Friday, December 16, 2022

Pakistan FM Bilawal Bhutto Zardari Lashes Out At Indian EAM Subramanyam Jaishankar

“If the FM (foreign minister) of India (Jaishankar) was being honest, then he knows as well as I, that the RSS (India's militant Hindu organization) does not believe in Gandhi, in his ideology. They do not see this individual as the founder of India, they hero-worship the terrorist that assassinated Gandhi", said Pakistan's Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari at a press conference at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City. "Osama Bin Laden is dead but the butcher of Gujarat lives and he is the prime minister of India", he added. Mr. Bhutto Zardari was responding to a question from the media asked at the behest of the Indian Foreign Minister Subramanyam Jaishankar.  Earlier at the UNSC, Indian External Affairs Minister Subramanyam Jaishankar had unveiled a statue of Mohandas K. Gandhi at the UN and accused Pakistan of "hosting Osama Bin Laden". Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse, a member of the militant Hindu organization RSS. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a member of the RSS. 

Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari at the United Nations Headquarters in New York

Here are some excerpts of what Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said at the media briefing at the UN:  

“He [Narendra Modi] was banned from entering this country [the United States]....these are the prime minister and foreign minister of the RSS (India's right-wing Hindu nationalist organization)....The RSS draws its inspiration from Hitler’s SS (the German Nazi Party’s militant wing Schutzstaffel)...(According to the RSS) we (Muslims) are terrorists whether we are Muslims in Pakistan and we’re terrorists whether we’re Muslims in India.....They (Modi and BJP) are not even attempting to wash the blood of the people of Gujarat off their hand..."Butcher of Gujarat” was now the “Butcher of Kashmir”". 

Last month,  the US State Department bracketed Indian Prime Minister Modi with murderous dictators like Congo's Laurent Kabila and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. Speaking about the US decision to grant immunity to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel said that it was “not the first time” that the US government has designated immunity to foreign leaders and listed four cases. “Some examples: President Aristide in Haiti in 1993; President Mugabe in Zimbabwe in 2001; Prime Minister Modi in India in 2014; and President Kabila in the DRC in 2018. This is a consistent practice that we have afforded to heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers,” he said. 

BJP HIndutva Leaders Modi, Yogi and Shah

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India was barred from entering the United States from 2005 to 2014 for his involvement in the massacre of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002.  In 2015, a US judge dismissed a lawsuit against Modi after the US government argued that he is immune to accusations as a sitting head of government. While Modi has denied any involvement in the Gujarat anti-Muslim pogrom, he has never even expressed any regret over the killings in Gujarat when he was the Chief Minister of the Indian state. 

While Modi has refused to accept any responsibility for the massacre of over 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, his party BJP's leaders have not shied away from claiming "credit" for it. Just yesterday, Modi's right-hand man and current Home Minister Amit Shah said Muslims were "taught a lesson" in 2002. He said that "after they were taught a lesson in 2002, these elements left that path (of violence). They refrained from indulging in violence from 2002 till 2022. BJP has established permanent peace in Gujarat by taking strict action against those who used to indulge in communal violence". 

In 2002 when Narendra Modi was chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat, hundreds of young Muslim girls were sexually assaulted, tortured and killed.  These rapes were condoned by the ruling BJP, whose refusal to intervene lead to the rape and killing of thousands and displacement of 200,000 Muslims.

In 2012, a former Chief Minister of Gujarat Mr. Shankersinh Vaghela accused Modi's state government of having blood on its hand: "2002 me jo katl-e-aam hua uspe wo sarkar bani hai. Iske baad encounter hui, uske upar ye sarkar bani thi. Sarkar banti hai, lekin ye jo conspiracy karke sarkar banana hai, ye Gujarat aur desh ki janata jaanti hai aur aaj wo repeat nah o, iske liye hum janata ko request karte hain (The foundation of this (Modi) government rests on the 2002 carnage. Governments are made, but not on conspiracies. And the people of Gujarat know this, and that's why we are requesting the people for a change)," Mr Vaghela said.

Since his election to India's top elected office, Modi has elevated fellow right-wing Hindu extremists to positions of power in India. Yogi Adiyanath, known for his highly inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric, was hand-picked in 2016 by Modi to head India's most populous state of Uttar Pradesh.

Adiyanath's supporters brag about digging up Muslim women from their graves and raping them. In a video uploaded in 2014,  he said, “If [Muslims] take one Hindu girl, we’ll take 100 Muslim girls. If they kill one Hindu, we’ll kill 100 Muslims.”

Yogi wants to "install statues of Goddess Gauri, Ganesh and Nandi in every mosque”.  Before his election, he said, “If one Hindu is killed, we won’t go to the police, we’ll kill 10 Muslims”.  He endorsed the beef lynching of Indian Muslim Mohammad Akhlaque and demanded that the victim's family be charged with cow slaughter.

Madhav S. Golwalkar, considered among the founders of the Hindu Nationalist movement in India, saw Islam and Muslims as enemies. He said: “Ever since that evil day, when Moslems first landed in Hindusthan, right up to the present moment, the Hindu Nation has been gallantly fighting to shake off the despoilers".

In his book We, MS Golwalkar wrote the following in praise of what Nazi leader Adolf Hitler did to Jews as a model for what Hindus should do to Muslims in India: "To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races -- the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by."

Paul Richard Brass, professor emeritus of political science and international relations at the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, has spent many years researching communal riots in India. He has debunked all the action-reaction theories promoted by Hindu Nationalists like Modi. He believes these are not spontaneous but planned and staged as "a grisly form of dramatic production" by well-known perpetrators from the Sangh Parivar of which Prime Minister Modi has been a member since his youth.

Here's an excerpt of Professor Brass's work:

"Events labelled “Hindu-Muslim riots” have been recurring features in India for three-quarters of a century or more. In northern and western India, especially, there are numerous cities and town in which riots have become endemic. In such places, riots have, in effect, become a grisly form of dramatic production in which there are three phases: preparation/rehearsal, activation/enactment, and explanation/interpretation. In these sites of endemic riot production, preparation and rehearsal are continuous activities. Activation or enactment of a large-scale riot takes place under particular circumstances, most notably in a context of intense political mobilization or electoral competition in which riots are precipitated as a device to consolidate the support of ethnic, religious, or other culturally marked groups by emphasizing the need for solidarity in face of the rival communal group. The third phase follows after the violence in a broader struggle to control the explanation or interpretation of the causes of the violence. In this phase, many other elements in society become involved, including journalists, politicians, social scientists, and public opinion generally. At first, multiple narratives vie for primacy in controlling the explanation of violence. On the one hand, the predominant social forces attempt to insert an explanatory narrative into the prevailing discourse of order, while others seek to establish a new consensual hegemony that upsets existing power relations, that is, those which accept the violence as spontaneous, religious, mass-based, unpredictable, and impossible to prevent or control fully. This third phase is also marked by a process of blame displacement in which social scientists themselves become implicated, a process that fails to isolate effectively those most responsible for the production of violence, and instead diffuses blame widely, blurring responsibility, and thereby contributing to the perpetuation of violent productions in future, as well as the order that sustains them."

"In India, all this takes place within a discourse of Hindu-Muslim hostility that denies the deliberate and purposive character of the violence by attributing it to the spontaneous reactions of ordinary Hindus and Muslims, locked in a web of mutual antagonisms said to have a long history. In the meantime, in post-Independence India, what are labelled Hindu-Muslim riots have more often than not been turned into pogroms and massacres of Muslims, in which few Hindus are killed. In fact, in sites of endemic rioting, there exist what I have called “institutionalized riot systems,” in which the organizations of militant Hindu nationalism are deeply implicated. Further, in these sites, persons can be identified, who play specific roles in the preparation, enactment, and explanation of riots after the fact. Especially important are what I call the “fire tenders,” who keep Hindu-Muslim tensions alive through various inflammatory and inciting acts; “conversion specialists,” who lead and address mobs of potential rioters and give a signal to indicate if and when violence should commence; criminals and the poorest elements in society, recruited and rewarded for enacting the violence; and politicians and the vernacular media who, during the violence, and in its aftermath, draw attention away from the perpetrators of the violence by attributing it to the actions."

Related Links:


Riaz Haq said...

India: How to turn a country over to the Hindu mob

Stop a marriage, demolish a bus stop, frighten minorities. As the rule of law collapses in India, the whims of Hindu extremists become de facto State policy. Excellent piece by @samar11

Even in Karnataka, very few people know of the Hindu Jagruti Sene – their Facebook page has no more than 1,000 followers. In normal circumstances, no one would have bothered if a group on the fringes of the Hindu right demanded that the main train station in the dusty, poor northern city of Kalaburgi painted in green be repainted because “it looks like a mosque”.

But this is the new India with every old vice resurrected and magnified, with fundamentalist demands, however nutty and bigoted, taken into serious consideration. So, it was no surprise that a few days later, the Indian railways – known for a notoriously slow bureaucracy, which takes years to even clear footbridges connecting metro and mainline stations – repainted Kalaburgi station white.

Meanwhile, in the state capital of Bengaluru, a more well-known Hindu group called the Hindu Jangruti Samiti – its previous successes include a stop to the shows of “anti-Hindu” stand-up comics – successfully began lobbying legislators of the state and India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party for a ban on the certification of halal food and the establishment of an “anti-love-jihad police force”, both favourite tropes of Hindu fundamentalists. On cue, a BJP legislator said he would introduce a private member’s bill to ban certification of food by any “private organisation”.

Only last month, as I wrote in my last column, a BJP MP demanded that two domes of a bus stop in Mysuru be demolished because, of course, it looked like a mosque. Fifteen days later, the domes were gone. Concerted assaults have been made, with considerable success, on Muslim customs, food and livelihoods. We have now reached the point where Christians in Bengaluru seek police protection to sing carols.

In neighbouring Maharashtra, this week, came news that the coalition government in which the BJP is a partner was setting up a committee headed by BJP MLA Mangal Prabhat Lodha to track inter-faith and inter-caste marriage, ostensibly to enable rapprochement between women and their “estranged” families. The decision was apparently a reaction to viral social-media messages that demonised all Muslim men after a Muslim man murdered and chopped up his Hindu girlfriend, the kind of gruesome murder that is all too common in India but mostly ignored, until this one.

Quite apart from the fact that the Maharashtra government move disregarded the agency of women and was dangerously intrusive and menacing – the committee will gather details of such marriages and contact such couples – it appeared illegal and unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, in BJP-run Madhya Pradesh this week, home minister Narottam Mishra, a conscientious objector of films or television series he deems anti-Hindu, took offence with the saffron-coloured attire of a movie star, who he said in any case supported the “tukde-tukde” gang, another trope that claims liberals and minorities want to splinter India.

Far from being indications of a strong and resurgent India – as the government claims is unfolding under Narendra Modi – a list of knee-jerk decisions and declarations made without regard to the law, indicate how easily the whims of Hindu fundamentalists are becoming State policy. When the mob dictates State policy, the State echoes the demands and concerns of the mob. That is what is happening in the Modi era.

The Indian mob has always had an impact on the State. Once the State gives in, a new normal is established and recovery to the old can take a generation or more. Recent Indian history is replete with examples. By encouraging non-State actors to radicalise society – and increasingly blurring the line between them and the state – Modi is repeating the follies of the past on a grander, more ominous scale.

Virginia Raines said...

Ukraine War Lessons For India: Big Wars Are Back, Terrorism Takes A Backseat

Ukraine War Lessons For India: Big Wars Are Back, Terrorism Takes A Backseat

Defence analysts say that the two lessons from the Ukraine War are that, one, the big wars are back and terrorism has taken a backseat, and, two, the superiority of Western weapons is apparent from how Russian advances have been stalled by West-backed Ukraine.

Russia central bank holds rates, says inflationary factors prevail for now
2 days ago — Inflation, which the central bank targets at 4%, stood at 12.65% as of Dec. 12, according to the economy ministry.

Russia Can Finally See that Putin's 'Days Are Numbered'
2 hours ago — Anna Nemtsova — More than two decades after he came to power, President Putin’s grip on the Russian people is finally starting to falter.

Putin sounds out military commanders on Ukraine
18 hours ago — Vladimir Putin presided at a meeting of around a dozen people at a circular table, flanked by Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and military Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov

Putin sounds out military commanders on Ukraine

Anonymous said...

Yeah Sure..Russia is so weak it holds 15% of Ukrainian territory and the mighty west is too scared to even impose a no fly zone let alone engage in actual combat since fighting enemies who can shoot back is something the west has not done in over 50 years and has no institutional memory of.

Also backward Russia is the only country with deployed hypersonic cruise missiles.

The Indians know how to milk both sides they are paying Russia $48/barrel for oil and thanks to this support are guaranteed Russian veto at the UN for the next 10 years after which they will be too big to be scared of any UN resolution.

With their tension on the Chinese border and some light weight joint exercises they will milk the west for technology and market access.

Seriously good statecraft by the Brahmin descendants of Chanakya.

samir sardana said...


o Ambedkar, in his historic speech in Nagpur on October 15, 1956, a day after he had embraced Buddhism, said, “The movement to leave the Hindu religion was taken in hand by us in 1955, when a resolution was made in Yeola. Even though I was born in the Hindu religion, I will not die in the Hindu religion. This oath I made earlier; yesterday, I proved it true. I am happy; I am ecstatic! I have left hell — this is how I feel. I do not want any blind followers. Those who come into the Buddhist religion should come with an understanding; they should consciously accept that religion.”

o When Mahatma Gandhi requested Ambedkar to lend his support to the Temple Entry Bill, but the latter declined. Ambedkar wrote to Gandhi, "I would like to assure the Mahatma that it is not the mere failure of Hindus and Hinduism which has produced in me the feelings of disgust and contempt. I am disgusted with Hindus and Hinduism because I am convinced that they cherish wrong ideals and lead a wrong social life. My quarrel with Hindus and Hinduism is not over the imperfections of their social conduct. It is much more fundamental. It is over their ideals."

o In response to Mahatma Gandhi's efforts to reclaim Dalits back into the Hindu fold, Ambedkar said, “A bitter thing cannot be made sweet. The taste of anything can be changed. But poison cannot be changed into nectar.”

o One of the 22 oaths that he took on October 14, 1956, and even asked those who converted like him to take, was: "I thereby reject my old religion, Hinduism, which is detrimental to the prosperity of human kind and which discriminates between man and man and which treats me as inferior."
o Of the 22 vows of Dr Ambedkar,the top three were:
a) "I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh nor shall I worship them."
b) "I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna who are believed to be incarnation of God nor shall I worship them."
c) "I shall have no faith in 'Gauri', Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I worship them."

o Hitting hard AT Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who has acquired elevated status in saffron ecosphere, Dr Ambekdar did not mince any words. He wrote, “If he claims a national home for the Hindu nation, how can he refuse the claim of the Muslim nation for a national home?

o Ambedka wrote in his book, Pakistan or The Partition of India, in Chapter XIII of Part V of the book, “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say. Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.”


You may stand and recite the Shaastras and the Vedas, O Siblings of Destiny, but these are just worldly actions. “Filth cannot be washed away by hypocrisy”, O Siblings of Destiny; the filth of corruption and sin, “is within you”. (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 635)

O Pandit, O religious scholar, “your filth shall not be erased”, even if you read the Vedas for four ages. (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 647)

The Pandits, the religious scholars, and the silent sages, reading and studying the Vedas, have grown weary. The Messenger of Death “hovers over their heads”; they are ruined by the deceit within themselves. ||7|| (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1277)


Shirish said...

Be happy with outdated information which had been proved false. The US administration had to swallow what it vomited in past. Better you learn what are the principles of jurisprudence, instead of defaming your whole community.

Ashraf said...


Please tell me which portion of the information is outdated.
Modiwala has diplomatic immunity only because he is prime minister of India. If not, he would be denied a visit visa.
According to latest State Department dossier the earlier charges are still valid and not withdrawn to date.
They confirmed diplomatic immunity for the terrorist of Gujarat. If you agree or not, it will not change ground rules.
Please call State Department - Diplomatic Desk for confirmation.

Ahmed said...

Sir Ashraf

Exactly and I think the reason why PM Modi is enjoying immunity is because the international community specially America needs India against China .

Western countries specially American government knows that the influence and power of China is growing in the region of South Asia since the project of CPEC has started and this is something which is troubling the western countries and America . So they definitely need the enemy of China ( India ) to counter the growing influence of China in the region and no matter who is the PM of India , America will need India to counter the influence of China . So they had to provide immunity to PM Modi.

Ahmed said...

Sir Ashraf

I don’t understand one thing why many Indians still support PM Modi?

What are his achievements as a PM of the country since he came into power ?

What are his credentials?

What is his credibility ?

Can you pls explain what makes him so famous in India ?

Ahmed said...

Dear Sir Riaz and Sir Ashraf

I think as soon as the tenure of Modi as a PM of India comes to an end , these charges which are levelled against him for what really happened in Gujrat State of India in 2002 when he was the Chief Minister of Gujrat will definitely and most probably be brought back to table and they will be revealed infront of the Supreme Court of America and their is a possibility that this case will also be opened in international court of justice .

Ahmed said...

Dear Sir Riaz

Actually one of my relative is a lawyer and he knows the reality of Indian PM and he asked several questions to Indians about PM Modi but they never truthfully and honestly answer those questions .

Riaz Haq said...

What US Said On Pak Minister Bilawal Bhutto's Comments Against PM Modi

US shares multifaceted relationships with India and Pakistan and does not want to see a "war of words" but a constructive dialogue between the two nations for the betterment of their people, a top US official has said.
Relations between India and Pakistan have often been strained over the Kashmir issue and cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan.

"We have a global strategic partnership with India. I have also spoken about the deep partnership we have with Pakistan. These relationships in our mind are not zero-sum. We do not view them in relation to one another," US State Department spokesperson Ned Price told reporters at his daily news conference on Monday when asked about the recent outburst against Prime Minister Narendra Modi by Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari in New York.

Riaz Haq said...

What US Said On Pak Minister Bilawal Bhutto's Comments Against PM Modi

US shares multifaceted relationships with India and Pakistan and does not want to see a "war of words" but a constructive dialogue between the two nations for the betterment of their people, a top US official has said.
Relations between India and Pakistan have often been strained over the Kashmir issue and cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan.

"We have a global strategic partnership with India. I have also spoken about the deep partnership we have with Pakistan. These relationships in our mind are not zero-sum. We do not view them in relation to one another," US State Department spokesperson Ned Price told reporters at his daily news conference on Monday when asked about the recent outburst against Prime Minister Narendra Modi by Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari in New York.

Price said each of these relationships is indispensable to the US and to the promotion and pursuit of the shared goals that the US has with India and Pakistan.

"The fact that we have partnerships with both countries leaves us not wanting to see a war of words between India and Pakistan. We would like to see a constructive dialogue between India and Pakistan. We think that is for the betterment of the Pakistani and Indian people. There is much work that we can do together bilaterally," Price said in response to the question.

"There are differences that, of course, need to be addressed between India and Pakistan. The United States stands ready to assist as a partner to both," he asserted.

The ties between India and Pakistan nosedived after India abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution, revoking the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcating the State into two Union Territories on August 5, 2019.

Pakistan foreign minister Bhutto-Zardari last week resorted to a personal attack on Prime Minister Modi and slammed the RSS after External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar told the UN Security Council that the "contemporary epicentre of terrorism" remains very much active and called for collective action to tackle them.

Though Jaishankar did not name any countries, it was apparent that he was making a veiled reference to Pakistan.

Later, he told reporters in New York that the world sees Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism and recalled US leader Hillary Clinton's blunt message to Islamabad in 2011 that snakes in one's backyard will eventually bite those who keep them.

"The US has a global strategic partnership with India. These relationships stand on their own; it is not zero-sum.

"We see the importance - the indispensability really - of maintaining valuable partnerships with both our Indian and Pakistani friends. Each of these relationships also happens to be multifaceted," Price said.

"So even as we deepen our global strategic partnership with India, we also have a relationship in which we can be candid and frank with one another. Where we have disagreements or concerns, we voice those just as we would with our Pakistani friends as well," he said.

It is a bipartisan legacy of the last several administrations, perhaps starting most notably with the administration of former US President George W Bush that the US is now a partner of "first resort" for India, he said.

"There is a lot of good that we can do together, not only for our two countries, but around the world, and I think we will see a good example of that in the coming year when India hosts the G20," he said.

"I know we will have an opportunity to travel to India, to be in close touch with India in the context of the G20, and we will be able to see what cooperation between our two countries and a broader set of countries can provide," Price added.

Anonymous said...

^ Basically how India has a great relationship with both US and Russia.

Virginia Raines said...

Modi's Personality Cult Has Replaced India's Democracy
Nov 4, 2022 — The Cult of Modi. How India's prime minister dismantled the world's largest democratic experiment.

By rewriting history, Hindu nationalists aim to assert their dominance over India
Mar 6, 2018 — The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has appointed a committee of scholars to prove that Hindus are descended from India's first inhabitants. Members of the country's Muslim minority worry the government wants to make them second-class citizens.

Modi's party is finally confident enough to reveal its most ...
Mar 19, 2017 — Modi's party is finally confident enough to reveal its most venomous religious agenda to India · Distilled hatred ·

How Modi Is Using Hinduism to Turn India Into an Autocracy
Jul 13, 2020 — Modi's Slide Toward Autocracy. Using Hindutva ideology, India's leader is restyling the country as one with only the trappings of democracy.

Thirumala Raya Halemane said...

It is an excellent response from USA to the India-Pakistan quarrels, It emphasizes positive attitudes and suggests good ways of going forward, and offers such initiative and leadership from USA to both India and Pakistan, also making the point that it has close relationships with both India and Pakistan. This is a hopeful sign, and it would be best if both countries are able to gather the wisdom and courage to work positively together with USA, in this regard and not get overly influenced or side-tracked or get pushed into corners because of being driven by other agendas. We hope and pray for the best. Best Wishea. Aummmm..

Riaz Haq said...

World has finally realized that #India's game against #Pakistan is to deflect attention from #Modi's war against innocent #Kashmiris. There is little response to #Jaishankar's call at #UN Security Council members meeting for actions against #terrorism.

by Vivek Katju

Ex-Secretary, Indian Ministry of External Affairs

PARTICIPATING in a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) discussion on terrorism, organised at India’s initiative on December 15, US Under Secretary for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland said, ‘Last year, the world faced more than 8,000 terrorist incidents, across 65 countries, killing more than 23,000 people….’ These chilling statistics show that terrorism is a contemporary scourge, and India has been a victim of cross-border terrorism for at least three decades. It was therefore appropriate for India to make counter-terrorism a significant theme of its membership of the UNSC for its two-year term that concludes at this month’s end.

To profile the importance India attaches to counter-terrorism, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar travelled to New York to preside over the December 15 UNSC meeting on ‘Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts’. He invited ‘high level’ representatives from the UNSC member states — normally he would have sent invitations to his counterparts — to the meeting. Ireland was represented by its foreign minister while some others, including Britain, sent junior ministers or senior officials. The lukewarm response to Jaishankar’s invitation was an indication that while all major powers assert the importance of eliminating terrorism, they have really moved on to other issues concerning international peace and security. Consequently, for these powers, the salience and profile of the terrorist threat in their security calculus has diminished.

At a conceptual level, India has never wanted to go into the ‘root causes’ of terrorism. It has believed that idea to be a slippery slope which could lead to the justification of terrorism. However, it is clear that more and more countries are showing sympathy with the need to address ‘root causes’. This was reflected in Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney’s statement. ‘The most effective way to tackle terrorism is to prevent it in the first place… we know that communities affected by conflict, poverty, inequality, poor governance and human rights violations are more vulnerable to radicalisation and recruitment’.

Ahmed said...

Dear Sir

I don’t think that the Indian government will only try to divert the attention of international community from the issue of Kashmir but its purpose and intention is also to divert their attention from other natorious activities which Indians have been doing against Pakistan secretly using proxy war .

Pls watch the videos of Webster Tarpley a writer from America . He gave interview to Alex Jones who runs a radio show in Texas state of America and see what Webster Tarpley said in that radio show .He clearly said that Indian agents ( RAW) are hiring crazies from Afghanistan and using them against Pakistan .

Also Mr. Chuk Hagel who was the nominee for the position of US Defence Secretary , he gave a speech in Cameron University in Oklahoma where he clearly said that India is using Afghanistan as a 2nd front against Pakistan .

Ahmed said...

Dear Sir

Pls also check the article on bbc website which showed that how President Nixon of America was upset when East Pakistan became Bangladesh . At that time Kissinger was the Secretary of US President Nixon and both criticised the contemperory PM of India who was Indra Gandhi at that time . President Nixon called Indra Gandhi a witch and also Kissinger used some bad remarks against her .

Ahmed said...

Dear Sir

Thanks for this post , pls check the latest news , as you might be knowing that Rameez Raja is the Chairman of PCB( Pakistan Cricket Board) at the moment and under his management Pakistan cricket team is mashallah performing really good and not only that but he is taking PCB ( Pakistan Cricket Board) forward and reviving it . He even aggressively responded to Indian Cricket Board when Indian Cricket Board refused to send its cricket team to Pakistan .

Sir unfortunately their is a plan to remove Rameez Raja from the position of Chairman of Pakistan Cricket Board and Najam Sethi might replace him .

Don’t you think Sir that present PM and government of Pakistan is doing injustice with Rameez Raja ?

Don’t you think their is a possibility that Indian lobbies might be secretly working to remove him from this position of PCB because recently Indian cricket board has faced humiliation and mashallah PCB was gaining respect ?

Riaz Haq said...

#India's Pitai (Beating) by the #Chinese.
Congress Party Leader #RahulGandhi: "China has taken our land. They are beating out soldiers. The threat of China Is clear. And the government is hiding it, ignoring it" #BharatJodoYatra #Modi #BJP #Ladakh

"Pitai" Shouldn't Be Used For Jawans: S Jaishankar On Rahul Gandhi Remark
"China has taken our land. They are beating out soldiers. The threat of China Is clear. And the government is hiding it, ignoring it," Rahul Gandhi had said.

Foreign minister S Jaishankar today in the Parliament objected to the Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's use of the word "pitai (beating)" in the context of clashes between Indian and Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh's Tawang sector. Mr Gandhi had, while criticising Prime Minister Modi on alleged Chinese advances in Arunachal Pradesh, said "hamare jawanon ki pitai ho rahi hai (our troops are being beaten up)".
"We have no problems if there are political differences, even if there is political criticism. I have heard sometimes that my own understanding needs to be deepened. When I see who is giving the advice, I can only bow and respect, but I think we shouldn't directly or indirectly criticise our jawans. Our jawans are standing in Yangtse at 13,000 feet, defending our border, they do not deserve to have the word 'pitai'. The word 'pitai' shouldn't be used for our jawans," Mr Jaishankar said.

Soon after Mr Gandhi's remarks in Jaipur during his pan-India foot march -- the Bharat Jodo Yatra -- where he accused the government of downplaying the threat posed by China, saying Beijing was preparing for war but Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration was "sleeping", the BJP had launched a fierce attack, taking issue with his comment that Chinese soldiers are beating up Indian Army personnel in Arunachal Pradesh. BJP leaders demanded that Congress should immediately expel him from the party.

"China has taken our land. They are beating out soldiers. The threat of China Is clear. And the government is hiding it, ignoring it. China is preparing for an offensive in Ladakh and Arunachal. And the government of India is sleeping," Mr Gandhi had said, further attacking S Jaishankar, saying his statements showed he needed to expand his knowledge on China.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia had said if Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge is not "remote-controlled" and if the opposition party stands with the country, then Rahul Gandhi should be expelled for his comments, which "belittle" India and break the morale of its armed forces.

Riaz Haq said...

#India opposition’s ‘unity march’ against #hate reaches #NewDelhi. Rahul Gandhi: "Hindu-Muslim hatred (by #BJP/#Modi) is being spread twenty-four-seven to divert your attention from real issues” #BharatJodoYatraInDelhi @RoflGandhi_ via @AJEnglish

The cross-country march enters the capital where Congress leader Rahul Gandhi attacks Modi’s BJP for ‘spreading Hindu-Muslim hatred’.

A cross-country march led by Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi has reached the capital New Delhi after passing through eight states, hoping to regain some of the popularity it lost to the ruling Hindu nationalist party.

Tens of thousands of people have joined Gandhi’s “Unite India March” against “hate and division”, which aims to turn the Congress party’s fortunes around after its drubbing by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in two successive national elections.

“Hindu-Muslim hatred is being spread twenty-four-seven to divert your attention from real issues,” Gandhi said in his speech at the Mughal-era Red Fort in the Indian capital.

“They will spread hate. We will spread love,” he said, referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP.

Hindu nationalism has surged under Modi and his party, which have been criticised over rising hate speech and violence against Muslims in recent years. Opponents say Modi’s silence emboldens right-wing groups and threatens national unity, but his party has denied this.

“There are concerns about the plight of minorities, the shrinking space for dissent, as well as the government’s handling of the pandemic and the economy,” said Al Jazeera’s Pavni Mittal, reporting from New Delhi.

“Analysts say the Congress’s inability to be an effective opposition and hold the government accountable has contributed to the BJP’s unprecedented success,” she added.

The Nehru-Gandhi family has controlled the Congress party for decades but has also overseen its recent decline. The party currently governs just three of India’s 28 states.

Rahul Gandhi resigned as Congress president after the last general election. The next national polls are due by 2024.

Plagued by a leadership crisis and series of electoral routs, the Congress in October elected Mallikarjun Kharge, its first non-Gandhi president in 24 years, in an attempt to shed the image of being run by a single family.

Kharge on Saturday wrote on Twitter the march is “against the politics of inflation, unemployment, inequality, and hatred”.

“[This] national mass movement has gathered the hopes of crores [millions] of people by reaching the throne of power,” he posted.

The march will take a nine-day break in New Delhi before starting its final leg on January 3 towards Srinagar, the main city in Indian-administered Kashmir in the north.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh told journalists on Saturday the march – which is broadcast live on a website – has completed nearly 3,200km (1,988 miles) so far in nine states.

Gandhi’s mother and former Congress president Sonia Gandhi, his sister and party leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and her husband Robert Vadra joined Saturday’s march in the capital.

Sharing a picture of himself hugging his mother during the rally, Gandhi tweeted: “The love I have received from her is what I am sharing with the country.”

Actor-turned-politician Kamal Haasan also joined the march on Saturday.

Passing through hundreds of villages and towns, the march has attracted farmers worried about rising debt, students complaining about increasing unemployment, civil society members and rights activists who say India’s democratic health is in decline.

In multiple impassioned speeches during the march, Gandhi often targeted Modi and his government for doing very little to address the growing economic inequality in India, the rising religious polarisation, and the threat posed by China.

The armies of India and China are locked in a bitter standoff in the mountainous Ladakh region since 2020. Despite over a dozen rounds of talks at military, political and diplomatic levels, the standoff has protracted.

Riaz Haq said...

India Slams BBC Narendra Modi Documentary, Broadcaster Defends It

On Jan. 19, Indian foreign ministry spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said: “Do note that this has not been screened in India. So, I am only going to comment in the context of what I have heard about it and what my colleagues have seen. Let me just make it very clear that we think this is a propaganda piece designed to push a particular discredited narrative. The bias, the lack of objectivity, and frankly a continuing colonial mindset, is blatantly visible.”

“If anything, this film or documentary is a reflection on the agency and individuals that are peddling this narrative again. It makes us wonder about the purpose of this exercise and the agenda behind it and frankly we do not wish to dignify such efforts,” Bagchi added.

A BBC spokesperson told Variety: “The BBC is committed to highlighting important issues from around the world. The documentary series examines the tensions between India’s Hindu majority and Muslim minority and explores the politics of India’s PM Narendra Modi in relation to those tensions. This has been the source of considerable reporting and interest both in India and across the world in recent years.”

“The documentary was rigorously researched according to highest editorial standards. A wide range of voices, witnesses and experts were approached, and we have featured a range of opinions – this includes responses from people in the BJP [India’s ruling party]. We offered the Indian Government a right to reply to the matters raised in the series – it declined to respond,” the spokesperson added.

The documentary addresses the 2002 communal riots in the western Indian state of Gujarat, of which Modi was Chief Minister at the time, that left 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus dead, per official numbers. A decade later, a Special Investigation Team appointed by India’s Supreme Court exonerated Modi, saying that the leader had taken steps to control the situation.

On Jan. 18, U.K. member of parliament Imran Hussain, quoted the documentary during Prime Minister’s Questions, saying senior diplomats reported that the massacre could not have taken place without the “climate of impunity” created by Modi and that he was, in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office words, “directly responsible” for the violence.

Hussain asked U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak: “Given that hundreds were brutally killed and that families across India and the world, including here in the U.K., are still without justice, does the Prime Minister agree with his Foreign Office diplomats that Modi was directly responsible? What more does the Foreign Office know about Modi’s involvement in that grave act of ethnic cleansing?”

Sunak replied: “The U.K. Government’s position on that is clear and long standing, and it has not changed. Of course, we do not tolerate persecution anywhere, but I am not sure that I agree at all with the characterization that the hon. gentleman has put forward.”

The second part of the documentary, which is due to broadcast on Jan. 24, could potentially be even more inflammatory. It “examines the track record of Narendra Modi’s government following his re-election in 2019. A series of controversial policies – the removal of Kashmir’s special status guaranteed under Article 370 of the Indian constitution and a citizenship law that many said treated Muslims unfairly – has been accompanied by reports of violent attacks on Muslims by Hindus,” according to the BBC episode description.

Riaz Haq said...

BBC - Riots a stain on Narendra Modi, says former British foreign secretary Jack Straw - Telegraph India

The Gujarat riots of 2002 are a “stain” on Narendra Modi, former British foreign secretary Jack Straw has told a two-part documentary, India: The Modi Question, that is being shown on BBC2.

The first part was transmitted on Tuesday, January 17, and the second part will go out next Tuesday, January 24.

Introducing the programme, the BBC told viewers: “The programme contains scenes you may find upsetting.”

It summed up: “This series tells the story of Narendra Modi’s troubled relationship with India’s Muslims.”

During Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Imran Hussain, the Labour MP for Bradford East, confronted Rishi Sunak: “Last night, the BBC revealed that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office knew the extent of Narendra Modi’s involvement in the Gujarat massacre that paved the way for the persecution of Muslims and other minorities that we see in India today.”

Hussain went on: “Senior diplomats reported that the massacre could not have taken place without the ‘climate of impunity’ created by Modi and that he was, in the FCDO’s words, ‘directly responsible’ for the violence. Given that hundreds were brutally killed and that families across India and the world, including here in the UK, are still without justice, does the Prime Minister agree with his Foreign Office diplomats that Modi was directly responsible? What more does the Foreign Office know about Modi’s involvement in that grave act of ethnic cleansing?”

Rishi brushed the question away: “The UK government’s position on that is clear and longstanding, and it has not changed. Of course, we do not tolerate persecution anywhere, but I am not sure that I agree at all with the characterisation that the Hon. Gentleman has put forward.”

Straw, who was the British foreign secretary under Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair from 2001 to 2006, was asked about the riots by the programme and replied: “I was very worried about it. I was taking a great deal of personal interest, because India is a really important country with whom we have relations. We had to handle it very carefully.” Straw was the Labour MP from 1979 to 2015 for Blackburn, which has a large Pakistani-origin population.

He said: “What we did was to establish an inquiry and have a team go to Gujarat and find out for themselves what had happened. And they produced a very thorough report.”

Straw added: “It was very shocking. These were very serious claims that chief minister Modi had played a pretty active part in pulling back the police and in tacitly encouraging the Hindu extremists.

“That was a particularly egregious example of political involvement, really to prevent the police from doing their job, which was to protect both communities, the Hindu and the Muslims. The options open to us were fairly limited. We were never going to break diplomatic relations with India. But it is obviously a stain on his reputation. There’s no way out of that.”

The BBC said: “The report, sent as a diplomatic cable and marked ‘restricted’, has never been published before.”

The programme highlighted lines from the report: “Extent of violence much greater than reported… widespread and systematic rape of Muslim women…. Violence, politically motivated.... Aim was to purge Muslims from Hindu areas. The systematic campaign of violence has all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing.”

The BBC said: “The report contained an extraordinary claim.”

This was: “Reliable contacts have told us Narendra Modi met senior police officers on the 27th of February and ordered them not to intervene in the rioting. Police contacts deny this meeting happened.

Riaz Haq said...

BBC - Riots a stain on Narendra Modi, says former British foreign secretary Jack Straw - Telegraph India

“There were pretty credible reports he had specifically instructed the police not to intervene. The police contact who we talked to consistently denied that. So we did have conflicting reports on what his direct role had been. But we did feel it was clear there was a culture of impunity that created the environment for the violence to take place. That undoubtedly came from Modi.”

The BBC then interviewed a former senior British diplomat who was “one of the investigators. He is speaking publicly for the first time about what the British inquiry found. He’s asked to remain anonymous.”

He told the programme: “At least 2,000 people were murdered during the violence, the vast majority were Muslim. We described it as a pogrom, a deliberate and politically driven effort targeted at the Muslim community. The violence was widely reported to have been organised by an extremist Hindu nationalist group, the VHP, who have a relationship with the RSS.

“The VHP and its allies could not have inflicted so much damage without the climate of impunity created by the state government. Narendra Modi is directly responsible.” Modi has been given a clean chit by the Supreme Court of India.

The Telegraph asked the UK foreign office to see the full report.

Its existence was not denied but in response, the foreign office sent this newspaper a statement: “The violence in Gujarat in 2002 was tragic. It is a reminder of the need to continually work for respect and harmony between religious communities.

It is right that we remember the victims of the violence in Gujarat in 2002, and their families, and that we reaffirm our commitment to do all we can to foster inter-communal understanding and respect around the world.

“Where events involve British nationals, we naturally have an interest both in the provision of consular assistance and in trying to ascertain what happened through police and diplomacy.”

Three British nationals from Yorkshire — Imran and Shakil Dawood, and Mohammed Aswat — were killed by rioters when they crossed into Gujarat from a trip to the Taj. A survivor, who was 18 at the time, was interviewed for the programme.

The BBC set out what was covered in part one: “Narendra Modi is the leader of the world’s largest democracy, a man who has been elected twice as India’s Prime Minister and is widely seen as the most powerful politician of his generation. Seen by the West as an important bulwark against Chinese domination of Asia, he has been courted as a key ally by both the US and the UK.

“Yet Narendra Modi’s premiership has been dogged by persistent allegations about the attitude of his government towards India’s Muslim population. This series investigates the truth behind these allegations and examines Modi’s backstory to explore other questions about his politics when it comes to India’s largest religious minority.

“This episode tracks Narendra Modi’s first steps into politics, including and his association with the Right-wing Hindu organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, his rise through the ranks of the Bharatiya Janata Party, and his appointment as chief minister of the state of Gujarat, where his response to a series of riots in 2002 remains a source of controversy.”

It said of the sequel: “The second episode examines the track record of Narendra Modi’s government following his re-election in 2019.

“A series of controversial policies — the removal of Kashmir’s special status guaranteed under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and a citizenship law that many said treated Muslims unfairly — has been accompanied by reports of violent attacks on Muslims by Hindus.

“Modi and his government reject any suggestion that their policies reflect any prejudice towards Muslims, but these policies have been repeatedly criticised by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International.

Riaz Haq said...

Watch: Ex-Foreign Minister Jack Straw Confirms UK Report that ‘Modi Directly Responsible’ for 2002 Riots

Jack Straw, who was Britain’s foreign secretary in 2002 when the Gujarat killings happened, has confirmed that the British high commissioner in India sent a report to the Foreign Office in London which said “Narendra Modi is directly responsible” for the killings in 2002 in Gujarat. “That was the feeling of those on the ground,” he said.


BBC places Modi at heart of Gujarat riots, drawing ire of Indian government | Middle East Eye

Documentary reveals shocking details of British fact-finding mission after anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 20 years ago

Rasheed, from the IAMC, said it was unsurprising that Modi's PR machine was out in full force to deny and distract from his role in the pogroms.

"They will do everything in their power to suppress its screening. But this important piece of journalism has already brought Mr Modi again under the international community's scanner for his role in 2002 and renewed calls to prosecute him," Rasheed added.

Riaz Haq said...

BBC's Modi Documentary shows that there were two people with direct knowledge of Modi's orders for the police to not protect Muslims: Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya and IPS (Indian Police Service) officer Sanjiv Bhatt.

Excerpts of Frontline story on the BBC Modi Documentary:

"Even though R.B. Sreekumar, head of police intelligence in Gujarat, and Sanjiv Bhatt, another police officer, had maintained that Modi indeed imposed the diktat, witnesses for the Chief Minister countered that neither Sreekumar nor Bhatt was present at the concerned meeting. In 2022, both were accused of fabrication. Bhatt is in any case serving a life sentence on another matter.

"The documentary has also recorded that Haren Pandya, a minister in the Gujarat government, testified to a Jesuit priest that Modi did issue the aforementioned orders. But his attendance at the meeting was also contradicted. The programme has BJP MP Subramanian Swamy giving his opinion on Pandya’s death to the BBC, calling it “tragic and suspicious”.


"My son's death was a planned, political must be reinvestigated."
—Vithal Pandya, father of the late Haren Pandya, former Gujarat revenue minister, to Outlook on November 7, 2007


The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the case of forgery and fabrication of evidence in connection with the 2002 riots has arrested dismissed IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, making the third arrest after social activist Teesta Setalvad and former IPS officer R.B. Sreekumar.


Newsmaker | RB Sreekumar, a decorated cop on the wrong side of Modi govt
Sreekumar, who became Gujarat DGP after retirement, wrote affidavits to the Nanavati Commission alleging govt agencies’ complicity in the 2002 riots. On Friday, the Supreme Court called into question his role in the accusations.

Thirumala Raya Halemane said...

it is good that the BBC is doing its fine work regarding investigative journalism, being independent spirited also, although it is somewhat limited in its abilities, we have to understand that all news organizations, like all individuals also, are likely to have their limitations even while trying to do their best in their roles, playing their parts on the world drama stage so to say.

Both india and pakistan, and both muslims and hindus have the abilities to understand such limitations, to understand acting out of helplessness and frustration also. Pakistan and India, both are countries in the British Commonwealth group, and this is now very much understood by the whole world, including China, USA, Africa, Middle East, Japan, Korea etc although sometimes or very often they have been forgetful about it in the past we can perhaps say.

So, the real question here is how all this has affected the people and the power structures in all these countries, and globally also, and how indians (includes hindus, muslims, others) are affected because of it, both negatively and positively, and what role the United Kingdom and the BBC can play in improving the situation we are in.. We hope and pray for that. Best Wishes, Aummmm ..

Riaz Haq said...

#Modi's #Hindutva voters know he's guilty and reward him for his role in #GujaratPogrom2002. Airing or not airing #modiDocumentary won't affect their love of Modi. #Islamophobia_in_india #BJP

Riaz Haq said...

#India's Ban on #BBC's #ModiDocumentary Backfires: It's now being screened across school campuses in India. “Frankly, the ban has been pretty stupid because it’s attracted far more attention to the documentary than would have been otherwise possible"

This is compounded by the fact that banning a documentary that was not otherwise popular in India has only invited more viewers, says Hartosh Singh Bal, the political editor of Indian magazine The Caravan, who also appears in the documentary as a commentator. “Frankly, the ban has been pretty stupid because it’s attracted far more attention to the documentary than would have been otherwise possible,” says Bal. He adds that it is now being screened across school campuses as “an act of resistance” among teenagers who previously viewed these events as a dated chapter in history.

Riaz Haq said...

Godhra Fire Started By a Stove Inside the Train

The cause of that fire was known and not in doubt: it had begun in the centre of the carriage, possibly when someone knocked over a lighted cooking stove on which food was being warmed or tea made.

The flames had remained restricted to that area but the smoke the fire created had spread to the rest of the carriage, through the gaps between the upper and lower berths, and along the underside of the ceiling. As in S-6, the majority of deaths had resulted from asphyxiation. This explanation gained credibility because the railways were not using flame-retardant materials in second-class compartments then. So even a lighted match could start a fire and create large volumes of toxic smoke. What is more, cooking or warming one’s own food on long train journeys was, and may still be, a common practice among orthodox Hindus.

Riaz Haq said...

'In Kashmir, Army Relays Tortures on Loudspeakers, Slaps UAPA on Stone-Pelters'

“There are numerous cases of torture by the armed forces. In some instances, the tortures are made audible through loudspeakers so that other people can hear the victim’s screams. There have also been deaths due to tear gas shelling at protesters. What remains a big question in this situation is, when the armed forces and other bodies of the state are indulging in such violations, where is the innocent victim supposed to go for redressal?” states the report.

Riaz Haq said...

BBC Documentary's New Episode Claims Modi ‘Hugely Divisive’, ‘His New India’ in ‘Religious Turmoil’

The second episode looks at the BJP government’s relationship with the rise in lynchings, reading down of Article 370, CAA and communal violence in Delhi.

The report, which aired a few hours ago in the UK, looks at the sudden reading down of Article 370 and the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (considered discriminatory and unconstitutional amongst a sizeable section and still to be heard by the Supreme Court) as well as the North-East Delhi communal violence in 2020. The final episode in this BBC series looks at independent reports, testimonies and comments from affected parties, academics, members of the press and civil society, and cites the government and police’s defence on each issue. It also includes detailed comments by three persons representing the BJP’s point of view, most prominently journalist and former BJP MP Swapan Dasgupta.

The documentary claims that despite Modi promising a “new age of prosperity” and a “New India”, the country, under his rule, has been “marred by religious turmoil”. Though all the charges against him regarding the Gujarat riots were cleared by the highest court of India, it is inevitable that the “concerns will not go away”, the new episode claims.

Three years after coming to power in 2014, there were widespread cases of lynchings against Muslims. Under the name of the Pink Revolution, transporting beef had become “increasingly controversial” following which beef was made illegal in many Indian states, as cows are considered sacred by Hindus. The documentary, focusing on the issue of cow vigilantism, narrates the story of Alimuddin Ansari, who was killed by cow vigilantes in 2017, the same day when Modi spoke out after his long silence. Soon after that, there was a ‘surprising development’, avers the film.

The documentary speaks of how BJP spokesperson Nityanand Mahato was found guilty of Alimuddin’s murder, and sentenced to life in prison. But one of Modi’s ministers helped him and the other convicted men with their legal fees. And welcomed them with a garland of flowers.

“They are the rulers of the whole country and when rulers of the country support these people, we poor people can do nothing,” pleads Ansari’s wife in the film. Over four years later, the men are still free, concludes the film.

According to Human Rights Watch, cited in the film, over three and a half years between May 2015 and December 2018, cow vigilantes “killed 44 people and injured around 280 in cow-related violence, out of which most victims were Muslim.”

When Swapan Dasgupta was asked about the frequency of lynchings rising alarmingly as a generalised practice in India, he termed this an “unwarranted assumption.” Modi’s brand of Hindu nationalism was “backed by a record number of Indian voters”, Dasgupta asserts in the prime minister’s defence.

“The fundamental aim is to Hinduise the way that India functions and irrevocably change the political, social and cultural nature of India. Essentially, the gloves are off,” Chris Ogden, an expert on Indian politics and associate professor at the University of St Andrews, can be heard saying in the film.

On the controversial and drastic reading down of Article 370 in August, 2019 and the unprecedented conversion of a state into a union territory and its bifurcation by New Delhi, the film says that it was “nine weeks after Modi PM’s swearing in” that “troops were sent in to Kashmir”. The result was a “communications blackout” as “direct control” of the region was seized by New Delhi.

However, as per the film, the government claims that its policies “are bringing peace and development” to the region.

Riaz Haq said...

BBC Documentary's New Episode Claims Modi ‘Hugely Divisive’, ‘His New India’ in ‘Religious Turmoil’

With these developments, a new policy of “Indianisation” is taking place, according to scholar, author and longtime India-watcher Christophe Jaffrelot. The film claims that “nearly 4,000 people were detained in the first month alone” (after control over the union territory of Jammu & Kashmir was established) following the reading down of Article 370.

On the large-scale protests that broke out against the CAA, meant to link religion with India’s citizenship, which rang alarm bells amongst significant sections, and then the communal violence in Delhi in February 2020 which claimed at least 53 lives, the film says, “Hardline Hindu clerics made threats against the Muslim protestors.”

Faizan, a 23-year-old Muslim man, was “beaten to death by the police”, claims the documentary, citing a viral video. Faizan’s mother can be heard saying in the film, “I want justice for my son. He was innocent and was killed for no reason.”

The film states that “two thirds of the dead [in the 2020 Delhi violence] were reportedly Muslims”.

The film cites an investigation by Amnesty International which concluded that “the police committed serious human rights violations, including torture and ill treatment, excessive and arbitrary use of force on protestors, and active participation in the violence.”

Aakar Patel, chair, Amnesty International India is heard saying that “the Amnesty report on the violence in Delhi showed that the police did not act as it should have acted. Where it did act, it often named the wrong people. Often the victims were named as the perpetrators of the violence. And we called for a proper investigation into these acts which has not happened so far.”

The Delhi police is quoted in the film as maintaining that the Amnesty report was “lopsided and biassed against the police” and “maliciously made a case of human rights violations”.

During the course of the rioting, police arrested over 2,000 people, both Hindus and Muslims.

“Muslims have got the message that they should not expect the state to protect them,” journalist Alisan Jafri is heard saying in the film.

Arundhati Roy says, “We are talking to each other saying, ‘Do you think it will happen?’ ‘Do you think it is really going to be like Rwanda?’ Why do I speak to you in this film? Only so that there is a record somewhere that all of us did not agree with this. But it is not a call for help, because no help will come.”


Today in India, the BBC film concludes, “reporters face violence, intimidation and arrest for doing their jobs. Campaigners say press freedom has declined since Narendra Modi came to power, and is now in crisis. Human rights campaigners say they are also under attack.”

Amnesty in India says it was forced to suspend operations by the government. The government said the group had broken the law by “circumventing rules around foreign donations.”

Thousands of NGOs have shut in India after 2015, claims the film. In concluding moments of the film, Dasgupta can be heard saying, “Our democracy may not be perfect, but it keeps on improving.”

When Modi came to power in 2014, India was considered to be a free country by the US think-tank Freedom House. Now it is only “partly free”, the film says.

Why has there not been more international outcry? According to Jaffrelot, “[The] West is looking at India as the best way to balance China. And that is the reason why they will not criticise, they will not condemn most of the decisions which have been made. Human Rights are not very high on the list anymore because there is a bigger challenge (China).”

Riaz Haq said...

Just watched BBC's Modi Documentary Part 2

Modi Documentary Part 2 features Modi, Rajnath Singh, Trump, several BJP spokespersons, Christophe Jafferlot, Akar Patel, Arundhati Roy, Safoora Zargar, Alishan Jafri, Siddhartha Vardharajan,

It discusses lynchings of Muslims across India, oppression in Kashmir after revocation of Article 370, Modi government's violent response to protests against new citizenship laws meant to strip Muslims' citizemship, police arrests, beatings and killings of Muslims like 21-year-old Faizan (500 injured, 50 killed in Delhi, no police officers charged), Modi supporters also threatened protesters, Trump speaking in Ahmadabad in support of Modi, Muslim student Safoora Zargar's arrest as "ring leaders" as a "terrorist" under UAPA, charges included hate speech, then came coronavirus,

Modi remains enormously popular and hugely divisive

Jaffrelot: West sees India as a counterweight to China, they do not criticize Modi, human rights not important to them,

Riaz Haq said...

India against Gandhi: Gandhi is now a major hate figure in Modi's India

by Ramachandra Guha

Gandhi is the major hate figure (in Modi's India). He is blamed for emasculating Indians by preaching non-violence; blamed for choosing the modernising Jawaharlal Nehru as his political heir instead of a more authentically “Hindu” figure; blamed for not stopping the creation of Pakistan; blamed for insisting that Muslims who stayed behind in India be given the rights of equal citizenship. BJP members of parliament hail Gandhi’s assassin Godse as a true “deshbhakt” (patriot); praise for him trends on Twitter every January 30; there are periodic plans to erect statues to him and temples in his memory. YouTube videos mocking Gandhi and charging him with betraying Hindus garner millions of views.

Seventy-five years after his assassination, the ‘father of the nation’ is a problem for Narendra Modi — but the country still needs his ideas


Born in 1958, a decade after Gandhi’s death, I grew up in an atmosphere of veneration towards the Mahatma. One of my great-uncles helped to edit Gandhi’s Collected Works; another founded a pioneering initiative in community health inspired by Gandhi. These familial influences were consolidated and deepened by the public culture of the time. Gandhi was the father of the nation, the leader of the struggle for freedom against British rule, whose techniques of non-violent resistance had won admirers and imitators across the world. It was largely because of him that we were free and proudly independent, and it was largely because of him that — unlike neighbouring Pakistan — we gloried in the religious and linguistic diversity of our land. In our school assembly we sang a 17th-century hymn that Gandhi was particularly fond of, which he had rewritten to reflect his vision of the India he wished to leave behind. Hindus saw God as Ishwar; Gandhi’s adaptation asked us to see him as Allah too. And it was to these lines that our teachers drew our particular attention. The first criticisms of Gandhi that I remember encountering were in a book I read as a student at Delhi University. This was the autobiography of Verrier Elwin, an Oxford scholar who became a leading ethnographer of the tribes of central India. Elwin knew Gandhi well, and at one time considered himself a disciple. In later years, while he retained his admiration for the Mahatma’s moral courage and religious pluralism, Elwin became sharply critical of Gandhi’s advocacy of prohibition, which he thought damaging to tribal culture (where home-brewed alcohol was both a source of nutrition and an aid to dance and music), and of his exaltation of celibacy, which Elwin thought damaging to everyone.

Riaz Haq said...

'Ideology Of Hate' Consuming #India, Says #Gandhi's Great-grandson. Tushar, 63, attributes this tectonic shift to the rise of Prime Minister Narendra #Modi and his #Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (#BJP). #Hindutva #Islamophobia #Hate #Violence

India's rising tide of Hindu nationalism is an affront to the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, his great-grandson says, ahead of the 75th anniversary of the revered independence hero's assassination.

Gandhi was shot dead at a multi-faith prayer meeting on January 30, 1948, by Nathuram Godse, a religious zealot angered by his victim's conciliatory gestures to the country's minority Muslim community.

Godse was executed the following year and remains widely reviled, but author and social activist Tushar Gandhi, one of the global peace symbol's most prominent descendants, says his views now have a worrying resonance in India.

"That whole philosophy has now captured India and Indian hearts, the ideology of hate, the ideology of polarisation, the ideology of divisions," he told AFP at his Mumbai home.

"For them, it's very natural that Godse would be their iconic patriot, their idol."

Tushar, 63, attributes this tectonic shift to the rise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Modi took office in 2014 and Tushar says his government is to blame for undermining the secular and multicultural traditions that his namesake sought to protect.

"His success has been built on hate, we must accept that," Tushar added.

"There is no denying that in his heart, he also knows what he is doing is lighting a fire that will one day consume India itself."

Today, Gandhi's assassin is revered by many Hindu nationalists who have pushed for a re-evaluation of his decision to murder a man synonymous with non-violence.

A temple dedicated to Godse was built near New Delhi in 2015, the year after Modi's election, and activists have campaigned to honour him by renaming an Indian city after him.

Godse was a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a still-prominent Hindu far-right group whose members conduct paramilitary drills and prayer meetings.

The RSS has long distanced itself from Godse's actions but remains a potent force, founding Modi's party decades ago to battle for Hindu causes in the political realm.

Modi has regularly paid respect to Gandhi's legacy but has refrained from weighing in on the campaign to rehabilitate his killer.

Tushar remains a fierce protector of his world-famous ancestor's legacy of "honesty, equality, unity and inclusiveness".

He has written two books about Gandhi and his wife Kasturba, regularly talks at public events about the importance of democracy and has filed legal motions in India's top court as part of efforts to defend the country's secular constitution.

His Mumbai abode, a post-independence flat in a quiet neighbourhood compound, is dotted with portraits and small statues of his famous relative along with a miniature spinning wheel -- a reference to Gandhi's credo of self-reliance.

Tushar is anxious but resigned to the prospect of Modi winning another term in next year's elections, an outcome widely seen as an inevitability given the weakness of his potential challengers.

"The poison is so deep, and they're so successful, that I don't see my ideology triumphing over in India for a long time now," he says.

Riaz Haq said...

Relaunching Rahul Gandhi, again
Do Indians still want the Congress party’s secular politics?

They describe the yatra as an effort to promote love and unity against the hatred and division fostered by Mr Modi’s Muslim-bashing party. This recalls the principles of Mr Gandhi’s great-grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister. He and his supporters did not seek to banish religion from public life, as secularists in France had. Yet they saw the prioritising of one religious group over another as a guarantee of conflict in a diverse country with a history of religious, especially Hindu-Muslim, violence. For them, secular liberal institutions, including the legal system and bureaucracy, represented the country’s best hope of holding together.

Over the past three decades, and especially since Mr Modi won power in 2014, the bjp has eroded that legacy. First propelled to national power in the 1990s by communal rioting that its leaders had helped provoke, the bjp considers India a Hindu country for too long suborned to its religious, primarily Muslim, minorities.

Rallying Hindus against the other 20% of India’s population has helped paper over deep differences of caste and class within the majority group. It has also been so successful in redefining Indian nationalism as a Hindu cause that the bjp is able to deride its secular critics as unpatriotic. For many Indians, secularism and anti-Indianism have become, if not synonymous, then related. “Plenty of Hindus are now unwilling to consider secularism a good thing,” says Christophe Jaffrelot of Sciences Po in Paris. “The opposition will have to recreate the appetite for it.”

Mr Gandhi appears to be trying to do so by reaching beyond his atheist grandfather to the interfaith harmony preached by Mohandas Gandhi. He has walked parts of the yatra (a word that usually refers to a pilgrimage) in bare feet and often wearing a tilak, a red mark connoting Hindu piety. He has referred to the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu text, in presenting the yatra as a tapasya, or penance. Yet he has stressed religious inclusion. After the yatra entered the state of Punjab, he donned a turban to pay his respects at the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the spiritual centre of Sikhism.

He could be on to something. Surveys of young middle-class adults, a bjp constituency, suggest they are less Islamophobic than their parents. Moreover, if there is a better way for Mr Gandhi to present Congress as an alternative to the Hindu nationalists, it is not obvious. Despite Mr Modi’s pro-business and Congress’s pro-poor rhetoric, the two parties espouse broadly similar economic and social policies. But if Mr Gandhi may sense an opportunity, his heart-warming campaigning is nothing like an ideological counterweight to Mr Modi’s message of Hindu pride. Reviving secularism would require an alternative stance on divisive issues that have become vote winners for the bjp, such as uniform civil laws for minorities and interpretations of history, says Mr Mehta. “Saving secular pluralism from the charge of being anti-Hindu means giving a secular answer to communal issues. You need to explain what institutional measures you will take. It’s not enough to say ‘we’re secular’.”

If it is to revive demand for a large secular party, Congress will have to meet that challenge. There is currently no sign it is planning to. In theory, it could continue to languish. Indeed, the combined vote-share of the two big parties looks remarkably stable, at around 50% since the 1980s. They have simply switched positions. In 1991 Congress won 36% of the vote and the bjp 20%; in 2019, the bjp won 37% of the vote and Congress just under 20%. Yet this could change. The bjp was sustained in opposition by its cadre of deeply ideological activists. Congress, having no comparable ideology or foot-soldiers, could fizzle.