Book Review: Jammu & Kashmir: Dilemma of Accession

The Book is based on the writings of Smt Lila Bhan- the daughter of the then J&K PM Pandit Ramchandra Kak. Her writing in turn is based on the diary writings/notes of her father, and both these writings have been used by the author Radha Rajan, to write this Book, appending some of her own views.

Page 15 to 104, has been so confusing. That part of the Book has the author’s writing, but the it is so messed up that it is not clear what part is the view of the Author, and what part is just she quoting the writings of Lila Bhan (pages 123 onwards). This Book is primarily based on the writings of Smt Lila Bhan, and some portion is based on the quotes from VP Menon’s Book (IOIS), and some from the quotes from CWMG (Collected Works of MG).

But the point is, the beginning of the Book is so messed up. 

Part 1 - Part 3 (i.e. Page 15-88) in particular, is so badly written. It quotes 3 different books/writings and mixes those up with author’s own views. And the commentaries are made in jumbled sequence numbering which is so confusing. For example, on page 27 is a section with title “section IV RCK paper”, it had point 38, 40, and it goes to Section I point 18,19 etc. On page 55, is “Section VI”, it has point 4,5,6,7, and after point 7, comes some other content with point 10,11,12….16, and next point is 26!! And lo and behold, “Section VI” point 8, makes it entry NOW on page 64! Now, on page 64, there is point 8,9 and then 12!! Page 65 has two sections titled “Section 1”!! And on page 70, there comes “Section V”, with point 41, 42.

Hope you get that. The writing is so messed up in this section. It is as if the author has taken an oath to play with the minds of readers. These serious stuffs of Historical matters, are anyway a bit difficult to understand, so effort should have been made to write about them in an easy to understand way, in stead, the author has put least effort in that direction.

Now, about the views expressed by the author in this part of the Book (uptil Page 104):- I found it a bit motivated against Gandhi and Nehru and also found it to have completely ignored Patel’s role. 

The Book starts by putting the blame of partition on Gandhi (by alienating Muslims and by his flip-flop stand on the Cabinet Mission plan). It then moves on to putting the blame of the J&K’s delayed accession on Gandhi. The basic premise is that PM of J&K opposed the accession due to Congress and Gandhi’s support and propping of Sheikh Abdullah (termed “Jihadi” Abdullah at times). The author has primarily contested the issue on J&K historically being a Hindu region, even though at the time of partition having over 75% Muslims. The author has also claimed that Sheikh Abdullah actually had his own nefarious intentions, and that was realized by Nehru too in 1953 when he jailed him, by which time it was already too late, in the sense that had Congress not supported Sheikh Abdullah, J&K’s PM would have supported accession to India in 1946 itself.

What I found odd about the author’s views, is that it focusses too much on “India being a Hindu Rashtra” and trying to justify things based on that. The word “Jihadi” has been used so liberally in the Book that I am sure it must be the most repeated word in the book! The author also conveniently gives a free hand to Sardar Patel both on the issue of partition, as well as on the issue of J&K’s accession. The author does question the silence and inaction of Patel, but at one point it justifies it by associating a cause to it and at another, it just questions it but let it slide. So while it just questions Patel’s silence and inaction, it actively criticises and vilifies Gandhi and Nehru. The author also opined that Gandhi came out harshly against Princely states, which I think is an illogical argument. The author actually critiqued the “western ideas of secularism, democracy…” at one point, thereby supporting the Kingdom like rule over Democracy. So all those views of the author has come out so odd and archaic. She doesn’t seem to have analysed it in light of how Congress worked at that time- with thought on secularism, democracy, people’s participation etc.

The real content of the Book lies between page 123 to 158. That part contains “Print copy of the original document received from Smt. Lila Bhan”. That is the part, where Pandit Ramchandra Kak’s daughter has written her views in a sequential manner, and she has put forth her views based on the writings of her father only. That section has the actual content, the real content in understandable way. I wish the author had simply written in the beginning only, to just skip to page 123.

Talking of this section, so many facts come up, and Pandit RCK’s views have been presented via her daughter. The basic argument is that J&K’s ruling was all great, and Sheikh Abdullah just came in between to push his own agenda (to have his own separate “principality”, taking support of Congress). Pandit RCK’s side has been explained really well, though at times, I felt things have been dealt in a bit more simplistic ways. That said, the Book rightly blames Mountbatten for the J&K’s accession issue. Clearly, Mountbatten had his own agenda (British interests), as is clear by reading several other books too. But then Nehru and Patel had hardly any way out. The Book unjustifiable blames Nehru for keeping Mountbatten in India with all the vested power, even after independence. Other books on the matter explains why it was unavoidable.

Nevertheless, this Book throws lots of new facts, gives lot of new insights. 

But the first part of the Book got spoilt by author’s motivated views and bad style of writing. Here are some examples:-

" Islamic separatism and jihad which is organized in Pakistan and launched across national borders into Jammu and Kashmir— in the exact same manner in which Congress-ruled provinces organized the destabilizing mission inside their borders and launched them across borders into the adjoining Princely States. "

"a triumphant Gandhi and the INC instigated civil unrest in several Princely States in the name of civil liberties, temple entry and "responsible government". There was Congress-triggered unrest in Mysore, Travancore, Kashmir, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Rajkot, Talcher and Dhenkanal." 

"Gandhi decried western civilization in the much-touted Hind Swaraj but sought extinction of India's Hindu Princely States for western notions of democracy, secularism, civil liberties and "responsible governance". Hindu nationalists must begin to understand Gandhi's Indian National Congress for what it had become after the passing away of Tilak—a de-Hinduised social reform instrument driven by non-Hindu political ideas." 

If someone reads this book in isolation, it may spread misinformation, it is very important to read this Book only after reading a few other books on India's partition. Just talking from the point of view of the then PM of J&K, the book presents a one-sided picture, since it tries to defend PM Ramchandra Kak so hard. Completely focussed on putting RCK's view, and in attacking Gandhi and Nehru, the Book fails to look at the issue with larger perspective. That said, it does throw some good insights, like how Congress got befooled by Sheikh Abdullah and how his friend Nehru himself ordered to jail him in 1953.

The JNU Controversy: What is Nationalism?

Image Source:- IBNLive

The month of February has been very eventful for Delhi citizens and for the intellectuals all over India. What started just as a university level event supporting Afzal Guru, snowballed into a nationwide controversy! Sedition cases were slapped, Home Minister of India jumped in with conclusion of Hafiz Saeed supporting the JNU students, and the entire country was divided on the issue. Delhi was overwhelmed with protest marches. First a protest march by JNU students, then one by Left parties, after that one by BJP and anti-JNU people and a few days later a protest march by lawyers! It was like a Govt declared protest month!

The issue had started with a pro-AfzalGuru event, which had attracted attention of wide variety of students. By now everybody knows the issue, but the only thing left is where is the basic difference in opinion?

Broadly, there are three issues here:-

1. Did the students of JNU commit mistake by doing what they did on the day of 9th February?
2. Were their actions bad enough to term them as "Anti-National"?
3. Should Police have acted so swiftly? And should a case of sedition have been lodged against them?

I think if we are able to answer these three questions clearly, then we will have better clarity of the event. So here are my thoughts on the above three points

1. Talking of the students indulgence in the said series of events, I think they were wrong. University is a place of study and intellectual growth, not a place of muscle flexing and provocative sloganeering. While all kinds of debates and discussion (howsoever diverse and flammable) should be allowed in an educational institutions, they must be held in a peaceful and cooperative manner. Provocative speeches, sloganeering, mob marches etc. should not be appreciated. So what happened on that day, certainly feels to be wrong.
2. Were the actions bad enough, so as to term them as "anti-National"? This is a very difficult question, and a bit confusing too. In my view.there are two things here, first- can their actions said to be motivated from anti-national sentiments? And second- can they be termed "anti-National"? I think the slogans raised were indeed motivated by anti-National sentiments. So those who were raising the slogans, certainly had anti-national sentiments. But can it be used to conclude that they were "anti-national"? I think NO. For determining, whether someone is "anti-National" or not, I think we should make "action" as the determining criteria, keeping in mind at the same time, that there should be "Freedom of Expression". So while they had anti-national sentiments, without any clear anti-national actions, it would be a bit harsh to conclude that they are "anti-national". Its true that thoughts and sentiments only convert into action, but then we can't conclude so quickly!
3. Police acted very swiftly in this case, which was a bit surprising.But keeping in mind the anti-national slogans raised, I think Police action was obvious. A Police investigation into the incidents was very much needed. But, they shouldn't have kept Kanhaiya under prolonged detention. That was unnecessary and aggravated the situation. The prolonged detention/custody period of Kanhaiya catapulted him into a heroic character (which he is not). It unnecessarily brought him into limelight, bringing him sympathies of people. What had he done by the way? At most, he can be accused to have turned blind to anti-National slogans. He was not even among the main organisers of the event! And well, that sedition case, that is totally unwarranted. The sedition law itself is illogical, and should be scrapped altogether. The case that should have been made against them, was of trying to disrupt peace by spreading hatred and doing provocative actions(I hope such laws exist). Actions should indeed be taken against all those who organised/supported the event, and all those who raised slogans, but not this sedition case. And the police actions should have been proportionate to the crime committed(if any).

That brings me to the end of this blog-post. I hope the situation calms down, guilty people are caught and punished in logical way, and students of JNU starts focusing more on intellectual debates than on provocative, muscle flexing events.

Govt formation in Delhi by AAP- the Aam Aadmi Party

As expected, AAP is going ahead with formation of Govt. There will be obvious "I-told-you-so-AAP-isBteam-Of-Congress" cries by BJP supporters. And Congress leaders too have already said that "nothing is unconditional" (about support). Undoubtedly AAP is playing a very risky game now. They have to come true to people's expectation and that too in quite limited time. Post March 2014, model code of conduct could be in place. So they have just 3 months of time to prove their worth. Otherwise they may not be able to fare well in the Loksabha elections. While 3 months is a very less time, a genuine indication of their intent could definitely be expressed. 

That said, the decision of forming Govt itself was quite fishy. Needless to say, the so called referendum was just a diversion exercise to avoid being questioned for taking support from Congress. Congress was a party they always fiercely fought against, and voters too gave their support considering AAP as a nice anti-BJP, anti-Congress option. So taking support from Congress was highly unethical. Still, if in the larger interest of people, and with people's support for their decision, they would have gone for Govt formation, there would have been nothing wrong. But did people really wanted AAP to form Govt with Congress support? I don't think so. There are several questions against the Opinion seeking process, which makes one conclude that the opinion could be highly flawed, unbalanced and even rigged. Here are some pointers-

1. How could  they ensure that maximum of Delhi voters have given the opinion? Could they ensure 65-70% of voters opinion, which equals polling percentage?
2. If they took only 30-40% voters' opinion, then can't it be accused to be of SELECTIVE opinion seeking?  What guarantee does it carry of being evenly distributed, being truly random?
3. Was this process independent? How will others believe that it's honest, and not a manipulated one? Had they included some independent people in this entire opinion seeking process?
4. Also, who will come outside to give opinions in public meetings? Obviously, AAP enthusiasts who will probably be equally enthusiastic about AAP forming Govt. Why will naysayers take pain to come out of home, just to say NO!! Will BJP supporters come out to their public meetings just to say no? Chances are that, they will mumble something like- "Do whatever you like, we always knew you are going to join hands with Congress!"

Since I posed these objections, I would also like to give solution to all this. The opinion should have been collected by a door-to-door campaign, collecting at least 50% of voters' opinion. The opinion should have been taken on a paper-form containing the voter's name, constituency and voter ID card no. Also, a few independent observers could have been invited to oversee the process. This process would certainly have taken longer time, but would have been far more reliable and foolproof.

I wonder if going for Govt formation was a wise decision of AAP. Being a non-ruling party was giving them advantage of questioning the wrong. But now, being in Govt, they will be put to a litmus test. Now they will be questioned for their policies. Even a single wrong move could spell disaster for them. Also, in case of reelection, there were high chances of them getting more no. of seats. Riding on a minority Govt doesn't seem to be such a nice idea!

All said and done, AAP has already decided in favour of formation of Govt, so no use now wasting time over all these things. More important is what lies ahead. Will AAP be able to deliver? Many of their promises seem to be highly unrealistic and quite idealistic too. What with drop in electricity charges by 50%, free water up to some amount and no VIP security. How will they manage all this promises? Where will they bring the money from? Not to talk of the legalization of illegal colonies, which raises another set of questions! 

Needless to say, this is a make-or-break moment for AAP. If they are able to deliver quickly, on most of their promises, people will forget their taking support from Congress. If they fail to deliver, they will become an extinct species in Indian Politics! Loksabha election is very near. They better start working seriously on their promises, or nobody will vote for them in next elections! Hope they really do, and silent the critics. J

SIT report on Gujarat riots: An analysis

I studied the whole closure report filed by SIT on the allegations put in by Mrs Zakia Jafri. I did so, because there was lots of hue and cry over the matter that SIT has given a clean chit to Modi etc. So I felt it necessary to go through the complete report. In an overall sense, the report is NOT satisfactory. But it throws a good amount of light on the situation revolving around the riots. Here starts my analysis....

In case you don't wish to read the whole lengthy blog-post, then just read the below 7 bullet points, which is a kind of summary of the whole blog-post.

Some of my major conclusions reached upon after reading the SIT report-

• Modi can't be nailed legally. There is no hard evidence against him. So it would be foolish to expect any legal action against him. 

• Modi can still be held guilty but only "morally". By studying the report, one can conclude that Modi didn't show as much concern for affected people as is expected from a CM. He hasn't got a "humane" nature. At some times, he seems callous by nature. Also, in some cases, he didn't take any firm action against irresponsible/negligent police officers. All these facts, may not implicate him legally, but are sure to damage his reputation as a good, just, noble, elected representative.

• There was no delay in calling of army. The swiftness in calling of army is appreciable.

• Sanjeev Bhatt lied. One can get fully convinced about it after going through the SIT report.

• Relief, rehabilitation and compensation measures seem quite good, in fact impressive. But they can't be said to be fully satisfactory, or excellent. Three major drawbacks remain- (1) a clear timeline of action has not been given (how much work done by what date?) (2) No. of people compensated for death seem quite less (is the official figure of died people just 1169?) (3) SIT seems to have taken view of only one side- Govt. side. Any independent allegation/complaint made by aggrieved people are neither mentioned in report, nor does it seem to have been taken into consideration. It's extremely difficult to accept that no one would have complained to SIT regarding this. That said, since SIT has not made any adverse remarks on this(in fact SIT has appreciated the efforts of Govt), so I don't think this can be made a major point against state Govt.

• VHP and Bajrang Dal participated in riots. Not only their activists, but some of their top leaders had been arrested, charge-sheeted and are presently facing court cases. In fact some leaders are repeat offenders. It appears that, VHP and BD supported the riots as an organization.

• At some places, SIT's conclusions seem to be highly flawed. There are also some ignoring of vital evidence. SIT seem to have made some  glaring mistakes too, and at times, it becomes very hard to believe that those are just some genuine “mistakes”. 

Now here goes my detailed, point-by-point objection to the conclusions, and my own views on some of the allegations investigated.

Page 59. Allegation no. -II: (regarding decision to transport dead bodies to Ahmedabad and VHP leader being allowed to accompany the bodies)

Why were VHP men even allowed to accompany the victims' body!! Why not put the blame on collector too?? VHP calls for bandh on 28th and VHP leaders allowed to accompany the victims' bodies which were to reach on 28th morning !!! Is it a sensible decision?? You are handing over bodies to the very people who have called for bandh on the very same day!!!

Furthermore, it concludes- "the allegation that the dead bodies were handed over to Jaydeep Patel of VHP is NOT established". It concludes so bcoz Police team was always there with them and so "custody" of bodies were with police only. It says that Jaydeep Patel merely "accompanied" the bodies.

Now let's ponder over the word "handed over". The VHP leader was issued in his name, a letter (of authority) by an executive magistrate, stating clearly the no. of bodies and some other information. In short, the letter contained information about the bodies, the receiving authority at the other end etc. The letter was issued in the name of Jaydeep Patel. So he went with that letter and submitted the letter at the other end to the concerned official.

Still, SIT report concludes that, Jaydeep Patel was NOT "handed over" the bodies. He merely "accompanied" them.

Ironically enough, the same SIT report, states a few pages earlier that the issuing authority (of the letter) stated that "the dead bodies were officially handed over to Jaydeep Patel and.....".

So issuing authority himself feels it was "handed over" to Jaydeep Patel and his one other VHP friend, but SIT feels he merely "accompanied"!!

In short, in my view, SIT conclusion is quite flawed on this particular issue. Yes, CM Modi can't be blamed directly for this, but so many others could have been blamed.

Page 78 Allegation no.- VI : (regarding transfer of honest police officers to facilitate riots)
Highly UNSATISFACTORY conclusions drawn. Read pages 78- 83 and you will agree with me.

"Unsatisfactory", because SIT didn't try to cross-check the facts stated by those IPS officers. If what IPS Rahul Sharma and others have alleged there, comes out to be true, then no doubt the "Allegation No. VI" could come out to be true also. But SIT tried to come to conclusion too quickly without undertaking much deserving investigation into the statements made by those IPS officers.

Furthermore, the conclusions made in the end, on Shri RB Shrikumar, is also quite unsatisfactory. Just because someone kept hiding the evidences, you won't consider the evidence!! Just because someone started collecting evidence against Govt officials and ministers, so you will accuse him of trying to prepare false allegations!!

And even  if someone is trying to collect evidence to prepare false allegation, or even to blackmail, so his evidence collected doesn't deserve attention and investigation!!! And this is what SIT thinks!!!

Page 113.Allegation no.- IX:  (regarding Bilkis Bano case and the Best Bakery Case)

Regarding this allegation, SIT didn't make any conclusion/finding because both the cases mentioned in this allegation, are still under court. The convicted people have challenged lower court's order in HIGH COURT. So SIT was legally binded NOT to make any conclusions (as to whether state Govt and Police were to be blamed or not).

But there is no such legal binding on me and hence I am making some very obvious observations.

In Bilkis Bano case, the SIT report writes- "On completion of investigation Shri XYZ, Circle PI, filed a closure report on 'flimsy' grounds, and was recommended by Dy SP Shri ABC for acceptance in the court....". Catch the word "flimsy" there.

Now, Smt Bilkis Bano ji went to SC, there SC observed- "Mukul Rohtagi, the ASG appearing for respondent accepts that in view of serious allegations, the case may be handed over to CBI, though he doesn't concede that Gujarat police is incompetent to investigate the matter". and then the case was handed over to CBI. Finally, the case which was being closed by Gujarat police, in that very same case, 11 accused people were CONVICTED by a Mumbai court Judge.

So dear Mukul Rohtagi ji, you thought that Gujarat Police was fully competent to investigate the case!! What do you mean, that police is competent, but they were pressurized by Govt ministers to sweep it under carpet? A senior police officer of rank 'Dy SP' recommends closure of the case and the same case investigated by CBI gets 11 accused convicted. So accept it- either Gujarat Police was incompetent, or they were pressurized by state Govt ministers to follow their lines. What could be the case is anyone's guess.

The other case was "Best Bakery case", in this case the combo of a 'fast track' court and a public prosecutor led to all accused being acquitted. On being taken to SC, the case was transferred to Bombay, and finally 9 were convicted. Supreme court while giving order passed strictures against public prosecutor, trial court and High Court. Now, who can influence "public prosecutor" is anyone's guess. If public prosecutor himself turn biased, then obviously you can guess what will happen to the result of case. Furthermore, the Bombay judge who passed order convicting the accused, made very adverse comments and passed strictures against K. kumaraswamy, the then joint CP, Baroda city. Later on page 356, SIT holds K. Kumaraswamy responsible(says that "allegations against him stand established"). Notable thing is that neither state Govt, nor he himself have filed any appeal or petition, for expunction of those adverse comments/strictures made by judge. It's exactly like S.Swamy making serious allegations against Sonia Gandhi, and neither Sonia Gandhi, nor Congress bothering to appeal in court against the allegations. You see where it's leading?

In short, regarding Allegation no. IX, there was shady investigation, and shady prosecution, most probably under pressure from ruling party's ministers. SIT didn't conclude so only because both the cases are still in court. Otherwise, had the cases been finally settled by SC (resulting in some conviction), then I am sure the SIT would have taken the same view I am taking.


Allegation no. XII: (regarding Modi's "action-reaction" comment in Zee TV interview)

The conclusion (page 133) made regarding This allegation is totally unsatisfactory. Narendra Modi blames the "action" of late Shri Ahesan Jafri for the "reaction" taken place at Gulberg society. The "action" was firing in self defense by Mr Ahesan Jafri, and the "reaction" was the burning of Gulberg society and murdering of more than 60 people.

What Modi means to say is that, had Mr Jafri not fired, he would have been alive. The fact is that after initial dispersing  of small mob by police, 5000 agitated, riotous people had again surrounded the society, and obviously they had not assembled there to garland Mr Jafri. Having panicked, Mr Jafri must have fired in self defense (police force was highly inadequate there). In short, instead of blaming his own police officers, Narendra Modi blames Mr Jafri himself for his killing. How callous!! And you people consider him a "humane (sic) being"!!!

Unfortunately, SIT too supports Modi implicitly; it concludes that “in case Mr Jafri fired at the mob, this could have been an immediate provocation to the mob”. So it calls "selt defense" as "provocation", and instead of stating objecting to Modi's statement, it implicitly supports Modi.

Ironically enough, SIT itself, in the same report, has held police officials responsible for Gulberg massacre. It you read pages 95-100, then you will know how much SIT has criticized two top cops for inefficient handling of Gulberg massacre. MK  Tondon (Jt CP) and PB Gondia (DCP) have been heavily crilicized for their handling of Gulberg society and Naroda  Patia cases. In fact, both These officers were in continuous  touch (on phone) with accused rioters on the very same day (of riot). So they might have even colluded with rioters (though no such proof found by SIT). Moreover, SIT  itself has also indicted The investigating  officers of Naroda Patia and Gulberg  Society massacre (page 181 & 182) for deliberately NOT Taking into account call records of accused persons. 

So SIT has very clearly reported that both Naroda Patia and Gulberg Society cases were not only very poorly controlled, but their investigations too were carried out very carelessly. (SIT has also strongly recommended strict departmental actions against the four officers in question).  

In spite of all these facts, Narendra Modi doesn't mince a word about failure of his senior police officials, and instead blames Mr Jafri himself!! What should have happened is that Modi should have stated in interview that "There seems to be  some serious lapses on part of police officers and they will he investigated properly". BUT instead, the fact is that, the tainted officer was rewarded and given undue benefits later!! (read Allegation No.- VII on page 84). Quite sadly SIT Too didn’t think it appropriate to mince any words against Modi's "action-reaction" comment.

Page 272: (regarding Modi's Hatred Speech allegation)

Modi says he didn't refer to any particular religion or community, but he clearly did make some statements targeted at Muslim community.

SIT concludes that there was "no criminality" on part of Modi. I am not quite sure about "criminality" because I don't have any legal expertise. But clearly, Modi lied in saying that he didn't refer to any particular community or religion. He did make some specific comments against Muslims and also made insulting comment against displaced community living in relief camps. His statements definitely had potential to increase the amount of dissatisfaction and anger in minority community against him. At that kind of juncture he should have kept his anger and emotions in control, and shouldn't have reacted exactly that way.

I wish SIT had acknowledged this thing about Modi. But SIT denies "criminality" and then skips away. Dear SIT, Why are you shying away from making a frank observation!!?? Haven't you made such non-legal observations at other places? Then why not here??!!

Page 324: 

It has a line- "..... tremendous pressure was put on police and revenue department to let the mobs do their work unhampered, but he and others were all praise for.....". The police officer, IGP Kuldeep Sharma, quotes this statement to defend himself. So in a way, he accepts that there was indeed pressure from higher ups. Now who all can try to put pressure on a police officer of such high rank, is anyone's guess.

(Later, all the statements made by IGP Kuldeep Sharma were rubbished by SIT on the ground that he has been under investigation by state Govt and thus "has an axe to grind" against State Govt)

Page 325: (the conversation between Pradeep Sharma and Arvind Sharma (both IAS officers))

This conversation is about what Modi wants to convey to IGP Kuldeep Sharma (don't act proactive, let the acts happen, no need of protection to muslims etc.).

SIT conclusion on this matter is not satisfactory. Why didn't SIT look into the call details of both person's (Arvind and Pradeep) mobile for just 3-4 days period?? Just because they have an axe to grind against state Govt, so their (Pradeep and Kuldeep) testimony doesn't deserve to be investigated properly!!! And hadn't Sanjeev Bhatt too 'had an axe to grind'?? Sanjeev Bhatt's call details were scrutinized in details, and his allegations too were investigated properly. Why didn't SIT do the same here??!! 

Page 338 &339: (regarding assaulting of Medha Patekar by BJP supporters)

On 7-04-02 Medha Patekar was assaulted by BJP activists. DCP VM Pargi handled the situation and in the process some BJP activists and press reporters got badly injured. Addl. CP Shivanand Jha too reached later and handled the situation. BJP activists later complained to higher ups against these two police officers and both of them got transferred and relieved on 9-04-02, i.e. exactly two days after the incident (quick response state Govt!!bravo!!)

Page 392: (regarding Jaydeep Patel issue)

Allegation II at page 59 and similar conclusions at page 237 clearly means that CM Modi was part of the meeting at Godhra Collectorate which decided on taking bodies to Ahmedabad (same thing also stated on page 392). Allegation II further states the Collector of Godhra as saying that "Jaydeep Patel too attended the meeting and it was decided in meeting that he be authorized to accompany the bodies to Ahmedabad."

But on page 392, it is concluded by SIT that "at no point of time Jaydeep Patel who was also at Godhra that day, met Modi"!! WoWw!!! He attended a meeting with CM but he didn't meet CM!! Do you mean that the word "meet" only means a "one-on-one", personal meet??

Clearly, either the investigation of Allegation II is totally incomplete and wrong, OR Jaydeep Patel did meet CM at least in the meeting.

Page 463: (regarding Jaydeep Patel)

When amicus curiae objects as to without order from some high ups, he couldn't have been handed over the bodies, SIT undertakes further investigation to ascertain the facts. Unfortunately, a shady investigation again. SIT again just blames the "Mamlatdar" Mr. ML Nalavaya. SIT leaves a mere guess that the MoS(Home) Mr Gordhan Zadafia might have pressurized district officials to do so.

Point 1- Since District Collector herself said that Jaydeep Patel had attended the meeting, then why didn't SIT try to get her statements corroborated by asking other persons who had attended the meeting??

Point 2- Why didn't SIT question the wisdom of district Collector on allowing VHP's Jaydeep Patel to even accompany the bodies, keeping in mind that a statewide bandh was announced on the very next day by VHP and BD?? On the bandh day, dead bodies are arriving in a sensitive city, and the bodies are being accompanied by the very people who have announced the bandhs (and later go on to indulge in riots)!! Is it a sensible decision??

That was it. The long and short of this lengthy blog-post is that SIT report is NOT good enough. Modi can still be blamed for so many things. No legal prosecution doesn't mean he is a good man. On moral grounds, Modi would be one of the worst CM in present times. 

P.S.- You can get a copy of SIT report from here-  cjponline.org, or check this specific page where report links are at the bottom.

"Victory of Democracy." Ohhh really!!!!

So finally Govt. yielded to pressure and acceded to all the major demands of Anna Hazare. Celebrations erupted all across the Nation. Some people said "People power won" and some said "It was the Victory of Democracy." Initially it really did look like that after all Democracy won, because in a democracy, people have the ultimate power. But contemplate a bit and you will end up pondering and asking yourself whether democracy really won, whether this victory really signifies the victory of democracy and whether we should really rejoice at this victory.....

Just 2-3 days back, Anna Hazare said-“If the government alone drafts the anti-corruption bill, it will be autocratic not democratic, there will be discrepancies."
Now think over it, ok, there may definitely be discrepancies in the bill but is it really autocratic if Govt. alone drafts the bill??? If Yes, then tell me how do you define autocracy and how democracy. Isn't in democracy the elected representatives are entrusted with the task of framing and amending laws?? Democracy hinges on the three pillars of Legislature,Judiciary and Executive, all three being interdependent on each other but having clearly defined areas of working. People elect their leaders and put their faith in their leaders. The leaders become the part of Legislature getting exclusive rights to frame laws and amend already existing laws.
Cut short to the present situation, a few unelected representatives will be taking part in framing Lokpal Bill. Nothing looks unusual till you ponder over its future implications-more and more joint committees getting formed to frame laws. Now think over it- Common men's participation in framing of laws, isn't it diluting the powers of Legislature,isn't it wandering of electorates out of their own domain, and most of all, isn't it going against the very basic tenets of democracy??

After that, let's talk about the proposed Jan Lokpal bill. The draft presented by the INDIA AGAINST CORRUPTION team, is again against the principles of democracy. The selection committee to chose the chairman and members of Lokpal, is all supposed to be unelected representatives (baring two elected ones-chairpersons of both Houses).The presently envisaged Lokpal system seem to be empowered with immense power and authority. The most notable fact is that it would be JUDICIARY (court) and EXECUTIVE (police) both rolled into one, in short an all powerful,supreme institution completely chosen and governed by unelected representatives,the institution being so powerful that it may go on to override the powers of even some already constituted fine institutions in our country. So our elected representatives' power will be waning gradually,implying thereby that the hugely important electorates' power will loose its sheen. Electorates will no more be having the ultimate power-the power of voting someone out, because unelected representatives might be having their say in framing of laws and also in these all powerful institutions like Lokpal. Don't all these developments look dangerous in a democracy??

It's an irony that people have started to despise persons whom they themselves have elected to power.
The biggest irony is that WE FEEL PROUD OF OUR GREAT DEMOCRACY BUT WE HATE POLITICIANS AND POLITICS !!!! People have lost hope in their own elected representatives. People have started thinking that any law framed by their elected representatives(politicians) will be a weak,poor law. Isn't it a dangerous sign for democracy?? We are trying to distance ourselves from politicians when we know very well that politicians are one of the pillars of democracy.What worse time can we have for democracy. And then people say-"It was the victory of democracy!!!"

Its not the victory of democracy but merely the victory of 'people power' which came down upon the Govt. as a strong force due to severe anger in common men against the rampant corruption lying all around. An end to this rampant corruption was what all in the mind of people while they came out for this cause. The Gandhian protest by a well known public figure made the support even more swelling. While demanding these things, people didn't realize that they may be actually acting to weaken the pillars of democracy, because all that mattered to them was a solution to this never ending corruption trail, which they had got  totally fed up of.

But then, what's the way out?? Isn't there some other way than these direct participation of common men in legislation?? Well, there must be. Democracy can't be so weak that it goes down on its knees in such situations. Ups and downs are there in the lifespan of every system or institution. An institution has to continuously keep evolving to keep pace with the changing times and situations. Making the three pillars of democracy more firm and immune to the threats surrounding it would be the best thing to do.

The "Right to Recall" could be a very good weapon in the hands of electorates against the corrupt politicians. With the fear of getting recalled by electorates, politicians will become much more accountable and responsible towards their duties. With so much of corruption all around in politics, such a tool will further empower our electorates. Apart from that, electoral reforms too are very necessary. The "Negative voting" concept though being criticised by some section, can prove to be a very strong deterrent to the political parties from fielding tainted candidates in elections. Like in the case of various public services, for being MLA or MP too a strict educational qualifications must be introduced. Similarly the age of retirement too should be fixed. Similarly such reforms need to be introduced in Judiciary and Executive bodies too. The Executive bodies' vast dependence on political structure must lessen. Too much of interference by political power in executive bodies is not healthy. It needs to be changed. There should be clear demarcation of duties between judiciary,executive and legislature; at the same time there should also be a clear working relationship defined between the three. Finally I would say, we should give democracy a chance!!!

******              ******          ******               ******            ******

P.S.- This blog-post of mine is inspired from various articles that I read on Internet, some of those links are mentioned below-

• http://kafila.org/2011/04/09/at-the-risk-of-heresy-why-i-am-not-celebrating-with-anna-hazare/ 
• http://realitycheck.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/jan-lok-pal-caveat-emptor/ 
• http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1716 
• http://www.indianexpress.com/news/of-the-few-by-the-few/772773/2 
• http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/the-hazare-hazard-/431045/ 
• http://www.deeshaa.org/2011/04/08/anna-hazare-goes-to-new-delhi   

The Big Flag Hoisting Controversy

Guess what, this Republic day may be remembered not for what happens on it but what happens after it :)

The so called 'EKTA YATRA' started by BJP has left the whole nation debating over it. BJP started the yatra all the way from West Bengal and claims that by unfurling our tricolour at Srinagar's Lal Chowk they want to challenge the separatists and make it clear to everyone that J&K is an integral part of India.

Opinions seem to be highly divided on this issue. Most of the Columnists seems to opine against it. J&K CM, Congress and even some strong allies of BJP are openly opposing it. The opinion of Aam Janta is most intriguing. Most seem to support it citing various reasons. There are various arguments supporting it. Some of them are-

What can be more shameful and worrying for us, if we fear repulsions and unrest just because we are hoisting our tricolour in our own Country!!! Every Indian is having a right to unfurl flag in any part of the country, why should anybody object to it!!! If they can hoist Pakistani flags at Lal Chowk and burn our tricolour, then why shouldn't we unfurl our tricolour with a fully hyped yatra!!! Till what time will we keep fearing those minority separatists' threats, its high time that we go there and put a challenge in their face!!!

But here is my personal opinion over this issue- 

Well, first see how this is being made out to be- If I don't support BJP's flag hoisting plan then I am a traitor!!!! So now everyone has to fulfill the criteria specified by BJP, to be said a patriot..... This in my view, is totally rubbish. This also implies that thousands of students who deliberately skip flag hoisting ceremony, but later go on to join prestigious organizations like ISRO, DRDO or even ARMED FORCES, are not patriotic citizens. Howsoever big service they provide to the nation, if they don't participate in flag hoisting ceremony, then they are unpatriotic!!!!
Bottomline- My hoisting or not hoisting of flag (or support of this BJP's hoisting plan), CAN'T decide whether I am patriotic or not, but my intentions, my services to the nation and my feelings for my nation DO decide. Hoisting of flag is symbolic gesture. It can't be said to be a criteria of patriotism.

Its quite clear that BJP is politicizing the issue. They are making it a patriotic issue and are trying to gain political mileage out of it. There is not an iota of doubt about it. Even our PM issued a statement , urging them not to play politics over tricolor. They are deliberately trying to make it an emotive issue.Well, now they are saying that they want to challenge separatists, where were they for the past 19 yrs. During their rulings, Mr. Vajpayee had been quite willing to have cordial talks with separatists. I think even Advani was in support of talks with separatist until quite recently. But now suddenly BJP feels that they should challenge separatists by doing this flag Yatra!!!! I am quite sure, had they been in centre right now, they wouldn't have decided to go for it. They have got hold of an emotive issue and are trying to get political mileage out of it. Playing politics in issue involving tricolor is utterly shameful. Had they been such a big patriots themselves, they would have stood for National integrity and wouldn't have tried religion based divisive politics leading to Ayodhya and Godhra massacre. And now, they will decide whether we are patriots or traitors!!!! They are digging their own graves. They had got a very good corruption issue to corner Congress but they are now again being foolish.
Bottomline- Trying to score brownie points by raking up this emotive issue of patriotism and involving our tricolor in this whole issue is utterly SHAMEFUL of BJP.

Next is the point that, is such a hyped and publicized Flag Yatra all the way from WB-J&K, necessary to challenge the separatists and show the world (and the separatists) that J&K is an integral part of India?? 

Many say that yes it is, bcoz since they burnt our tricolour and hoisted Pakistani flag at that place, so we need to go in big numbers with all the pomp and show, and show those separatists that see, if u could hoist Pakistani flag here at our land, then we too did come here without any fear and hoisted our flag with full publicity.
But I beg to differ. It's not necessary. J&K is an integral part of INDIA and we don't need to prove it to anybody. Now,as far as giving a sharp reply to separatists is concerned,this whole hyped yatra thing , though definitely a challenge in face for them shouldn't be carried out. Next, you will say, all INDIANS should go there and fight those stone-pelters with stones(as they are attacking our security forces), OR sm1 may even say that let's go attack all those separatists there.

Now, why fear those separatists. Why bow down to them. Well, it's not bowing down to their pressure. It's about taking decisions which maintains peace and harmony in the state. There is no doubt that Govt.- both central and state, have failed badly in putting in proper governance there. Look at past 3-4 years, how much misgovernance took place there. State Govt. failed to rein in the protests and bloodbath and Central Govt. kept sleeping for months. Whether it be AFSPA, too much of restrictions, excessive presence of forces, alleged rapes and encounters by security personnel, unemployment or something else; one thing is sure, that a significant section of people there are unsatisfied and infuriated with the Governance system there. In such situation, every single threat by separatists become headache for Govt. bcoz they can easily misled people to lead mass protests which could turn violent.
Now it's up to us. Whether or not we still want to go with all the hyped flag Yatra to challenge those separatists and hence risk another tense situation there. BJP claims they are expecting 50k people there. Separatists too have called for a counter Yatra there. In such a situation, a fatal clash between the two parties is imminent. State Govt. will of course never allow this, they can't handle unemployment, stone-pelters, separatists and terrorists, how can they handle this another trouble.
Bottomline- Any kind of provocative acts which may lead to escalation in tension, shouldn't be done. Hoisting flag there is not provocative. But leading people from all across the INDIA, in such a hyped way is definitely provocative for those separatists. We should not do anything that puts J&K people in trouble. They are our brothers and we should be more concerned about their lives than putting challenges to separatists. It would be better if we show brotherhood and concern for Kashmiri people and leave the issue of how to deal with separatists with our elected Govt.

I will end up my post by putting up a fine excerpt from a wonderful article in THE HINDU by Mr.SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN (Source- http://bit.ly/hCI9Be )-

"If a sense of national belonging can be instilled and solidified by the mere hoisting of a flag, 60 years of official ceremonies in Srinagar ought to have ended the sense of alienation that is writ large over the valley. Even if the BJP goes ahead with their mindless yatra, it will not alter the realities on the ground one bit and would actually make the situation worse. Whatever we may say or do or wish, surely Kashmir will be an integral part of India in a meaningful sense only when the residents of Srinagar themselves throng to Lal Chowk and hoist the tri-colour themselves. The challenge for the Indian polity is to create the conditions for that to happen one day, however difficult that may seem today. But the BJP's proposed flaghoisting is not just an exercise in naivette or cynicism. It is the product of a mindset that considers Kashmir to be terra nullius, an empty landscape to be coveted and possessed rather than a land with a people and soul who acceded to India in 1947 on the basis of a covenant which must be respected in full measure and who have as much right to a life with dignity as those elsewhere in the country do."