Of Lies, More Lies and Sangh-Speak
Haren Pandya, the disgruntled former Home Minister who was demoted to Revenue Minister, a close confidante of ousted Keshubhai Patel and a person who was NOT even present in the alleged meeting is first of all, not a credible source. He held a personal grudge against Modi for that and even refused to vacate the Ellisbridge MLA seat for Modi to contest and win. Modi had to contest from the Rajkot seat then.
You forgot to add murdered mysteriously, after his revelations of these facts. You forgot to mention that his father, a long-time RSS supporter, accused Modi of being behind his son's death. Returning to the facts behind whom Pandya spoke to, and if or not he did so with any personal knowledge or not, let us examine the facts.
From India Today, rather than a blog, and from Hindustan Times:
Haren Pandya spoke of Narendra Modi complicity in riots: Former HC judge : West News - India Today
Did SIT ignore Haren Pandya testimony? - Hindustan Times
Check for yourself how reputed and respectable judges of a high court bore testimony to Pandya having given this testimony before he was killed, and how, btw, these reports thereby automatically became 'hearsay' evidence.
It is not safe, under the rule of administrative expediency that you pleaded for a while back, as a substitute for the rule of law, to come up with evidence against Modi. You may suffer severe consequences.
Also read for yourself how the SIT has taken a perverted approach to its investigation, by failing to approach damaging witnesses, by failing to take notice of damaging testimony, and by failing to give access to information in its custody to those seeking clarification on any point of the happenings during the riots.
Now coming to Mr.Pandya's testimony ; HP has himself denied that he testified anything to any tribunal and only Outlook claims that he did in its article June 3 2002.
It also goes on to claim the following in the same article :
The minister told Outlook that in his deposition, he revealed that on the night of February 27, Modi summoned DGP K. Chakravarthy, commissioner of police, Ahmedabad, P.C. Pande, chief secretary G. Subarao, home secretary Ashok Narayan, secretary to the home department K. Nityanand (a serving police officer of IG rank on deputation) and DGP (IB) G.S. Raigar. Also present were officers from the CMs office: P.K. Mishra, Anil Mukhim and A.K. Sharma. The minister also told Outlook that the meeting was held at the CMs bungalow.
Now the funny part is that day Subarao was on leave and instead it was acting chief secretary S K Varma who participated in that meeting. Now assuming Haren Pandya first of all gave an interview to Outlook, what credibility does his claims have regarding what Modi told them, when he could not even get who attended that meeting right ?
As is clear from the publication above, Pandya spoke to the fact-finding commission that was first on the scene, and that early defection from the ranks provoked murderous rage on the part of someone. Here we need to apply the legal principle of Cui bono, who benefitted by Haren Pandya's murder?
Second, there is ample evidence that efforts at casting doubt on his account of the meeting, which he clearly told the commission was narrated to him by someone actually present, were wrong in themselves.
For instance:
"...Sanjiv Bhatt shared information and documentary evidence with SIT which proposes the real nature of events that led to the incident of burning of the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra on 27 February 2002 and the larger conspiracy and official orchestration behind the subsequent Gujarat riots of 2002.[7].Mr.Bhatt has deposed before the Supreme Court constituted Special Investigation Team (SIT), G.T.Nanavati- Akshay Mehta panel(which was formed by Gujarat state Government) and National commission of minorities (NCM) and offered his valuable testimony related to Godhra riots especially on what transpired in the 27 Feb 2002 meeting held at Mr.Modis residence. He had submitted scores of documents to prove the inaction of police officers, total breakdown of administrative machinery at the behest of then CM Mr.Modi. His affidavit in SC blew the lid off Mr.Modis governments commission and omission on Godhra riots. His starling revelation on Mr.Haren Pandyas murder was another wonderful action to unmask the gruesome murder..."
This is not all. There is voluminous evidence about all these happenings.
We will examine your wide-eyed innocence about the rest, and your healthy scepticism of any information that has not appeared in Organiser or in a friendly blog, in the next post.
I've not heard about this. Is it another Haren Pandya claim ?
Again, Mr.Shreekumar was not present in the meeting and he bases his allegations on the ground that the then Director General of Police VK Chakrabvarty, who participated in that crucial February 27 meeting, told him that the CM had directed officers to go slow against Hindu rioters and allow them to give vent to their feelings against the Muslims.
But the sad part, VK.Chakraborty has denied it strongly in his affidavit filed before the SIT and reiterates that Modi only asked them to control the riots at the earliest and not the mumbo jumbo Skreekumar accused him of.
Also it would be worthwhile to note that Shreekumar did not make these claims in the first two affidavits he filed with Nanavati Commission and his position only changed after he was denied promotion by the Modi Govt.
What?? Typing into a computer screen with your keyboard makes you Superman?
Whichever language you translate this into, "only in comparison with duds like you" <> "Typing into a computer screen with your keyboard makes you Superman"
It remains,"...only in comparison with duds like you". Sorry, no money back.
