Pseudo-Secularism

Hindu dharma is implicitly at odds with monotheistic intolerance. What is happening in India is a new historical awakening... Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Final triumph of equity and natural justice

by V Sundaram

Truth’s fountains may be clear
Her streams are muddy,
And cut through such canals of con-tradiction,
That she must often navigate o’er fiction.

—- Lord Byron (1788-1824), Don Jua

In his timeless Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) said it for all time: ‘All virtue is summed up in dealing JUSTLY’. Nearly two thousand two hundred years later, the great German writer and poet Goethe (1749-1832) said: ‘A great deal may be done by severity, more by love, but most by clear discernment and impartial justice’. All the besieged Hindus of India fighting valiantly for the survival of their culture and religion against the International forces of Christianity, Islam and Marxism (in addition to the State-sponsored forces of anti-Hindu Secularism) in India today, offer their salutations to Justice G T Nanavati and his colleague Justice Akshay Mehta for giving a clear verdict to the effect that the Sabarmati Express coach-burning was a ‘pre-planned conspiracy’. The report of Justice Nanavati Commission was tabled in the Gujarat Assembly yesterday. This Commission has given a clean chit to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and the State Police in the subsequent post-Godhra riots that claimed over 1000 lives. The Nanavati Commission has declared: ‘There is absolutely no evidence to show that either the Chief Minister or any of the ministers in his council or police officers had played any role in the Godhra incident’.

This finding of the two-member Justice Nanavati Commission goes contrary to the finding of a probe headed by another former Supreme Court Judge U C Banerjee set up by the Lalu Prasad-headed Railway Ministry in 2004 and which gave its report in January 2005. The Bannerjee Committee gave it’s finding like an ATM cash machine in a matter of three or four months to this effect: ‘The Godhra coach burning was purely an accident’.

Unlike Justice U C Banerjee Committee, the Justice Nanavati Commission has examined more than 1,000 witnesses during the period of six years. I am giving below a summary of the main findings of this Commission:

1.The conclusion that the train burning was a ‘pre-planned conspiracy’ is based on various grounds including the statements of the passengers of the train that stone pelting continued for 10-20 minutes to prevent the passengers from coming out of the coach on that fateful day when 58 Hindu karsevaks were burnt to death.

2.140 litres of petrol was purchased by Razzak Kurkur and Salim Panwala to execute the conspiracy, the Commission has said adding that according to eyewitnesses, Shaukat Lalu and Mohammad Latika, had possibly opened the sliding door connecting the S6 and S7 coaches and entered S6 through that door.

3.One Hassan Lalu had thrown a burning rag, which had led to the fire in the S6 coach, it said.

4.On the conspiracy, the Justice Nanavati Commission Report said it was hatched at the Aman Guest House on the directions of Maulvi Umarji and executed by Razzak Kurkur, Salim Panwala, Shaukat Lalu, Imran Sheri, Rafique Batuk and Shiraj Bala.

5.‘The conspiracy hatched by these persons further appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the administration,’ the report said.

6.There is no evidence to show there was any lapse in the role of the Chief Minister or his ministers in providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots or in the matter of not complying with the recommendations and direction given by the National Human Rights Commission.

When Lalu Prasad Yadav knew that he was going to lose the Assembly Elections in Bihar in 2005, in order to garner the Muslim votes in Bihar, he appointed the Justice U C Banerjee Committee in September 2004 to give a report on the Godhra Train carnage in which 59 Hindu Kar Sevaks were burnt alive in a railway carriage in February 2001. This revolutionary Judge completed his revolutionary work in a revolutionary manner and gave his revolutionary report to our revolutionary Railway Minister Lalu Yadav on January 17, 2005. What was most revolutionary about this (IN!) Justice Banerjee Committee Report was that he came to the revolutionary conclusion in a record time of less than 150 days that the ‘Godhra carnage was purely an accident’. He had come to this landmark conclusion by completely ignoring the work of enquiry that was still in progress and was being conducted by Justice G.T.Nanavati Commission during the preceding two years. Justice Banerjee also chose to ignore the findings of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Railway Police that had been formed three years earlier by the NDA government to probe into the Godhra train carnage.

Even as Lalu Prasad Yadav was blowing his victorious vicious conch while referring to the above findings of Justice Banerjee Report, the then Chief of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Railway Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police Rakesh Asthana, hurriedly convened a press conference on 17 January 2005 and gave a statement to the effect: ‘We have rejected outright the findings of the Railway Minister appointed Justice U C Banerjee Commission. We have enough evidence to back our CONSPIRACY THEORY’.

I am duty bound to inform my readers that in these columns, in an article titled ‘A Secular Tsunami’, I had observed as follows on 18 January 2006: ‘Against the above factual back-ground, it will be clear that Laloo Prasad Yadav has indeed master minded and stage-managed the Banerjee Commission Report in the manner and measure required by blatantly abusing his Ministerial au-thority… Laloo’s Justice U C Banerjee Commis-sion is indeed a carefully planned, planted, treacherous tsunami on the eve of Assembly elections in Bihar to take place shortly…. Now that Laloo Prasad Yadav has shown a new and revolutionary way, each Cabinet Minister in UPA Coali-tion government resting on Coalition for Collusion and Collusion for Coa-lition and deriving his ideological in-spiration and guidance from the Laloo-Banerjee brand of noble secu-larism, will attempt to appoint his own Commission of Enquiry in his home state to settle political scores with his chosen political enemies’.

I fully endorse the considered and balanced views of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Former Union Law Minister: ‘The Report of the Nanavati Commission on the Godhra holocaust of 2002 is to be believed because its proceedings have been conducted professionally, legally, and without haste. On the contrary, the UPA set up Banerjee Committee was an unprofessional command performance obviously intended to pre-empt and scuttle the Nanavati Commission proceedings. I urge the Gujarat government therefore to launch criminal proceedings based on the findings of the Nanavati Commission, and let the accused defend themselves on the basis of the Banerjee Committee report. Let the judiciary decide which is more weighty. The accused need not be arrested but interned to Godhra in their residences.

The Banerjee Committee episode reminds me of the Congress’s earlier attempt by setting up the Jain Commission on Rajiv Gandhi Assassination. The Jain Commission was set up to scuttle the Justice J.S.Verma[Supreme Court Chief Justice] Commission that I had got set up just before demitting office in June 1991. The Verma Commission in its Report submitted in August 1991 held that the Congress Party local leaders had disrupted the Sriperumbudur security arrangements that facilitated the human bomber Dhanu reach Rajiv Gandhi and kill him. The Jain Commission circus helped divert attention of the nation from this finding of profound significance, especially since the widow of Rajiv, Sonia Gandhi has chosen to align with pro-LTTE parties and help Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins escape death penalty and even imprisonment. The mystery of Rajiv Gandhi murder thus has yet to be unravelled, and must be by a future patriotic government of India’.

Milton wrote that the human mind could make heaven of hell and hell of heaven. This is equally applicable to innumerable men and women in the mainline English media – both print and electronic—in India today. Soon after the Godhra incident, when Hindus of Gujarat expressed their collective anger against the outrage in a railway carriage, like organised and united gangsters, many men and women from the ‘secular’ arena launched a baseless vilification and character assassination campaign against Narendra Modi through the mainstream media. As a habit TV viewer, I can vividly recall the anti-Modi campaign unleashed by the ‘secular’ team comprising self-styled activists and so-called intellectuals through the mainstream media (both print & electronic). All these people stood defeated. They stood defeated in December 2007 when the people of Gujarat in a popular election summarily rejected the perverted anti-Modi verdict of these activists, intellectuals and media men. They have again tasted defeat following the findings of the Justice Nanavati Commission.

When Francis Drake defeated the Spanish armada and returned to England in 1588, Queen Elizabeth I addressing him and his heroic seamen declared, ‘God blew the wind and they were scattered’. The daily working slogan of mainline English Print and Electronic Media in India today is this: ‘Shame is communal and shamelessness is secular. Decency is commu-nal and indecency is secular. Hinduism is communal and Minorityism is secular’.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home




Home | Syndicate this site (XML) | Guestbook | Blogger
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors.
Everything else © 2005 Pseudo-Secularism