fsayed
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.
- Thread starter Hyde
- Start date
HariPrasad
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 14,055
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
Narendra Modi has sold Small Desert (Runn) of Kutch in 100cr
Fake news. No other news paper is reporting. Not even same paper reporting next day.
fsayed
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Sardinha flays Modi for spreading 'false propaganda' - The Times of India
Sardinha flays Modi for spreading 'false propaganda
MARGAO: South Goa MP Francisco Sardinhacriticized the BJP prime ministerial candidateNarendra Modi for spreading 'false propaganda' against the UPA government at the Centre.
Sardinha, who was at the South Goa Congress district headquarters for a meeting, said that Modi should read and verify facts before making false statements during his campaigns.
Sardinha was reacting to statements made by Modi recently where Modi had claimed that there was highest economic growth during the term of the erstwhile NDA government at the Centre compared to the successive UPA governments.
Sardinha said that this was incorrect and both UPA 1 and UPA 2 had recorded higher economic growth as compared to the performance of the NDA government.
The South Goa MP further demanded an inquiry into the entry of Ola Cabs in the state and mocked the state government for feigning ignorance on the entry of Ola Cabs into Goa.
Sardinha expressed doubts over the government's claims that they were not aware about Ola Cabs entry and asked who then gave Ola Cabs permission to open up an office and run an agency in Goa. He said that if the government claims that it does not know these details, than an inquiry should immediately be initiated so that all the facts can come out in public.
He further condemned the police lathi charge on local Goan taxi owners. He said that on hindsight, if the government had already decided not to grant permission or withdraw permission to Ola Cabs, then it should have conveyed the same to the taxi drivers and held discussions on their demands before the strike. He added that the government could have avoided the entire controversy and amicably solved the issue with local tourist taxi operators.
Sardinha also criticized the state government for the delay in restarting mining in Goa and blamed the government for having a lethargic attitude and not fighting the case in the Supreme Court to the best of its ability.
Sardinha added that the government should be acting in a far more urgent manner to restart mining in Goa and said that common man like truck owners and others affiliated to mining were suffering.
Sardinha also accused the government of going soft on erring mining companies and said that those companies guilty of violations had not been isolated nor had any deterrent been set in terms of fines or criminal action.
Workdays for tribals under MNREGA raised from 100 to 150
Workdays for tribals under MNREGA raised from 100 to 150
PTI [ Updated 28 Feb 2014, 22:19:20 ]
PRINT
FONT SIZE
New Delhi: In a bid to woo tribals ahead of Lok Sabha polls, the government today raised the workdays under its flagship rural employment guarantee programme MNREGA from 100 to 150 for tribals, a move that will benefit 14 lakh families.
The Union Cabinet decision will come into effect from April this year.
Those tribals who have received land rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 will be eligible for additional 50 days of wage employment under the rural job scheme.
The beneficiaries would be those who have completed 100 workdays in that particular financial
They will be given a job card of a different colour to distinguish from the regular MNREGA workers.
Around 14 lakh individual and community titles have been distributed under FRA 2006.
Of these around 8 lakh individual titles have been given in Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa.
The government believes it as an important initiative since a lot of land levelling, plantation and other activities are required to be undertaken on these lands to make them more productive.
The additional person days through MNREGA will allow the households to undertake additional work on their own land. This is one among the several initiatives taken by the Rural Development Ministry for the uplift of the tribals.
Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh said though the primary focus of this raise in workdays is on the tribals, people from other communities, who are beneficiaries under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 would also be covered by the Cabinet decision.
“By the decision of the cabinet, this guaranteed employment will increase from 100 days to 150 days in the tribal areas of the country and in the districts, which are declared Maoist affected,” Ramesh told reporters here.
Of the total 14 lakh families, who are the beneficiaries under Forest Right Act, about 1.6 lakh have completed 100 workdays under MNREGA.
They hail from Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Tripura, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.
Ramesh expressed confidence that the new initiative would help in a big way for countering the left wing extremism.
“Not only will tribal families benefit from 150 days of employment, but also help in increasing the green cover in forests,” he noted.
The MNREGA programme, which was launched just before the last Lok Sabha polls in 2009, had benefitted Congress electorally.
The scheme, in which half of the beneficiaries are women, roughly reaches to every fifth household in the rural areas.
The scheme is in operation in 632 districts in the country, according to official data.
In 2012-13, it provided employment to more than 4.8 crore households generating more than 213 crore person days of employment at a total expenditure of more than 39,000 crore.
The average wage rate per day has gone up to Rs 128 crore in 2012-13 from Rs 65 in 2006-07.
The objective of MGNREGA is aimed at enhancing livelihood security of the rural households for creating durable assets and discourage migration.
The focus of the scheme is on water conservation, water harvesting, drought proofing, land development, flood control and rural connectivity among others. The scope of the scheme has also been extended from time to time.
India’s premier rating agency has found Gujarat lags behind 10 major states in providing financial services to its population
NOVEMBER 15, 2013 BY ADMIN LEAVE A COMMENT
A top corporate consulting firm has found that Gujarat’s financial inclusion — which signifies financial services’ penetration among the broader sections of population — is below average. A counterview.org report:
There is a commonplace view that, as far as finance is concerned, Gujarat is at the very top. Believing this to be a factor not to be ignored, in 2007, Gujarat’s policy makers decided on an international finance city in the state — the Gujarat International Finance Tec-city (GIFT). However, a recent study by India’s foremost corporate rating agency, Crisil, suggests that penetration of finance among Gujarat’s population is below average. Called “Crisil Inclusix: An index to measure India’s progress on Financial Inclusion”, the study indicates that financial inclusion, a “key enabler of economic and social development”, is still relatively poor in Gujarat, which ranks No 18th among Indian states, with a rating of 38.6 on a scale of 100 as against the national average of 40.1.
The Crisil study says, “In India, where a large section of the population still lives outside the ambit of formal financial services, the need to focus on inclusion is of paramount importance.” Working out a new index called “Crisil Inclusix” in order to rate financial inclusion among all Indian districts, Crisil says, “It is a relative index that has a scale of 0 to 100, and combines three very critical parameters of basic banking services — branch penetration (BP), deposit penetration (DP), and credit penetration (CP) — together into one single metric.” It adds, “A CRISIL Inclusix score of 100 indicates the ideal state for each of the three parameters.”
Pointing out that the methodology adopted is “similar to other global indices, such as UNDP’s Human Development Index”, the study says, “An important design element of Crisil Inclusix is the use of non-monetary parameters. This implies that the index uses parameters that focus only on the ‘number of people’ whose lives have been touched by various financial services, rather than on the ‘amounts’ deposited or loaned. This helps negate the disproportionate impact of a few high-value figures on the overall picture.”
The study further says, “Crisil Inclusix provides a bird’s eye view of the state of financial inclusion in the country.” It also gives “ground-level information on the progress made on the inclusion front even in the remote districts of rural India.” Suggesting that this “two-pronged approach holds immense potential for policy-makers, regulators, and bankers as it helps to identify priorities, design focused programmes to push the inclusion agenda”, it hopes, it will assist them in deciding whether there is a case for according ‘priority sector’ status to lending” in backward areas.
Financial inclusion: Inter-state comparison
No doubt, several smaller states — Pudicherry, Chandigarh, Delhi and Goa — for obvious reasons have a better Inclusix rating as they have very little rural population. However, what should worry Gujarat is that larger states, with huge rural populace, do better than Gujarat on this score. While Podicherry tops in the financial inclusion rating with a score of 79.8, double that of Gujarat, even among the big 20 states, Gujarat’s ranking is 11th – below that of Kerala (76.1), Andhra Pradesh (61.3), Tamil Nadu (60.5), Himachal Pradesh (58.5), Karnataka (57.7), Punjab (55.7), Uttarakhand (50.5), Haryana (48.4) and even the “poor” Odisha (40.6).
What should be equally worrying for the state’s policy makers is, in the financial inclusion index, none of Gujarat’s districts, including the most urbanized ones (Ahmedabad, Surat and Vadodara) are amongst the top 50. Most interestingly, the highest score in Gujarat is that of tiny Porbandar, with an Inclusix index of 54.2, six points below the last of the 50 best scorers – Assam’s Kamrup Metropolitan district, which scores 66.0. Jamnagar comes next with 51.5, followed by Vadodara 51.1, Navsari 49.1, Ahmedabad 47.1, Kutch 45.8, Amreli 44.0, Rajkot 44.0, Anand 43.9, Bharuch 42.2, Junagarh 40.8, Mehsana 40.5, and Gandhinagar 40.3.
The worst ranking is that of tribal district of Dahod with an index of 21.7. While other districts with a huge tribal population are also found to be on a weak wicket – Banaskantha 22.2, Tapi 23.4, and Narmada 29.7 – what is worrisome is that even rich districts like Kheda perform with a poor score of 33.0. Similarly, Surat, the second most urbanized district, scores 32.5. There is so far no explanation either among academics or policy makers as to why financial inclusion is so poor in Gujarat, both among backward districts and “rich” districts.
Financial inclusion scores: Comparison between Gujarat districts
* The all-India Crisil Inclusix score of 40.1 (on a scale of 100) is relatively low. It is a reflection of under-penetration of formal banking facilities in most parts of the country. Just one in two Indians has a savings account, and only one in seven Indians has access to banking credit. In fact, the bottom 50 scoring districts have just 2 per cent of the country’s bank branches.
* Deposit penetration (DP) is the key driver of financial inclusion in India. The number of savings bank accounts, at 624 million, is close to four times the number of loan accounts at 160 million.
* Focused efforts to enhance branch presence and availability of credit are extremely critical. The bottom 50 scoring districts in India have only 4,068 loan accounts per lakh of population, which is nearly one-third of the all India average of 11,680 . Similarly, these districts have just 3 branches per lakh of population, as compared to 7.6 branches per lakh of population at an all-India level.
* There are clear signs of improvement in the Crisil Inclusix score over the past three years. The Crisil Inclusix score at an all-India level has improved to 40.1 in 2011, from 37.6 in 2010 and 35.4 in 2009. Improvement in deposit penetration score is the key driver of this improvement.
* Wide disparities exist across India and within states in terms of access to financial services. India’s six largest cities have 11 per cent of the country’s bank branches. At the other end of the scale, there are four districts in the North-Eastern region with only one bank branch each.
* The key driver for the continued high performance of the top 50 districts is the significant increase in deposit and branch penetration (BP). The DP score for these districts increased by a significant 9.3 in 2011, over 2009. Also, these districts saw an addition of 2,824 branches in this period, nearly one-fourth of the total branches added in the country.
The study concludes, “The detailed analysis of the data thrown up by Crisil Inclusix sheds light on some interesting trends. The Southern region leads the financial inclusion drive in the country. Six out of the top 10 states with the highest Crisil Inclusix score are from the Southern region. This region also has better credit penetration — the number of loan accounts per lakh of population at 17,142 in the Southern region is nearly twice of the all-India average.”
On the other hand, “The western region is at a distant second, followed by Northern, Eastern, and North-Eastern regions respectively.” Further, “The top five scoring states are Puducherry, Chandigarh, Kerala, Goa, and Delhi. The bottom five states are Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Nagaland, and Manipur. West Bengal and Maharashtra demonstrate the highest disparity among districts.” The study adds, “Lack of awareness, low incomes, poverty, and illiteracy are among factors that lead to low demand for financial services and, consequently, to exclusion”.
Digvijaya Singh
Congress general secretary Digvijaya Singh has sought a special package from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to revive a stalled Rs 5,000-crore private sector hydro-electricity project, launched during his tenure as chief minister of Madhya Pradesh in the early 1990s.
Digvijaya Singh seeks Rs 5k crore for hydro power project in Madhya Pradesh - Economic Times
Digvijaya Singh seeks Rs 5k crore for hydro power project in Madhya Pradesh
articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com
Congress general secretary Digvijaya Singh has sought a special package from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to revive a stalled Rs 5,000-crore...
Sardinha flays Modi for spreading 'false propaganda
MARGAO: South Goa MP Francisco Sardinhacriticized the BJP prime ministerial candidateNarendra Modi for spreading 'false propaganda' against the UPA government at the Centre.
Sardinha, who was at the South Goa Congress district headquarters for a meeting, said that Modi should read and verify facts before making false statements during his campaigns.
Sardinha was reacting to statements made by Modi recently where Modi had claimed that there was highest economic growth during the term of the erstwhile NDA government at the Centre compared to the successive UPA governments.
Sardinha said that this was incorrect and both UPA 1 and UPA 2 had recorded higher economic growth as compared to the performance of the NDA government.
The South Goa MP further demanded an inquiry into the entry of Ola Cabs in the state and mocked the state government for feigning ignorance on the entry of Ola Cabs into Goa.
Sardinha expressed doubts over the government's claims that they were not aware about Ola Cabs entry and asked who then gave Ola Cabs permission to open up an office and run an agency in Goa. He said that if the government claims that it does not know these details, than an inquiry should immediately be initiated so that all the facts can come out in public.
He further condemned the police lathi charge on local Goan taxi owners. He said that on hindsight, if the government had already decided not to grant permission or withdraw permission to Ola Cabs, then it should have conveyed the same to the taxi drivers and held discussions on their demands before the strike. He added that the government could have avoided the entire controversy and amicably solved the issue with local tourist taxi operators.
Sardinha also criticized the state government for the delay in restarting mining in Goa and blamed the government for having a lethargic attitude and not fighting the case in the Supreme Court to the best of its ability.
Sardinha added that the government should be acting in a far more urgent manner to restart mining in Goa and said that common man like truck owners and others affiliated to mining were suffering.
Sardinha also accused the government of going soft on erring mining companies and said that those companies guilty of violations had not been isolated nor had any deterrent been set in terms of fines or criminal action.
Workdays for tribals under MNREGA raised from 100 to 150
Workdays for tribals under MNREGA raised from 100 to 150
PTI [ Updated 28 Feb 2014, 22:19:20 ]
PRINTFONT SIZE
New Delhi: In a bid to woo tribals ahead of Lok Sabha polls, the government today raised the workdays under its flagship rural employment guarantee programme MNREGA from 100 to 150 for tribals, a move that will benefit 14 lakh families.
The Union Cabinet decision will come into effect from April this year.
Those tribals who have received land rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 will be eligible for additional 50 days of wage employment under the rural job scheme.
The beneficiaries would be those who have completed 100 workdays in that particular financial
They will be given a job card of a different colour to distinguish from the regular MNREGA workers.
Around 14 lakh individual and community titles have been distributed under FRA 2006.
Of these around 8 lakh individual titles have been given in Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa.
The government believes it as an important initiative since a lot of land levelling, plantation and other activities are required to be undertaken on these lands to make them more productive.
The additional person days through MNREGA will allow the households to undertake additional work on their own land. This is one among the several initiatives taken by the Rural Development Ministry for the uplift of the tribals.
Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh said though the primary focus of this raise in workdays is on the tribals, people from other communities, who are beneficiaries under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 would also be covered by the Cabinet decision.
“By the decision of the cabinet, this guaranteed employment will increase from 100 days to 150 days in the tribal areas of the country and in the districts, which are declared Maoist affected,” Ramesh told reporters here.
Of the total 14 lakh families, who are the beneficiaries under Forest Right Act, about 1.6 lakh have completed 100 workdays under MNREGA.
They hail from Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Tripura, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.
Ramesh expressed confidence that the new initiative would help in a big way for countering the left wing extremism.
“Not only will tribal families benefit from 150 days of employment, but also help in increasing the green cover in forests,” he noted.
The MNREGA programme, which was launched just before the last Lok Sabha polls in 2009, had benefitted Congress electorally.
The scheme, in which half of the beneficiaries are women, roughly reaches to every fifth household in the rural areas.
The scheme is in operation in 632 districts in the country, according to official data.
In 2012-13, it provided employment to more than 4.8 crore households generating more than 213 crore person days of employment at a total expenditure of more than 39,000 crore.
The average wage rate per day has gone up to Rs 128 crore in 2012-13 from Rs 65 in 2006-07.
The objective of MGNREGA is aimed at enhancing livelihood security of the rural households for creating durable assets and discourage migration.
The focus of the scheme is on water conservation, water harvesting, drought proofing, land development, flood control and rural connectivity among others. The scope of the scheme has also been extended from time to time.
India’s premier rating agency has found Gujarat lags behind 10 major states in providing financial services to its population
NOVEMBER 15, 2013 BY ADMIN LEAVE A COMMENT
A top corporate consulting firm has found that Gujarat’s financial inclusion — which signifies financial services’ penetration among the broader sections of population — is below average. A counterview.org report:There is a commonplace view that, as far as finance is concerned, Gujarat is at the very top. Believing this to be a factor not to be ignored, in 2007, Gujarat’s policy makers decided on an international finance city in the state — the Gujarat International Finance Tec-city (GIFT). However, a recent study by India’s foremost corporate rating agency, Crisil, suggests that penetration of finance among Gujarat’s population is below average. Called “Crisil Inclusix: An index to measure India’s progress on Financial Inclusion”, the study indicates that financial inclusion, a “key enabler of economic and social development”, is still relatively poor in Gujarat, which ranks No 18th among Indian states, with a rating of 38.6 on a scale of 100 as against the national average of 40.1.
The Crisil study says, “In India, where a large section of the population still lives outside the ambit of formal financial services, the need to focus on inclusion is of paramount importance.” Working out a new index called “Crisil Inclusix” in order to rate financial inclusion among all Indian districts, Crisil says, “It is a relative index that has a scale of 0 to 100, and combines three very critical parameters of basic banking services — branch penetration (BP), deposit penetration (DP), and credit penetration (CP) — together into one single metric.” It adds, “A CRISIL Inclusix score of 100 indicates the ideal state for each of the three parameters.”
Pointing out that the methodology adopted is “similar to other global indices, such as UNDP’s Human Development Index”, the study says, “An important design element of Crisil Inclusix is the use of non-monetary parameters. This implies that the index uses parameters that focus only on the ‘number of people’ whose lives have been touched by various financial services, rather than on the ‘amounts’ deposited or loaned. This helps negate the disproportionate impact of a few high-value figures on the overall picture.”The study further says, “Crisil Inclusix provides a bird’s eye view of the state of financial inclusion in the country.” It also gives “ground-level information on the progress made on the inclusion front even in the remote districts of rural India.” Suggesting that this “two-pronged approach holds immense potential for policy-makers, regulators, and bankers as it helps to identify priorities, design focused programmes to push the inclusion agenda”, it hopes, it will assist them in deciding whether there is a case for according ‘priority sector’ status to lending” in backward areas.
Financial inclusion: Inter-state comparison
No doubt, several smaller states — Pudicherry, Chandigarh, Delhi and Goa — for obvious reasons have a better Inclusix rating as they have very little rural population. However, what should worry Gujarat is that larger states, with huge rural populace, do better than Gujarat on this score. While Podicherry tops in the financial inclusion rating with a score of 79.8, double that of Gujarat, even among the big 20 states, Gujarat’s ranking is 11th – below that of Kerala (76.1), Andhra Pradesh (61.3), Tamil Nadu (60.5), Himachal Pradesh (58.5), Karnataka (57.7), Punjab (55.7), Uttarakhand (50.5), Haryana (48.4) and even the “poor” Odisha (40.6).
What should be equally worrying for the state’s policy makers is, in the financial inclusion index, none of Gujarat’s districts, including the most urbanized ones (Ahmedabad, Surat and Vadodara) are amongst the top 50. Most interestingly, the highest score in Gujarat is that of tiny Porbandar, with an Inclusix index of 54.2, six points below the last of the 50 best scorers – Assam’s Kamrup Metropolitan district, which scores 66.0. Jamnagar comes next with 51.5, followed by Vadodara 51.1, Navsari 49.1, Ahmedabad 47.1, Kutch 45.8, Amreli 44.0, Rajkot 44.0, Anand 43.9, Bharuch 42.2, Junagarh 40.8, Mehsana 40.5, and Gandhinagar 40.3.
The worst ranking is that of tribal district of Dahod with an index of 21.7. While other districts with a huge tribal population are also found to be on a weak wicket – Banaskantha 22.2, Tapi 23.4, and Narmada 29.7 – what is worrisome is that even rich districts like Kheda perform with a poor score of 33.0. Similarly, Surat, the second most urbanized district, scores 32.5. There is so far no explanation either among academics or policy makers as to why financial inclusion is so poor in Gujarat, both among backward districts and “rich” districts.
Financial inclusion scores: Comparison between Gujarat districts
* The all-India Crisil Inclusix score of 40.1 (on a scale of 100) is relatively low. It is a reflection of under-penetration of formal banking facilities in most parts of the country. Just one in two Indians has a savings account, and only one in seven Indians has access to banking credit. In fact, the bottom 50 scoring districts have just 2 per cent of the country’s bank branches.
* Deposit penetration (DP) is the key driver of financial inclusion in India. The number of savings bank accounts, at 624 million, is close to four times the number of loan accounts at 160 million.
* Focused efforts to enhance branch presence and availability of credit are extremely critical. The bottom 50 scoring districts in India have only 4,068 loan accounts per lakh of population, which is nearly one-third of the all India average of 11,680 . Similarly, these districts have just 3 branches per lakh of population, as compared to 7.6 branches per lakh of population at an all-India level.
* There are clear signs of improvement in the Crisil Inclusix score over the past three years. The Crisil Inclusix score at an all-India level has improved to 40.1 in 2011, from 37.6 in 2010 and 35.4 in 2009. Improvement in deposit penetration score is the key driver of this improvement.
* Wide disparities exist across India and within states in terms of access to financial services. India’s six largest cities have 11 per cent of the country’s bank branches. At the other end of the scale, there are four districts in the North-Eastern region with only one bank branch each.
* The key driver for the continued high performance of the top 50 districts is the significant increase in deposit and branch penetration (BP). The DP score for these districts increased by a significant 9.3 in 2011, over 2009. Also, these districts saw an addition of 2,824 branches in this period, nearly one-fourth of the total branches added in the country.
The study concludes, “The detailed analysis of the data thrown up by Crisil Inclusix sheds light on some interesting trends. The Southern region leads the financial inclusion drive in the country. Six out of the top 10 states with the highest Crisil Inclusix score are from the Southern region. This region also has better credit penetration — the number of loan accounts per lakh of population at 17,142 in the Southern region is nearly twice of the all-India average.”
On the other hand, “The western region is at a distant second, followed by Northern, Eastern, and North-Eastern regions respectively.” Further, “The top five scoring states are Puducherry, Chandigarh, Kerala, Goa, and Delhi. The bottom five states are Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Nagaland, and Manipur. West Bengal and Maharashtra demonstrate the highest disparity among districts.” The study adds, “Lack of awareness, low incomes, poverty, and illiteracy are among factors that lead to low demand for financial services and, consequently, to exclusion”.
Digvijaya Singh
Congress general secretary Digvijaya Singh has sought a special package from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to revive a stalled Rs 5,000-crore private sector hydro-electricity project, launched during his tenure as chief minister of Madhya Pradesh in the early 1990s.
Digvijaya Singh seeks Rs 5k crore for hydro power project in Madhya Pradesh - Economic Times
Digvijaya Singh seeks Rs 5k crore for hydro power project in Madhya Pradesh
articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com
Congress general secretary Digvijaya Singh has sought a special package from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to revive a stalled Rs 5,000-crore...
Last edited:
fsayed
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
BJP MLA gets 14-day judicial custody for rioting - The Times of India
DEHRADUN: BJP MLA Rajkumar Thukral, the main accused in the 2011 riots in Rudrapur, was sent to the Haldwani jail for 14 days on Wednesday, following his surrender before a lower court in Rudrapur. The district court will hear his bail plea on Friday.
Thukral, who was on the run for more than three months now, appeared before the court of the chief judicial magistrate, and surrendered through his defence counsel, Diwaker Pandey. Although Pandey immediately moved a bail application for his client, the magistrate rejected it, ordering a 14-day judicial custody.
Thukral, who is accused of murder, attempt to murder, rioting, intimidation and vandalism during the 2011 communal riots, was declared an absconder by a lower court in November last year. "Following this, we even attached some of the MLA's properties in Uddham Singh Nagar (USN). We were on the lookout for him," said SSP, USN, Riddhim Aggarwal.
Meanwhile a high level house panel, comprising senior government leaders and the opposition, has already been asked by the state assembly Speaker, to reinvestigate the police case against Thukral and submit its final report within a month. The opposition BJP has accused the state government of "harassing" Thukral by falsely implicating him in the case.
A major communal frenzy in Rudrapur on October 2, 2011 killed four and injured sixty others after torn pages of a holy book were found outside a place of worship in the communally sensitive city.
DEHRADUN: BJP MLA Rajkumar Thukral, the main accused in the 2011 riots in Rudrapur, was sent to the Haldwani jail for 14 days on Wednesday, following his surrender before a lower court in Rudrapur. The district court will hear his bail plea on Friday.
Thukral, who was on the run for more than three months now, appeared before the court of the chief judicial magistrate, and surrendered through his defence counsel, Diwaker Pandey. Although Pandey immediately moved a bail application for his client, the magistrate rejected it, ordering a 14-day judicial custody.
Thukral, who is accused of murder, attempt to murder, rioting, intimidation and vandalism during the 2011 communal riots, was declared an absconder by a lower court in November last year. "Following this, we even attached some of the MLA's properties in Uddham Singh Nagar (USN). We were on the lookout for him," said SSP, USN, Riddhim Aggarwal.
Meanwhile a high level house panel, comprising senior government leaders and the opposition, has already been asked by the state assembly Speaker, to reinvestigate the police case against Thukral and submit its final report within a month. The opposition BJP has accused the state government of "harassing" Thukral by falsely implicating him in the case.
A major communal frenzy in Rudrapur on October 2, 2011 killed four and injured sixty others after torn pages of a holy book were found outside a place of worship in the communally sensitive city.
Mujraparty
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,754
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
HariPrasad
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 14,055
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
Wow What a great news. Congress MP criticizing Modi and what a great crowd of workers in picture.Really amazing!!!!!!!
fsayed
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Lok Sabha polls: Nagma, Jaya Prada, Ravi Kishan in line for Congress tickets in UP - The Times of India
v
NEW DELHI: Actors Nagma, Jaya Prada and Ravi Kishan are in the race for Congress tickets in Uttar Pradesh, a competition that promises to spice up the acrimonious electoral battle.
Sources said Nagma is being considered for Phulpur constituency, a historical seat that was once represented by Jawaharlal Nehru.
Her Bollywood glory days long gone, Nagma's appeal stems from her present status as a sought-after Bhojpuri actress which increases her pull with the rural electorate. Congress believes she can also be a good campaigner for the party in an election that would require faces to pull the crowds.
Otherwise, Nagma is an AICC member and has been associated with Congress campaigns since the 2004 Lok Sabha elections.
Further drawing from the Bhojpuri stable, sources said actor Ravi Kishan is a contender for a seat in eastern UP. The star, who virtually rules Bhojpuri filmdom, has been toying with politics for a while and is likely to get a look from Congress this time.
Congress seems a good bet for these faces. The party has seats to spare given its weak organizational muscle in most parts of the 80-seat state where it has been relegated to the margins of power play since the Babri demolition.
Leading the race for tickets is former Bollywood queen Jaya Prada, now known as 'Rampur ki kali'. The Samajwadi Party renegade, who is an MP from Rampur, is likely to join the Congress and contest from the minority-dominated seat of Moradabad. She will replace former cricket star Azharuddin who is set to shift to West Bengal.
Jaya Prada is looking for a political roof since quitting SP and is also keen to shift out of Rampur which is the fief of top UP minister Azam Khan. Khan rebelled from SP and campaigned against Jaya in 2009 but she still managed to win in Rampur. However, the acerbic leader is back in the Mulayam fold as a powerful minister whose writ runs in Rampur.
The other reason for Jaya wanting to shift is that the old political family of Begum Noor Bano represents Congress in Rampur and cannot be passed over. Jaya defeated Noor Bano in two successive elections on the SP ticket.
NEW DELHI: Actors Nagma, Jaya Prada and Ravi Kishan are in the race for Congress tickets in Uttar Pradesh, a competition that promises to spice up the acrimonious electoral battle.
Sources said Nagma is being considered for Phulpur constituency, a historical seat that was once represented by Jawaharlal Nehru.
Her Bollywood glory days long gone, Nagma's appeal stems from her present status as a sought-after Bhojpuri actress which increases her pull with the rural electorate. Congress believes she can also be a good campaigner for the party in an election that would require faces to pull the crowds.
Otherwise, Nagma is an AICC member and has been associated with Congress campaigns since the 2004 Lok Sabha elections.
Further drawing from the Bhojpuri stable, sources said actor Ravi Kishan is a contender for a seat in eastern UP. The star, who virtually rules Bhojpuri filmdom, has been toying with politics for a while and is likely to get a look from Congress this time.
Congress seems a good bet for these faces. The party has seats to spare given its weak organizational muscle in most parts of the 80-seat state where it has been relegated to the margins of power play since the Babri demolition.
Leading the race for tickets is former Bollywood queen Jaya Prada, now known as 'Rampur ki kali'. The Samajwadi Party renegade, who is an MP from Rampur, is likely to join the Congress and contest from the minority-dominated seat of Moradabad. She will replace former cricket star Azharuddin who is set to shift to West Bengal.
Jaya Prada is looking for a political roof since quitting SP and is also keen to shift out of Rampur which is the fief of top UP minister Azam Khan. Khan rebelled from SP and campaigned against Jaya in 2009 but she still managed to win in Rampur. However, the acerbic leader is back in the Mulayam fold as a powerful minister whose writ runs in Rampur.
The other reason for Jaya wanting to shift is that the old political family of Begum Noor Bano represents Congress in Rampur and cannot be passed over. Jaya defeated Noor Bano in two successive elections on the SP ticket.
Guynextdoor2
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 12,286
- Reaction score
- -42
- Country
- Location
Karunanidhi has been openly critical of congress because of the 'pain of 2G' (apparently looting does not give him any pain at all). And Kanimozhi in jail for some time. He revived the social status of A Raja on a high priority basis when he was fished out of jail. He really wants revenge. He is going to put himself back in the centre at any cost and I suspect wants to control the telecom ministry itself again to re=establish his credentials as big political player.
Levina
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2013
- Messages
- 15,278
- Reaction score
- 59
- Country
- Location
y not when bjp and rss menber posting same kind of pics
Just FYI:
That lady was burnt to death by her husband yesterday.
Assam woman who kissed Rahul Gandhi burnt to death by husband
RIP.
SpArK
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 22,519
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
Narendra Modi has sold Small Desert (Runn) of Kutch in 100cr
Gujarat to see bumper mustard crop on record yield | Business Line
HariPrasad
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 14,055
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
'Gujarat No 1 state in economic freedom' | Business Standard
NaMo's Gujarat is the number one state in economic freedom, followed by Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh : India, News - India Today
It is the right to call Pappu a Vish Purush.
Assam woman who kissed Rahul Gandhi burnt to death by husband
The Congress ward member Bonti, who kissed party vice-president Rahul Gandhi during his Assam visit few days back, has died after suffering serious burns.
According to initial reports the woman had an argument with her husband before she died. It is yet to be confirmerd whether the woman committed suicide or was burnt to death by her husband.
Bonti came into limelight for kissing Rahul Gandhi during his Assam visit on Wednesday.
Read more at: Assam woman who kissed Rahul Gandhi burnt to death by husband : India, News - India Today
RIP To Lady.
fsayed
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell The Farce of the SIT Investigation on Gujarat
Posted by :kamayani bali mahabal On : February 16, 2014
0
Category:Uncategorized
Tags:carnage, godhara, Gujarat, riots, Teesta Setalvad
A ruined life Zakia Jafri, widow of Ehsan Jafri with Teesta Setalvad
book extract
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Nine hours, two sessions, 71 questions; yet, as a new book examines, all SIT’s done is put Modi’s defence on record, not challenge contradictions
Manoj Mitta
THE FICTION OF FACT-FINDING: MODI & GODHRA
BY
MANOJ MITTA
HARPERCOLLINS | PAGES: 259 | RS. 599
When Narendra Modi visited the office of the SIT (Special Investigation Team) in Gandhinagar on March 27, 2010, it was exactly 11 months after the Supreme Courthad directed it to “look into” a criminal complaint. Modi’s visit in response to an SIT summons was a milestone in accountability—at least in potential. It was the first time any chief minister was being questioned by an investigating agency for his alleged complicity in communal violence. The summons were on the complaint by Zakia Jafri, the widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who had been killed in the first of the post-Godhra massacres in 2002.
Jafri’s complaint, which had been referred to it by the Supreme Court on April 27, 2009, tested the SIT’s independence and integrity more than any of the nine cases that had been originally assigned to it a year earlier. Jafri’s complaint called upon it to probe allegations against 63 influential persons, including Modi himself. The complaint named Modi as Accused No. 1 for the alleged conspiracy behind thecarnage that had taken place in 14 of Gujarat’s 25 districts. A Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat, authorised the SIT not only to “look into” Jafri’s complaint but also to “take steps as required in law”. The legal steps that needed to be taken immediately were self-evident. The SIT was required to examine whether the information contained in Jafri’s complaint amounted to, as Section 154 CrPC put it, “the commission of a cognizable offence”. If so, the SIT would be obliged, under the same provision, to register a first information report (FIR), which is a statutory prelude to an actual investigation.
The Gulberg Case
A farce concluded Modi addresses the media after his SIT appearance
Despite the mismatch between the restricted scope of the Gulberg Society case and the wide ambit of Jafri’s complaint, a Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice D.K. Jain, gave the go-ahead to the SIT’s proposal. This could be because the permission for further investigation sought by the SIT was only into allegations against a junior minister, Gordhan Zadafia, and two police officers, M.K. Tandon and P.B. Gondia. Later on, though, the Supreme Court extended the purview of the further investigation to the alleged complicity of Modi himself. This long-drawn-out but unusual exercise culminated on February 8, 2012 in a “final report” to a magisterial court in Ahmedabad exonerating Modi and the rest of the accused persons of any of the criminal culpability alleged by Jafri’s complaint.
It could have been a milestone in accountability: a CM being investigated for his complicity in communal riots.
The Gulberg Society query with Modi’s answer and signature
When Modi’s testimony was recorded, the questioning was done by SIT member A.K. Malhotra, a retired CBI officer. What began on March 27, 2010 went on for as long as nine hours over two sessions, with the second spilling over into the wee hours of the following day. The length of the interrogation was, however, out of proportion to its intensity. Although as many as 71 questions were addressed to him, the transcript, bearing Modi’s signature on every page, shows that Malhotra studiously refrained from challenging any of his replies, however controversial. At no point did Malhotra make the slightest effort to pin Modi down on any gaps and contradictions in his testimony. Although the questions, culled from Jafri’s complaint, were extensive, the SIT refrained from asking a single follow-up question. It seemed as if Malhotra’s brief was more to place Modi’s defence on record rather than to ferret out any inconsistency or admission of wrongdoing. Malhotra’s approach of sticking to his question script, irrespective of the answers elicited by it, helped Modi get off the hook on more than one issue. Both parties made the most of the absence of the Section 161 obligation: with Modi, it was not to “answer truly” and with the SIT, it was not to put “all questions”.Take the reluctance displayed by the SIT in March 2010 to corner Modi on the terror conspiracy allegation made by him within hours of the Godhra incident. The SIT’s reluctance was obvious because a year earlier the Gujarat High Court had upheld a statutory review committee’s recommendation that terror charges could not apply to the Godhra case. Among the reasons pointed out by the review committee headed by a retired high court judge were that the miscreants involved in the Godhra arson had not used any firearms or explosives, that they had attacked coach S-6 from only one side and that they had allowed passengers of the overcrowded coach to escape from the other side. These reasons were found convincing enough for the high court to declare in February 2009 that “the incident in question is shocking but every shocking incident cannot be covered by a definition of a statute which defines terror”.
By asking if it could further investigate the Gulberg case, the SIT restricted the broader scope of Zakia Jafri’s complaint.
Neither of his reports, which were the bedrock of the Supreme Court monitoring, made any comment on those questions. Whatever had been held back or played down by the SIT, in effect, escaped the Supreme Court monitoring, irrespective of its relevance to the subject of the probe. As a consequence of this rather blinkered approach, Ramachandran missed the import of Modi putting the imprimatur of his office on the vhp’s terror allegation. In his interim report in January 2011, Ramachandran said that Modi’s alleged interference with policing warranted “further investigation” under the CrPC, going beyond the preliminary enquiry done by the SIT. This followed the further investigation that the SIT had already conducted with the Supreme Court’s permission against minister Gordhan Zadafia and police officers M.K. Tandon and P.B. Gondia. The further investigation against these three had happened before Ramachandran’s appointment in November 2010 and had led to the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to prosecute any of them. Whatever the odds stacked against it, the fresh line of investigation proposed by Ramachandran opened up the possibility of the SIT probe substantiating the allegation of a high-level political conspiracy behind the post-Godhra violence. This was especially because of his forthright observation that the further investigation should “examine the role of Shri Modi immediately after the Godhra incident to find out if there is any culpability to the extent that a message was conveyed that the state machinery would not step in to prevent the communal riots”. Moreover, one of the reasons cited by Ramachandran’s interim report for the proposed probe into the meeting was the evidence of Modi’s own lackadaisical response the following day to the violence against Muslims. “There is nothing to show that the CM intervened on 28.02.2002 when the riots were taking place. The movement of Shri Modi and the instructions given by him on 28.02.2002 would have been decisive to prove that he had taken all steps for the protection of the minorities, but this evidence is not there. Neither the CM nor his personal officials have stated what he did on 28.02.2002. Neither the top police nor bureaucrats have spoken about any decisive action by the CM.”
Sabarmati’s burning A terror attack it certainly wasn’t
Thus, the recommendation for further investigation into Modi’s February 27 meeting was reinforced by the incisive observation that he had not taken “any decisive action” the next day to control the post-Godhra violence. Subsequent to Ramachandran’s note, the Supreme Court directed the SIT on March 15, 2011 to give its response, adding that it could “if necessary carry out further investigation in light of the observations made in the said note”. The SIT did carry out further investigation, this time against Modi. There was a conspicuous departure though from the earlier round of further investigation. The two officers subjected to it, Tandon and Gondia, were interrogated afresh. But when it came to the further investigation against Modi, the SIT made no effort to question him on any of the issues raised by Ramachandran. In fact, Ramachandran’s observations should have impelled the SIT to issue fresh summons to Modi in 2011, making up for its omissions in the interrogation conducted the previous year. In reality, the SIT balked at calling Modi afresh even as it recorded the statements of as many as 48 witnesses in connection with the allegations against him. For questions that Modi alone could have answered, the SIT settled for one of his aides, officer on special duty Sanjay Bhavsar. Had Ramachandran not overlooked the oddities in Modi’s testimony, he could have built the case on grounds that were more substantial and irrefutable. Had he made an issue of the inflammatory terror allegation aired by Modi within hours of the arson, the SIT would have found itself on the defensive, having toed the Gujarat police line in the Godhra case. That he missed this point was clearly an opportunity loss for fact-finding. Making matters worse was Ramachandran’s silence in his final report on a critical issue he had himself raised in his interim report: the absence of “any decisive action” by Modi on February 28, 2002 when Ahmedabad had been ravaged by violence against Muslims. This was the closest Ramachandran had come to questioning Modi’s controversial suggestion that even as he was engaged in saving Muslims, he was oblivious the whole day to the two big massacres of Ahmedabad. All that the SIT came up with in defence of Modi was a list of the meetings he had held and the decisions he had taken, although they had apparently made little difference on the ground. In fact, on the basis of details provided by Bhavsar, the SIT added that it had taken over five days for Modi to visit Gulberg Society and other riot-hit areas in Ahmedabad because he had been “awfully busy”. Though none of this could have been passed off as “decisive action” by him on the first day of the post-Godhra violence, Ramachandran gave in to the SIT’s explanation. He said: “As far as the SIT’s conclusion with regard to the steps taken by Shri Modi to control the riots in Ahmedabad is concerned, the same may be accepted, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.” Ramachandran’s failure to notice the “evidence to the contrary” in Modi’s interrogation was a major reason why the Supreme Court’s monitoring of the investigation proved to be illusory. This was despite the fact that unlike its choice of SIT members, the Supreme Court’s selection of Ramachandran as amicus curiae was beyond reproach.
Bhavsar said it took Modi five days to visit Gulberg Society and other riot-hit areas in the city as he had been ‘awfully busy’.
The BJP thought it fit to declare Modi as its prime ministerial candidate in September 2013, days after Jafri’s counsel had ended their arguments against the SIT’s closure report before magistrate B.J. Ganatra. The chance taken by the BJP was vindicated by Ganatra’s dismissal of Jafri’s protest petition, through a 440-page order delivered on December 26, 2013. Based as it was on the facts framed by the SIT, the order upholding Modi’s exoneration said nothing about the questions that had remained unasked by the SIT and unanswered by the Gujarat government. So it missed out on the unexplained incongruity of Modi’s claim that he was unaware of the Gulberg Society massacre for almost five hours. Rejecting Jafri’s conspiracy allegation against Modi, the magistrate’s order said that he “showed alacrity in requisitioning the army and took necessary steps to control the situation”. Thus, Modi’s decision to call in the army at the 4 pm meeting he had held minutes after the Gulberg Society massacre was passed off as an instance of his “alacrity”. In order to arrive at the conclusion that Modi had displayed “alacrity”, the fact-finding process studiously ignored his claim to have been unaware of the Gulberg Society massacre till his 8.30 meeting. The moral of the story is clear. When the right questions are not put, there will be neither the right evidence nor the right conclusions.
Raed mor eher – Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell | Manoj Mitta
Workdays for tribals under MNREGA raised from 100 to 150
Workdays for tribals under MNREGA raised from 100 to 150
PTI [ Updated 28 Feb 2014, 22:19:20 ]
yaar tum log pura article padte nahi ho
quote from same article
However, the Assam Director General of Police (DGP) has said the Congress woman worker burnt by husband did not kiss Rahul, but was among the women Rahul met at the Jorhat event.
Read more at: Assam woman who attended Rahul event burnt to death by husband : India, News - India Today
Posted by :kamayani bali mahabal On : February 16, 2014
0
Category:Uncategorized
Tags:carnage, godhara, Gujarat, riots, Teesta Setalvad
A ruined life Zakia Jafri, widow of Ehsan Jafri with Teesta Setalvad
book extract
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Nine hours, two sessions, 71 questions; yet, as a new book examines, all SIT’s done is put Modi’s defence on record, not challenge contradictions
Manoj Mitta
THE FICTION OF FACT-FINDING: MODI & GODHRA
BY
MANOJ MITTA
HARPERCOLLINS | PAGES: 259 | RS. 599
When Narendra Modi visited the office of the SIT (Special Investigation Team) in Gandhinagar on March 27, 2010, it was exactly 11 months after the Supreme Courthad directed it to “look into” a criminal complaint. Modi’s visit in response to an SIT summons was a milestone in accountability—at least in potential. It was the first time any chief minister was being questioned by an investigating agency for his alleged complicity in communal violence. The summons were on the complaint by Zakia Jafri, the widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who had been killed in the first of the post-Godhra massacres in 2002.
Jafri’s complaint, which had been referred to it by the Supreme Court on April 27, 2009, tested the SIT’s independence and integrity more than any of the nine cases that had been originally assigned to it a year earlier. Jafri’s complaint called upon it to probe allegations against 63 influential persons, including Modi himself. The complaint named Modi as Accused No. 1 for the alleged conspiracy behind thecarnage that had taken place in 14 of Gujarat’s 25 districts. A Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat, authorised the SIT not only to “look into” Jafri’s complaint but also to “take steps as required in law”. The legal steps that needed to be taken immediately were self-evident. The SIT was required to examine whether the information contained in Jafri’s complaint amounted to, as Section 154 CrPC put it, “the commission of a cognizable offence”. If so, the SIT would be obliged, under the same provision, to register a first information report (FIR), which is a statutory prelude to an actual investigation.
The Gulberg Case
- Gulberg Society, a middle-class Muslim colony located in Chamanpura, a Hindu-dominated locality in eastern Ahmedabad, is attacked on February 28, 2002, a day after coaches of the Sabarmati Express are set afire near the Godhra railway station.
- Ehsan Jafri, 73, a former Congress MP who lived in the Society, made numerous SOS calls to police officers and various Congress leaders. Police claimed the mob went out of
control when Jafri opened fire. He was one of the 69 people killed. Most houses in the
neighbourhood were burnt. - In 2006, Jafri’s widow Zakia sought to register another FIR against Narendra Modi and 62 other top police and administrative officials alleging they had aided, abetted and conspired for the riots.
- In 2008, the Supreme Court appointed a four-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by former CBI director R.K. Raghavan to conduct investigation in these cases.
- In September 2011, the SC refused to pass an order on Modi’s role in the Gulberg Society case and directed concerned magistrate of Ahmedabad to decide the case; SIT submits its report in February 2012.
- In Dec 2013, court rejects Zakia’s petition against SIT’s closure report giving Modi a clean chit in the 2002 riot cases.
A farce concluded Modi addresses the media after his SIT appearance
Despite the mismatch between the restricted scope of the Gulberg Society case and the wide ambit of Jafri’s complaint, a Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice D.K. Jain, gave the go-ahead to the SIT’s proposal. This could be because the permission for further investigation sought by the SIT was only into allegations against a junior minister, Gordhan Zadafia, and two police officers, M.K. Tandon and P.B. Gondia. Later on, though, the Supreme Court extended the purview of the further investigation to the alleged complicity of Modi himself. This long-drawn-out but unusual exercise culminated on February 8, 2012 in a “final report” to a magisterial court in Ahmedabad exonerating Modi and the rest of the accused persons of any of the criminal culpability alleged by Jafri’s complaint.
It could have been a milestone in accountability: a CM being investigated for his complicity in communal riots.
The Gulberg Society query with Modi’s answer and signatureWhen Modi’s testimony was recorded, the questioning was done by SIT member A.K. Malhotra, a retired CBI officer. What began on March 27, 2010 went on for as long as nine hours over two sessions, with the second spilling over into the wee hours of the following day. The length of the interrogation was, however, out of proportion to its intensity. Although as many as 71 questions were addressed to him, the transcript, bearing Modi’s signature on every page, shows that Malhotra studiously refrained from challenging any of his replies, however controversial. At no point did Malhotra make the slightest effort to pin Modi down on any gaps and contradictions in his testimony. Although the questions, culled from Jafri’s complaint, were extensive, the SIT refrained from asking a single follow-up question. It seemed as if Malhotra’s brief was more to place Modi’s defence on record rather than to ferret out any inconsistency or admission of wrongdoing. Malhotra’s approach of sticking to his question script, irrespective of the answers elicited by it, helped Modi get off the hook on more than one issue. Both parties made the most of the absence of the Section 161 obligation: with Modi, it was not to “answer truly” and with the SIT, it was not to put “all questions”.Take the reluctance displayed by the SIT in March 2010 to corner Modi on the terror conspiracy allegation made by him within hours of the Godhra incident. The SIT’s reluctance was obvious because a year earlier the Gujarat High Court had upheld a statutory review committee’s recommendation that terror charges could not apply to the Godhra case. Among the reasons pointed out by the review committee headed by a retired high court judge were that the miscreants involved in the Godhra arson had not used any firearms or explosives, that they had attacked coach S-6 from only one side and that they had allowed passengers of the overcrowded coach to escape from the other side. These reasons were found convincing enough for the high court to declare in February 2009 that “the incident in question is shocking but every shocking incident cannot be covered by a definition of a statute which defines terror”.
By asking if it could further investigate the Gulberg case, the SIT restricted the broader scope of Zakia Jafri’s complaint.
Neither of his reports, which were the bedrock of the Supreme Court monitoring, made any comment on those questions. Whatever had been held back or played down by the SIT, in effect, escaped the Supreme Court monitoring, irrespective of its relevance to the subject of the probe. As a consequence of this rather blinkered approach, Ramachandran missed the import of Modi putting the imprimatur of his office on the vhp’s terror allegation. In his interim report in January 2011, Ramachandran said that Modi’s alleged interference with policing warranted “further investigation” under the CrPC, going beyond the preliminary enquiry done by the SIT. This followed the further investigation that the SIT had already conducted with the Supreme Court’s permission against minister Gordhan Zadafia and police officers M.K. Tandon and P.B. Gondia. The further investigation against these three had happened before Ramachandran’s appointment in November 2010 and had led to the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to prosecute any of them. Whatever the odds stacked against it, the fresh line of investigation proposed by Ramachandran opened up the possibility of the SIT probe substantiating the allegation of a high-level political conspiracy behind the post-Godhra violence. This was especially because of his forthright observation that the further investigation should “examine the role of Shri Modi immediately after the Godhra incident to find out if there is any culpability to the extent that a message was conveyed that the state machinery would not step in to prevent the communal riots”. Moreover, one of the reasons cited by Ramachandran’s interim report for the proposed probe into the meeting was the evidence of Modi’s own lackadaisical response the following day to the violence against Muslims. “There is nothing to show that the CM intervened on 28.02.2002 when the riots were taking place. The movement of Shri Modi and the instructions given by him on 28.02.2002 would have been decisive to prove that he had taken all steps for the protection of the minorities, but this evidence is not there. Neither the CM nor his personal officials have stated what he did on 28.02.2002. Neither the top police nor bureaucrats have spoken about any decisive action by the CM.”
Sabarmati’s burning A terror attack it certainly wasn’t
Thus, the recommendation for further investigation into Modi’s February 27 meeting was reinforced by the incisive observation that he had not taken “any decisive action” the next day to control the post-Godhra violence. Subsequent to Ramachandran’s note, the Supreme Court directed the SIT on March 15, 2011 to give its response, adding that it could “if necessary carry out further investigation in light of the observations made in the said note”. The SIT did carry out further investigation, this time against Modi. There was a conspicuous departure though from the earlier round of further investigation. The two officers subjected to it, Tandon and Gondia, were interrogated afresh. But when it came to the further investigation against Modi, the SIT made no effort to question him on any of the issues raised by Ramachandran. In fact, Ramachandran’s observations should have impelled the SIT to issue fresh summons to Modi in 2011, making up for its omissions in the interrogation conducted the previous year. In reality, the SIT balked at calling Modi afresh even as it recorded the statements of as many as 48 witnesses in connection with the allegations against him. For questions that Modi alone could have answered, the SIT settled for one of his aides, officer on special duty Sanjay Bhavsar. Had Ramachandran not overlooked the oddities in Modi’s testimony, he could have built the case on grounds that were more substantial and irrefutable. Had he made an issue of the inflammatory terror allegation aired by Modi within hours of the arson, the SIT would have found itself on the defensive, having toed the Gujarat police line in the Godhra case. That he missed this point was clearly an opportunity loss for fact-finding. Making matters worse was Ramachandran’s silence in his final report on a critical issue he had himself raised in his interim report: the absence of “any decisive action” by Modi on February 28, 2002 when Ahmedabad had been ravaged by violence against Muslims. This was the closest Ramachandran had come to questioning Modi’s controversial suggestion that even as he was engaged in saving Muslims, he was oblivious the whole day to the two big massacres of Ahmedabad. All that the SIT came up with in defence of Modi was a list of the meetings he had held and the decisions he had taken, although they had apparently made little difference on the ground. In fact, on the basis of details provided by Bhavsar, the SIT added that it had taken over five days for Modi to visit Gulberg Society and other riot-hit areas in Ahmedabad because he had been “awfully busy”. Though none of this could have been passed off as “decisive action” by him on the first day of the post-Godhra violence, Ramachandran gave in to the SIT’s explanation. He said: “As far as the SIT’s conclusion with regard to the steps taken by Shri Modi to control the riots in Ahmedabad is concerned, the same may be accepted, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.” Ramachandran’s failure to notice the “evidence to the contrary” in Modi’s interrogation was a major reason why the Supreme Court’s monitoring of the investigation proved to be illusory. This was despite the fact that unlike its choice of SIT members, the Supreme Court’s selection of Ramachandran as amicus curiae was beyond reproach.
Bhavsar said it took Modi five days to visit Gulberg Society and other riot-hit areas in the city as he had been ‘awfully busy’.
The BJP thought it fit to declare Modi as its prime ministerial candidate in September 2013, days after Jafri’s counsel had ended their arguments against the SIT’s closure report before magistrate B.J. Ganatra. The chance taken by the BJP was vindicated by Ganatra’s dismissal of Jafri’s protest petition, through a 440-page order delivered on December 26, 2013. Based as it was on the facts framed by the SIT, the order upholding Modi’s exoneration said nothing about the questions that had remained unasked by the SIT and unanswered by the Gujarat government. So it missed out on the unexplained incongruity of Modi’s claim that he was unaware of the Gulberg Society massacre for almost five hours. Rejecting Jafri’s conspiracy allegation against Modi, the magistrate’s order said that he “showed alacrity in requisitioning the army and took necessary steps to control the situation”. Thus, Modi’s decision to call in the army at the 4 pm meeting he had held minutes after the Gulberg Society massacre was passed off as an instance of his “alacrity”. In order to arrive at the conclusion that Modi had displayed “alacrity”, the fact-finding process studiously ignored his claim to have been unaware of the Gulberg Society massacre till his 8.30 meeting. The moral of the story is clear. When the right questions are not put, there will be neither the right evidence nor the right conclusions.
Raed mor eher – Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell | Manoj Mitta
this shows u people dont read just talk the picture u r talking about is of tribal people kal bola tha naaa kaala askshar bhais barabar
Workdays for tribals under MNREGA raised from 100 to 150
Workdays for tribals under MNREGA raised from 100 to 150
PTI [ Updated 28 Feb 2014, 22:19:20 ]
'Gujarat No 1 state in economic freedom' | Business Standard
NaMo's Gujarat is the number one state in economic freedom, followed by Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh : India, News - India Today
It is the right to call Pappu a Vish Purush.
Assam woman who kissed Rahul Gandhi burnt to death by husband
The Congress ward member Bonti, who kissed party vice-president Rahul Gandhi during his Assam visit few days back, has died after suffering serious burns.
According to initial reports the woman had an argument with her husband before she died. It is yet to be confirmerd whether the woman committed suicide or was burnt to death by her husband.
Bonti came into limelight for kissing Rahul Gandhi during his Assam visit on Wednesday.
Read more at: Assam woman who kissed Rahul Gandhi burnt to death by husband : India, News - India Today
RIP To Lady.
yaar tum log pura article padte nahi ho
quote from same article
However, the Assam Director General of Police (DGP) has said the Congress woman worker burnt by husband did not kiss Rahul, but was among the women Rahul met at the Jorhat event.
Read more at: Assam woman who attended Rahul event burnt to death by husband : India, News - India Today
Last edited:
HariPrasad
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 14,055
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell The Farce of the SIT Investigation on Gujarat
Posted by :kamayani bali mahabal On : February 16, 2014
0
Category:Uncategorized
Tags:carnage, godhara, Gujarat, riots, Teesta Setalvad
A ruined life Zakia Jafri, widow of Ehsan Jafri with Teesta Setalvad
book extract
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Nine hours, two sessions, 71 questions; yet, as a new book examines, all SIT’s done is put Modi’s defence on record, not challenge contradictions
Manoj Mitta
THE FICTION OF FACT-FINDING: MODI & GODHRA
BY
MANOJ MITTA
HARPERCOLLINS | PAGES: 259 | RS. 599
When Narendra Modi visited the office of the SIT (Special Investigation Team) in Gandhinagar on March 27, 2010, it was exactly 11 months after the Supreme Courthad directed it to “look into” a criminal complaint. Modi’s visit in response to an SIT summons was a milestone in accountability—at least in potential. It was the first time any chief minister was being questioned by an investigating agency for his alleged complicity in communal violence. The summons were on the complaint by Zakia Jafri, the widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who had been killed in the first of the post-Godhra massacres in 2002.
Jafri’s complaint, which had been referred to it by the Supreme Court on April 27, 2009, tested the SIT’s independence and integrity more than any of the nine cases that had been originally assigned to it a year earlier. Jafri’s complaint called upon it to probe allegations against 63 influential persons, including Modi himself. The complaint named Modi as Accused No. 1 for the alleged conspiracy behind thecarnage that had taken place in 14 of Gujarat’s 25 districts. A Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat, authorised the SIT not only to “look into” Jafri’s complaint but also to “take steps as required in law”. The legal steps that needed to be taken immediately were self-evident. The SIT was required to examine whether the information contained in Jafri’s complaint amounted to, as Section 154 CrPC put it, “the commission of a cognizable offence”. If so, the SIT would be obliged, under the same provision, to register a first information report (FIR), which is a statutory prelude to an actual investigation.
The Gulberg Case
The SIT did conduct a probe into Jafri’s complaint but it was done without fulfilling the precondition of registering an FIR. The elaborate probe, stretching over 12 months and recording the statements of 163 witnesses, took place under the guise of a “preliminary enquiry”. Then, even after the conclusion of the so-called preliminary enquiry, the SIT was disinclined to register any FIR on Jafri’s complaint. In its May 12, 2010 “enquiry report”, the SIT asked the Supreme Court if it could instead conduct “further investigation” in the existing case of Gulberg Society, where Jafri was a witness. The SIT’s proposal flew in the face of Jafri’s complaint, which had sought a broad-based probe into the conduct of the Modi government, encompassing all the carnage cases, rather than a narrowly-focused further investigation in any particular case. Besides, the period covered by Jafri’s complaint was an extended one as it referred to, for instance, the Supreme Court’s indictment of the Modi regime in 2004 in the Best Bakery and Bilkis Bano cases.
- Gulberg Society, a middle-class Muslim colony located in Chamanpura, a Hindu-dominated locality in eastern Ahmedabad, is attacked on February 28, 2002, a day after coaches of the Sabarmati Express are set afire near the Godhra railway station.
- Ehsan Jafri, 73, a former Congress MP who lived in the Society, made numerous SOS calls to police officers and various Congress leaders. Police claimed the mob went out of
control when Jafri opened fire. He was one of the 69 people killed. Most houses in the
neighbourhood were burnt.- In 2006, Jafri’s widow Zakia sought to register another FIR against Narendra Modi and 62 other top police and administrative officials alleging they had aided, abetted and conspired for the riots.
- In 2008, the Supreme Court appointed a four-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by former CBI director R.K. Raghavan to conduct investigation in these cases.
- In September 2011, the SC refused to pass an order on Modi’s role in the Gulberg Society case and directed concerned magistrate of Ahmedabad to decide the case; SIT submits its report in February 2012.
- In Dec 2013, court rejects Zakia’s petition against SIT’s closure report giving Modi a clean chit in the 2002 riot cases.
A farce concluded Modi addresses the media after his SIT appearance
Despite the mismatch between the restricted scope of the Gulberg Society case and the wide ambit of Jafri’s complaint, a Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice D.K. Jain, gave the go-ahead to the SIT’s proposal. This could be because the permission for further investigation sought by the SIT was only into allegations against a junior minister, Gordhan Zadafia, and two police officers, M.K. Tandon and P.B. Gondia. Later on, though, the Supreme Court extended the purview of the further investigation to the alleged complicity of Modi himself. This long-drawn-out but unusual exercise culminated on February 8, 2012 in a “final report” to a magisterial court in Ahmedabad exonerating Modi and the rest of the accused persons of any of the criminal culpability alleged by Jafri’s complaint.
It could have been a milestone in accountability: a CM being investigated for his complicity in communal riots.
When Modi’s testimony was recorded, the questioning was done by SIT member A.K. Malhotra, a retired CBI officer. What began on March 27, 2010 went on for as long as nine hours over two sessions, with the second spilling over into the wee hours of the following day. The length of the interrogation was, however, out of proportion to its intensity. Although as many as 71 questions were addressed to him, the transcript, bearing Modi’s signature on every page, shows that Malhotra studiously refrained from challenging any of his replies, however controversial. At no point did Malhotra make the slightest effort to pin Modi down on any gaps and contradictions in his testimony. Although the questions, culled from Jafri’s complaint, were extensive, the SIT refrained from asking a single follow-up question. It seemed as if Malhotra’s brief was more to place Modi’s defence on record rather than to ferret out any inconsistency or admission of wrongdoing. Malhotra’s approach of sticking to his question script, irrespective of the answers elicited by it, helped Modi get off the hook on more than one issue. Both parties made the most of the absence of the Section 161 obligation: with Modi, it was not to “answer truly” and with the SIT, it was not to put “all questions”.Take the reluctance displayed by the SIT in March 2010 to corner Modi on the terror conspiracy allegation made by him within hours of the Godhra incident. The SIT’s reluctance was obvious because a year earlier the Gujarat High Court had upheld a statutory review committee’s recommendation that terror charges could not apply to the Godhra case. Among the reasons pointed out by the review committee headed by a retired high court judge were that the miscreants involved in the Godhra arson had not used any firearms or explosives, that they had attacked coach S-6 from only one side and that they had allowed passengers of the overcrowded coach to escape from the other side. These reasons were found convincing enough for the high court to declare in February 2009 that “the incident in question is shocking but every shocking incident cannot be covered by a definition of a statute which defines terror”.
By asking if it could further investigate the Gulberg case, the SIT restricted the broader scope of Zakia Jafri’s complaint.
Neither of his reports, which were the bedrock of the Supreme Court monitoring, made any comment on those questions. Whatever had been held back or played down by the SIT, in effect, escaped the Supreme Court monitoring, irrespective of its relevance to the subject of the probe. As a consequence of this rather blinkered approach, Ramachandran missed the import of Modi putting the imprimatur of his office on the vhp’s terror allegation. In his interim report in January 2011, Ramachandran said that Modi’s alleged interference with policing warranted “further investigation” under the CrPC, going beyond the preliminary enquiry done by the SIT. This followed the further investigation that the SIT had already conducted with the Supreme Court’s permission against minister Gordhan Zadafia and police officers M.K. Tandon and P.B. Gondia. The further investigation against these three had happened before Ramachandran’s appointment in November 2010 and had led to the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to prosecute any of them. Whatever the odds stacked against it, the fresh line of investigation proposed by Ramachandran opened up the possibility of the SIT probe substantiating the allegation of a high-level political conspiracy behind the post-Godhra violence. This was especially because of his forthright observation that the further investigation should “examine the role of Shri Modi immediately after the Godhra incident to find out if there is any culpability to the extent that a message was conveyed that the state machinery would not step in to prevent the communal riots”. Moreover, one of the reasons cited by Ramachandran’s interim report for the proposed probe into the meeting was the evidence of Modi’s own lackadaisical response the following day to the violence against Muslims. “There is nothing to show that the CM intervened on 28.02.2002 when the riots were taking place. The movement of Shri Modi and the instructions given by him on 28.02.2002 would have been decisive to prove that he had taken all steps for the protection of the minorities, but this evidence is not there. Neither the CM nor his personal officials have stated what he did on 28.02.2002. Neither the top police nor bureaucrats have spoken about any decisive action by the CM.”
Sabarmati’s burning A terror attack it certainly wasn’t
Thus, the recommendation for further investigation into Modi’s February 27 meeting was reinforced by the incisive observation that he had not taken “any decisive action” the next day to control the post-Godhra violence. Subsequent to Ramachandran’s note, the Supreme Court directed the SIT on March 15, 2011 to give its response, adding that it could “if necessary carry out further investigation in light of the observations made in the said note”. The SIT did carry out further investigation, this time against Modi. There was a conspicuous departure though from the earlier round of further investigation. The two officers subjected to it, Tandon and Gondia, were interrogated afresh. But when it came to the further investigation against Modi, the SIT made no effort to question him on any of the issues raised by Ramachandran. In fact, Ramachandran’s observations should have impelled the SIT to issue fresh summons to Modi in 2011, making up for its omissions in the interrogation conducted the previous year. In reality, the SIT balked at calling Modi afresh even as it recorded the statements of as many as 48 witnesses in connection with the allegations against him. For questions that Modi alone could have answered, the SIT settled for one of his aides, officer on special duty Sanjay Bhavsar. Had Ramachandran not overlooked the oddities in Modi’s testimony, he could have built the case on grounds that were more substantial and irrefutable. Had he made an issue of the inflammatory terror allegation aired by Modi within hours of the arson, the SIT would have found itself on the defensive, having toed the Gujarat police line in the Godhra case. That he missed this point was clearly an opportunity loss for fact-finding. Making matters worse was Ramachandran’s silence in his final report on a critical issue he had himself raised in his interim report: the absence of “any decisive action” by Modi on February 28, 2002 when Ahmedabad had been ravaged by violence against Muslims. This was the closest Ramachandran had come to questioning Modi’s controversial suggestion that even as he was engaged in saving Muslims, he was oblivious the whole day to the two big massacres of Ahmedabad. All that the SIT came up with in defence of Modi was a list of the meetings he had held and the decisions he had taken, although they had apparently made little difference on the ground. In fact, on the basis of details provided by Bhavsar, the SIT added that it had taken over five days for Modi to visit Gulberg Society and other riot-hit areas in Ahmedabad because he had been “awfully busy”. Though none of this could have been passed off as “decisive action” by him on the first day of the post-Godhra violence, Ramachandran gave in to the SIT’s explanation. He said: “As far as the SIT’s conclusion with regard to the steps taken by Shri Modi to control the riots in Ahmedabad is concerned, the same may be accepted, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.” Ramachandran’s failure to notice the “evidence to the contrary” in Modi’s interrogation was a major reason why the Supreme Court’s monitoring of the investigation proved to be illusory. This was despite the fact that unlike its choice of SIT members, the Supreme Court’s selection of Ramachandran as amicus curiae was beyond reproach.
Bhavsar said it took Modi five days to visit Gulberg Society and other riot-hit areas in the city as he had been ‘awfully busy’.
The BJP thought it fit to declare Modi as its prime ministerial candidate in September 2013, days after Jafri’s counsel had ended their arguments against the SIT’s closure report before magistrate B.J. Ganatra. The chance taken by the BJP was vindicated by Ganatra’s dismissal of Jafri’s protest petition, through a 440-page order delivered on December 26, 2013. Based as it was on the facts framed by the SIT, the order upholding Modi’s exoneration said nothing about the questions that had remained unasked by the SIT and unanswered by the Gujarat government. So it missed out on the unexplained incongruity of Modi’s claim that he was unaware of the Gulberg Society massacre for almost five hours. Rejecting Jafri’s conspiracy allegation against Modi, the magistrate’s order said that he “showed alacrity in requisitioning the army and took necessary steps to control the situation”. Thus, Modi’s decision to call in the army at the 4 pm meeting he had held minutes after the Gulberg Society massacre was passed off as an instance of his “alacrity”. In order to arrive at the conclusion that Modi had displayed “alacrity”, the fact-finding process studiously ignored his claim to have been unaware of the Gulberg Society massacre till his 8.30 meeting. The moral of the story is clear. When the right questions are not put, there will be neither the right evidence nor the right conclusions.
Raed mor eher – Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell | Manoj Mitta
I am impressed with the clarity in which Modi gave the answer as it is evident from Article. No surprised that Supreme court through that useless complaint in dust been. The lady is more interested in play politics in the name of her husband rather than bringing the real culprits to justice.
People attacked d ahesan Zafri as he opened a firing Killing one and injuring 15.
The SIT summoned Zee TV correspondent Sudhir Chaudhary, and asked him for a CD of the interview. Mr. Chaudhary said he did not have the CD with him but recollected that to his question on the Gulberg massacre, Mr. Modi had replied that “the mob had reacted on account of private firing done by late Ahesan Jafri.”
A Muslim politician who was murdered in 2002 riots in India's Gujarat state may have "provoked" a violent mob by firing at them, investigators say.
BBC News - Gujarat report says MP Ehsan Jafri 'provoked murderers'
Last edited:
JanjaWeed
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 9,772
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
wow... that proved to be a kiss of death for the lady!
fsayed
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
A whopping 21 per cent of Gujarat’s annual plan either remained unspent or was divected in fiscal 2012-13
October 7, 2013Uncategorized
Latest data made available from authoritative sources in Gujarat’s finance department have revealed something about which the state’s policy apparatus should be worried: A whopping 21 per cent of the annual plan allocation for the last financial year, 2012-13 remained “unspent” – or possibly diverted to the “non-plan” sector. As against non-plan expenditure, which is made of all the “necessary” expenditures which the Gujarat government must make, including payment to nearly six lakh government servants, interests on debts and other such obligations, annual plan allocation is made for satisfying the developmental needs of the state in fields as education, health, social justice, woman and child development, and amelioration of the backward areas.The annual plan, finalized at a high-level meeting between Planning Commission vice-chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, was fixed at Rs 51,000 crore. This was Rs 401 crore higher than the annual plan fixed by the Gujarat government at the state of the state’s budget session in February 2002 – Rs 50,599 crore. The sources have revealed that despite the upward revision, the state government could spend only Rs 41,154 crore, which means that a huge 20.98 per cent of the annual plan was “diverted” towards non-plan expenditure, or just remained unspent. There is no explanation anywhere, including in the state’s Fiscal Responsibility statement, which explains its budgetary performance, as to how this has happened.
The increase in the annual plan for 2012-13 by Rs 401 crore was undertaken after Ahluwalia insisted that Gujarat government should pay “more attention would be needed in achieving more sustainable growth in agriculture and for addressing the problems of malnutrition and out of school children”. He added, “the state needs to further promote public private partnership in infrastructure development as the Centre was aiming at 50 per cent investment from private sector in the sector.” A higher allocation was also made towards a horticulture initiative, which Gujarat government told the Planning Commission that it was planning to launch.
In fact, sources point out, the failure to spend the annual plan happened despite the fact that Gujarat government allocated Rs 42,057 crore as budgetary support to it, and another Rs 9,000 crore as “non-budgetary support”, thereby taking the total amount allocated in favour of the annual plan to Rs 51,057 crore, Rs 57 crore more than what the Planning Commission had agreed upon. What is interesting is that this was 23.41 per cent higher than the allocation made by the state finance department for the annual plan of the previous year, 2011-12 – which was Rs 34,429 crore. Now, for the fiscal 2013-14, the Gujarat government has risen its annual plan even higher – to Rs 59,000 crore, which is higher by 15.68 per cent compared to the previous year.
A further analysis of the annual plan suggests that Gujarat government “spent” a huge amount of whatever was allocated by the state assembly for 2012-13 in just one month – March 2013. Figures up to February 2013, a month before the financial year ended, suggest that Gujarat government had spent just about Rs 29,743 crore, which is just about 58 per cent of the total annual plan for 2012-13. Interestingly, by February 2013, the state finance department allocated Rs 41,326 crore – even this allocated amount could not be spent in by the month end. This, apparently, was the main reason why the overall allocations for the annual plan refused an increase and remained stagnant in the next month, when a whopping Rs 12,314 crore – or around 18 per cent of the allocation – was spent in just one month.
Significantly, the failure to spend the amount happened at a time when the state’s own revenues drastically rose during 2012-13. The Gujarat government’s tax revenues – which mainly include value-added tax (VAT) – rose by 19.12 per cent over the previous year, from Rs 44,250 crore to Rs 52,549 crore. Besides this, in 2012-13, Gujarat government received Rs 9,200 crore as non-tax revenue (against various services provided in sectors like education, health, water and so on), up by 7.14 per cent over the previous year. This apart, it received another Rs 9,200 crore as Central devolution (against central excise, customs duty etc., which are Central taxes), and Rs 8,673 crore as Central grants – both rose by 19.45 per cent and 20.15 per cent, respectively.
quote from same article
However, the Assam Director General of Police (DGP) has said the Congress woman worker burnt by husband did not kiss Rahul, but was among the women Rahul met at the Jorhat event.
Read more at: Assam woman who attended Rahul event burnt to death by husband : India, News - India Today
October 7, 2013Uncategorized
Latest data made available from authoritative sources in Gujarat’s finance department have revealed something about which the state’s policy apparatus should be worried: A whopping 21 per cent of the annual plan allocation for the last financial year, 2012-13 remained “unspent” – or possibly diverted to the “non-plan” sector. As against non-plan expenditure, which is made of all the “necessary” expenditures which the Gujarat government must make, including payment to nearly six lakh government servants, interests on debts and other such obligations, annual plan allocation is made for satisfying the developmental needs of the state in fields as education, health, social justice, woman and child development, and amelioration of the backward areas.The annual plan, finalized at a high-level meeting between Planning Commission vice-chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, was fixed at Rs 51,000 crore. This was Rs 401 crore higher than the annual plan fixed by the Gujarat government at the state of the state’s budget session in February 2002 – Rs 50,599 crore. The sources have revealed that despite the upward revision, the state government could spend only Rs 41,154 crore, which means that a huge 20.98 per cent of the annual plan was “diverted” towards non-plan expenditure, or just remained unspent. There is no explanation anywhere, including in the state’s Fiscal Responsibility statement, which explains its budgetary performance, as to how this has happened.
The increase in the annual plan for 2012-13 by Rs 401 crore was undertaken after Ahluwalia insisted that Gujarat government should pay “more attention would be needed in achieving more sustainable growth in agriculture and for addressing the problems of malnutrition and out of school children”. He added, “the state needs to further promote public private partnership in infrastructure development as the Centre was aiming at 50 per cent investment from private sector in the sector.” A higher allocation was also made towards a horticulture initiative, which Gujarat government told the Planning Commission that it was planning to launch.
In fact, sources point out, the failure to spend the annual plan happened despite the fact that Gujarat government allocated Rs 42,057 crore as budgetary support to it, and another Rs 9,000 crore as “non-budgetary support”, thereby taking the total amount allocated in favour of the annual plan to Rs 51,057 crore, Rs 57 crore more than what the Planning Commission had agreed upon. What is interesting is that this was 23.41 per cent higher than the allocation made by the state finance department for the annual plan of the previous year, 2011-12 – which was Rs 34,429 crore. Now, for the fiscal 2013-14, the Gujarat government has risen its annual plan even higher – to Rs 59,000 crore, which is higher by 15.68 per cent compared to the previous year.
A further analysis of the annual plan suggests that Gujarat government “spent” a huge amount of whatever was allocated by the state assembly for 2012-13 in just one month – March 2013. Figures up to February 2013, a month before the financial year ended, suggest that Gujarat government had spent just about Rs 29,743 crore, which is just about 58 per cent of the total annual plan for 2012-13. Interestingly, by February 2013, the state finance department allocated Rs 41,326 crore – even this allocated amount could not be spent in by the month end. This, apparently, was the main reason why the overall allocations for the annual plan refused an increase and remained stagnant in the next month, when a whopping Rs 12,314 crore – or around 18 per cent of the allocation – was spent in just one month.
Significantly, the failure to spend the amount happened at a time when the state’s own revenues drastically rose during 2012-13. The Gujarat government’s tax revenues – which mainly include value-added tax (VAT) – rose by 19.12 per cent over the previous year, from Rs 44,250 crore to Rs 52,549 crore. Besides this, in 2012-13, Gujarat government received Rs 9,200 crore as non-tax revenue (against various services provided in sectors like education, health, water and so on), up by 7.14 per cent over the previous year. This apart, it received another Rs 9,200 crore as Central devolution (against central excise, customs duty etc., which are Central taxes), and Rs 8,673 crore as Central grants – both rose by 19.45 per cent and 20.15 per cent, respectively.
yaar tum log pura article padte nahi howow... that proved to be a kiss of death for the lady!
quote from same article
However, the Assam Director General of Police (DGP) has said the Congress woman worker burnt by husband did not kiss Rahul, but was among the women Rahul met at the Jorhat event.
Read more at: Assam woman who attended Rahul event burnt to death by husband : India, News - India Today
Similar threads
