Truth about Modi

 A person's mindset reflects in his misadventures. His tendency to present a particular event in a form which will instigate hatred when all he is expected to do is relay the event as an ethical journalist is exposed. So now you say doubting the integrity of journalists is wrong. I think there are a few anti Modi websites spewing venom and hurling brickbats when the judiciary has cleared Modi.

They say Modi cannot be cleared of the charges since he ordered carnage in Gujrat in particular the murder of ex MP Mr. Ehsan Jaffri.

Zakia Jaffri, wife of Mr. Ehsan Jaffri, changed her claims regularly in Aug 2003 in front of the Nanavati Commission and an Apex court in Sept 2003. In Sept 2003, she filed an affidavit but did not level allegations against Modi. In the words of SIT, ""It was for the first time in June 6, 2006, after a lapse of four years, that she came up with the said complaint. The allegations in the complaint are vague, general and stereotyped." Also, , here is the SIT report on Ehsan Jaffri's death. On Modi invoking Newton's law of 'action and reaction'
"In his interview the CM has clearly referred to Jafri's firing (on the mob gathered at his house) as 'action' and the massacre as 'reaction'. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsaan Jafri, fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims."

The SIT has said that even if Mr Modi had told the police during the riots to allow the Hindus to vent their anger over the massacre of 56 kar sevaks in the Godhra train burning incident, the mere statement of those in the confines of a room does not constitute an offence. On this, the SIT seems to have based its report on public statements made by Mr Modi during the riots.

"Interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by RB Shreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt, appear to be without any basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for the sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence," says the report by the SIT, headed by RK Raghavan. 

Bare facts

To be really honest, the interview given by Rahul Gandhi was an absolute mockery of the word interview. Most of the answers he gave were baseless, had no credibility and most importantly were lagging in terms of decisive agenda to get things in order. Giving the same answers for different questions seemed absurd and moron like. 

When incidents like  the 1984 and 2002 riots are mentioned and the carnage that followed, my primary question is that who nurtured the Khalistan movement? Was it not the erstwhile PM who in some way or the other was responsible for her own eventual demise? In the 1977 elections, a coalition led by the Sikh-majority Akali Dal came to power in the northern Indian state of Punjab. In an effort to split the Akali Dal and gain popular support among the Sikhs, Indira Gandhi's Congress helped bring the orthodox religious leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale to prominence in the Punjab politics. Later, Bhindranwale's organisation Damdami Taksal became embroiled in violence with another religious sect called the Sant Nirankari Mission, and he was accused of instigating the murder of the Congress leader Jagat Narain. After being arrested in this matter, Bhindranwale disassociated himself from Congress and joined hands with the Akali Dal. In July 1982, he led the campaign for the implementation of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, which demanded greater autonomy for the Sikh-majority state. Meanwhile, a small section of the Sikhs including some of Bhindranwale's followers, turned to militancy in support of the Khalistan movement, which aimed to create a separate sovereign state for the Sikhs. In 1983, Bhindranwale and his militant followers headquartered themselves in the Golden Temple, the holiest shrine of the Sikhs, and started accumulating weapons After several futile negotiations, Indira Gandhi ordered the Indian army to enter the Golden temple in order to subdue Bhindranwale and his followers. In the resulting Operation Blue Star, the shrine was damaged and many civilians were killed. The State of Punjab was closed to international media, its phone and communication lines shut. To this day the events remain controversial with a disputed number of victims; Sikhs seeing the attack as unjustified and Bhindrawale being declared the greatest Sikh martyr of the 21st century by Akal Takht (Sikh Political Authority) in 2003.

When someone mentions 2002, who started the Ayodhya issue? Was it not Rajiv Gandhi who stoked the fire in the initial stages? Or I should say it was the Congress who is primarily to be blamed. At midnight on 22 December 1949, when the police guards were asleep, statues of Rama and Sita were quietly brought into the mosque and erected. This was reported by the constable, Mata Prasad, the next morning and recorded at the Ayodhya police station. The FIR lodged by Sub-Inspector Ram Dube, Police Station Ayodhya, on 23 December 1949 states: "A group of 50–60 persons had entered Babri Mosque after breaking the compound gate lock of the mosque or through jumping across the walls... and established therein an idol of Shri Bhagwan and painted Sita Ram, on the outer and inner walls with geru (red loam)... Afterward, a crowd of 5–6 thousand persons gathered around and while chanting bhajans and raising religious slogans tried to enter the mosque but were deferred." The following morning, a large Hindu crowd attempted to enter the mosque to make offerings to the deities. The District Magistrate K.K. Nayar has recorded that "The crowd made a most determined attempt to force entry. The lock was broken and policemen were rushed off their feet. All of us, officers and men, somehow pushed the crowd back and held the gate. The sadhus recklessly hurled themselves against men and arms and it was with great difficulty that we managed to hold the gate. The gate was secured and locked with a powerful lock brought from outside and police force was strengthened (5:00 pm)." On hearing this news Vallabhbhai Patel directed UP Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant and Uttar Pradesh Home Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri to see that the deities were removed. Under Pant's orders, Chief Secretary Bhagwan Sahay and Inspector-General of Police V.N. Lahiri sent immediate instructions to Faizabad to remove the deities. However, K.K. Nayar feared that the Hindus would retaliate and pleaded inability to carry out the orders. The by-election to the local MLA seat involving opposition leader J. B. Kripalani complicated matters further and no action was taken. J.B. Kripalani in his autobiography accused the Uttar Pradesh government of communalising the issue to win the election. His contention is supported by Nehru era historian and stalwart Sarvepalli Gopal in his work "Anatomy of Confrontation". The Official History of Congress has dismisses this claim as mere propaganda. In 1984, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP) launched a massive movement for the opening of the locks of the mosque, and in 1985 the Rajiv Gandhi government ordered the locks on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya to be removed. Prior to that date the only Hindu ceremony permitted was a Hindu priest performing a yearly puja for the icons there. After the ruling, all Hindus were given access to what they consider the birthplace of Rama, and the mosque gained some function as a Hindu temple. Communal tension in the region worsened when the VHP received permission to perform a shilanyas (stone-laying ceremony) at the disputed site before the national election in November 1989. A senior BJP leader, LK Advani, started a Rath yatra, embarking on a 10,000 km journey starting from the south and heading towards Ayodhya.

While I completely agree to the fact that some people would remain loyal to the Congress, is action a more culpable culprit or reaction? Newton's 3rd law says "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". While all have linked both the respective carnage to reactions, should the "action" which invoked the "reaction" go unpunished?