by it to look into the allegations that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi along with over 50 other politicians and government officials had aided and abetted statewide communal riots in 2002.
A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly directed the panel headed by former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director R K Raghavan to particularly look into the allegations that Modi was involved in the killing of an MP in Ahmedabad's Gulbarga Society arson case.
The panel was asked to file its report within three months.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Firaaq
During the Indian election season one can frequently hear voices yearning to have Narender Modi as next Prime Minister. One cannot help being cynic to see the nation of Mahatma become desensitized to the extent that a person under whose government worst possible communal riots were perpetrated is being touted as a saviour of the nation. Those who think of that carnage as a casual incidence are recommended to see 'Firaaq' where Nandita Das has recreated the sorry saga of aftermath of Gujarat riots. Every time there is a mention of that carnage people, never affected by anything in their lives, start indulging in mindless discussion about who started what. The fundamental truth remains no matter who started those riots Gujarat under Narender Modi was allowed to burn with official state machinery watching from the periphery and minority community made hapless under the unprecedented communal assault. The worst dictators in the history, removed from scene after wanton losses of lives, were hailed by sycophants as a good administrators. In all the bleakness the silver line in the form people like Nandita Das remain on the horizon to remind after all everything is not lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)