2002 & Narendra Modi : Part-2

Part-1 is here. 

The above tweet by Sonia Singh (currently, Editorial Director, NDTV) was sent a day after the Gujarat Chief Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi refused to give an interview only to NDTV on the first day of his Sadbhavana, whilst he spoke to all other TV channels (all interviews can be seen here). Those at NDTV were proud of that fact that he didn't talk to them and went about telling us stuff like the above tweet. Sample this too: 

So far, so good. 

Now let's see what the Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team and the Amicus Curiae had to say on the media. 

Please note, the above marked comment is not made by some troll or "stalkers". 

Now, if NDTV was the "only private news channel" at that time, is the above recommended action also against NDTV? If so, can we go to town (like these people often do) and scream our voices out? Even if not, shall we do multiple shows and debates on how media, in general, helped in fanning the riots (by "publishing communally inciting reports"). 


Update: I have to apologize for some slack here :( A fellow tweeter alerted me that the complaint was specifically against some print publications and not NDTV or media in general. He is right - the allegation was against "print media". Since Amicus said "media", I jumped the gun. Hence deleting a couple of lines above. 

So what is this riot that has an entire industry clinging on to it? 

On the morning of Feb.27, 2002, a coach carrying "kar sevaks" or "ram sevaks" was set on fire just outside the Godhra railway station in Gujarat. 57 people died in that horrifying attack, 43 were injured. About 40 of them were women and children. These people were returning from Ayodhya. 

But why were they murdered? 

According to The Hindu's editorial then:

The Hindu which has been severely critical of an "action-reaction" comment (more on that later) by the Chief Minister just choose different words in it's editorial to explain to us why 57 innocent people (40 of them women and children) had to be murdered. 

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) was campaigning that they will start the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya, from March 15th that year. The BJP-led NDA government was not inclined to give permission to the VHP for the same (not my words - read The Hindu's Feb 28th edition). A sample: 

Amidst such a mood, this attack took place on the kar sevaks returning from Ayodhya. 

Sadly and unfortunately, this incident led to a very large scale violence and killings in the state, for about 2-3 days. From the morning of Feb.28, reports started tickling in about mobs going on the rampage in many areas in the Ahmedabad city limits. Some media folks sounded weird (or maybe they wanted to) that the relatively peaceful atmosphere went for a "six".

On March 1st, more reports started tickling in about retaliatory violence by the offended groups. 

This despicable cycle of killing and counter-killing and further counter-killing was happening despite a curfew being clamped and despite the army being present too and despite coverage by NDTV. Hundreds of innocent people were further massacred by rage mobs. Poignant stories about how people were chased and killed; horrifying stories about how innocents were dragged out and killed made very very sad reading. 

Irrespective of what and who started it, the killings of so many innocent people is undesirable in any civil society. Each life is important and anyone guilty of such murders needs to be brought to book - there is no ambiguity and doubt about it. 

And since so many innocent lives were lost, the clamour of Narendra Modi's resignation began. Within the ruling party too, there were different voices on whether Narendra Modi should stay or go. Ultimately it was decided that the BJP will directly go to the people - the assembly was suspended and elections were called for. Elections were held the same year, and the BJP, led by Narendra Modi won the mandate of the people. 

Perhaps it is this victory in the people's court that was not acceptable to the "riot industry" and that's when they started coming up with all kind of weird stories. While investigations were almost reaching decisive stages in 2006, these people (led by Teesta Setalvad) suddenly approached the High Court (and upon rejection, the Supreme Court), demanding that fresh investigations be made based on new information the people who filed cases have. 

And as a result, the Supreme Court appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to go into the details of  the 8 cases and numerous "allegations" that Teesta and co. raised. This blog post by Vijay details well, the chronology of how Teesta and co. delayed the proceedings (including seeking the appointment of an Amicus Curiae). 

And after about 4 years, that report was finally done and submitted to the court. And because that report exonerates many people the riot industry dislikes, the media is agog with discontent. Their self sanctimonius action of bringing "the truth of riots to India" sounds so hollow when we compare their coverage/views on other riots. 

What are these allegations? What does the report say? What did the government do while the riots were happening? How have young impressionable minds been taken for a ride? These and many more points to be discussed in the next post. This post was primarily to summarize what happened in 2002 in Gujarat, coupled with some media reports on the same. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: For convenience sake, am pasting an earlier blog post (written about 2 years back) in which I wondered why any riot based discussion concentrates only on 2002 and 1984. It's as if the country has never seen any other riots at all. 

Year 1990: In Hyderabad, the capital city of Andhra Pradesh, about 300 citizens of this country were killed just because the police shot down a gangster who happened to be a Muslim. There was curfew in the ENTIRE city of Hyderabad. I was a kid then, but still vividly remember the empty streets, roads and also the mad traffic rush to buy stuff when the curfew was relaxed. How many of us even know the name of the Chief Minister, leave alone remember it? The then Chief Minister Mr. Marri Chenna Reddy openly accused factions within Congress party of engineering these riots to unsettle him. Internal bickering cost 300 lives, devasted 1000's of life, disturbed peace in the capital city of Andhra Pradesh, and yet we never, NEVER hear of these riots anywhere in the media. Not one rioter was arrested, Chenna Reddy resigned as CM, but went on to become the Governor of Tamil Nadu some years later, and died in office.

Year 1983: Nellie massacre in Assam.Official records itself indicate about 2000 Muslims were killed. Most of those killed were immigrants from Bangladesh. There was an agitation going on in Assam to expel these immigrants, but the Central government was keen having elections to tap this vote bank, and despite severe objections, went ahead and announced the elections. In terms of numbers, this is one of the biggest massacre, completely ignored by the state government. And hey, even I knew about this only in recent times after the advent of the superb information available on the Internet. Does anyone know the name of the Chief Minister of the state? And go figure out who the Prime Minister of the country was then.

How many of us know who the Chief Minister of Maharashtra was during the 1993 riots? How many of us know who the Home Minister of India was during 1984? These are just a couple of incidents of the many many riots that have happened in India.

Which brings me to my basic question. Who is responsible for the exclusive concentration of ANY riots related debate to center around 1984 ad 2002? Why is the media shying away from discussing in an impassionate way, ALL these riots/carnages etc. My stand on 2002, 1993, 1990,1989, 1984, 1983 1978 etc is the same, but if I demand equal justice in all cases, why am I being looked upon as someone with dubious political intentions?

Say for example, if I demand that the perpetrators of 1984 be punished on par with 2002 riots, why on earth is that argument twisted as if I am "justifying" the 2002 riots? Media blames Congress for 1984, Modi for 2002. Why can't it blame Rajiv and Modi, or the Congress and the BJP? How does my questioning of this distortion of the media, which has phenomenal reach to people of this country construed as a "justification" of the 2002 riots?

When questioned about the recent lak of coverage imediately after 2010 Hyderabad riots erupted, journos answer saying these are because of the political games. So, does that justify not covering them and discussing them?

Why is the discourse of the riots in India, the "reliving of ghosts" exclusively limited to the 1984 and 2002 riots alone? Don't the people of this country need to have maximum information at their disposal and then be allowed to come to their conclusion? Why is asking for a full account of history termed as being loony and a right winger?
Who is responsible for not putting a full stop to the devious methods many many cheap politicians used to fan thse emotions, and even continue to do it today? Why can't we debate and set in process a motion that will ensure rioters think twice before embarking on mass killing and destruction?Why has the judiciary been let off in the criticism so far? If we are willing to go back in history to study these occurences in depth, why are we stopping at 1984? Aren't all these topics worthy of debate, or will I be called names for even suggesting this?

Go ahead and blame Narendra Modi. It's your opinion, I won't contest it. But please extend that same courtesy to all those leaders mentioned above too. Please don't make the whole riots thing sound as a debate between 1984 and 2002. You are doing grave injustice by discussing selective history.
PS: A similar piece on the "C-word" is here.

2002 & Narendra Modi - Part-1

The Supreme Court appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate a complaint filed by Ms. Zakia Jafri and Ms.Teesta Setalvad (who has been using Ms. Zakia as her front). Amongst other things, Ms. Zakia also accuses the Gujarat Chief Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi of being responsible for killing her husband. An IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt also joins the petition and says he was at the meeting where Mr. Modi said illegal stuff.

TV media has a field day inviting these folks and telecasting their views/screams over and over again. Any small event related to this, full hour long debates and pages worth material were published. A couple of months ago, the SIT report was "leaked". And again these people went into a tizzy.

So what is this SIT report? What is this Amicus Curiae report? What exactly were they investigating? What happened in 2002? What happened in Gujarat before and after 2002?Why is the media behind Gujarat 2002 as if it is the only riot that ever happened? Who were the victms? What about the justice to the families of the victims? How has the internet helped in making people better informed? What is the role of the media in all this? 

These and many more questions/thoughts have been floating in my mind since a very long time. The only way to seek clarity was to read as much as possible and form informed opinions. In the next few blog posts, I want to discuss these and many more such thoughts. 

For about 6-8 years since 2002, my primary source of information opinion on these riots was the mainstream media. Therefore, in the posts that I plan,  the narrative will revolve around these various shades of media opinion that were imposed on readers/viewers like me. 

In the first post today, we will discuss the latest media coverage on the final SIT report submitted to the Supreme Court. 

The above snapshot is of a tweet Padmashri Barkha Dutt sent out almost immediately after that statement was out. She also re-tweeted a couple of other tweets sent by fans.

Those were the days when she was being hounded by all and sundry as guilty (of scam, of lobbying, of unethical journalism etc). And then this statement by Radia to the CBI came out. And Padmashri Barkha Dutt was very happy that this statement did not include her name. And more importantly, she wondered "why some sections of the media are now silent".

Now isn't that a logical question? Wouldn't you expect the media houses that screamed judged someone "guilty", scream at the same volume when that someone is found "not guilty" (mind you, the statement still does not absolve her of dishonest journalism!).

Nevertheless, isn't it common sense that the media give the exact same coverage to both the "guitly" and the "not guilty" scenarios? Since Padmashri Barkha Dutt is the group editor of NDTV, so you'd expect the same objectivity from NDTV when dealing with other cases too.

When the SIT report was "leaked",  NDTV even had a "Big Fight" on "what the various versions of what the report apparently contains".

And this week, the SIT report was out. Officially. You want to take a guess at the airtime for this? 33 minutes. Yep, just 33 minutes. And what do they debate on?

See the headline. You would assume that Narendra Modi gave an illegal order and the SIT still said it was not an offence. And don't miss the outrage too - "Really, SIT?" Oh, where would we have been if not for this torchbearer of the law!

And they didn't do it once, they did that twice. Another snapshot below.

You see that? - They continue to say "Modi's illegal orders not an offence?". The headline continues to the imply the same - Mr. Modi gave an illegal order

Now read the fine print - "The panel concludes that even if Modi gave illegal verbal orders...". Read it again - "even if"

So what exactly did the SIT conclude? It concluded that Narendra Modi gave no illegal orders. That too, after detailing in an exhaustive manner as to how it arrived at this conclusion. Not once, but twice.

 In it's preliminary report:

In it's final report:

And it also "concluded" this -

 This report by Kartikeya Tanna clarifies the "conclusion" for you in better detail.

So now you see the game? Editor of NDTV will question the "silence" when it comes to uneven coverage on her, but when it comes to the most high profile case, will keep mum (not a single tweet on this report by the Padmashri), will not debate the final report. The CEO who had a "Big Fight" on the "apparent versions" hasn't yet bothered to have a debate when the only version has been submitted. NDTV even took credit for the early stopping of the riots, but when it comes to the final report that nails their claims, they are mum.

Instead, they hung on to one line in the report, twisted it to the max possible extent and went into radio silence ever since!

Other news media went a step further, and started to discredit Raghavan personally (a clarification of this report was published in a remote corner of Page 10). Some dished out "analysis" - these would lose out badly if submitted in an essay writing competition for 6th class students! 

Like a fellow tweeter commented, "The SIT report should not be confused with a movie which did not end like you wanted"

In the subsequent posts, let's discuss more in detail these investigations and the actual happenings. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

PS: Just to make it easier for the reader, am pasting an earlier blog on how The Hindu covered this report.

Am reorganizing an earlier blogpost to better capture the coverage in The Hindu over the past one week. 


The Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team that investigated certain complaints about Narendra Modi's role in fomenting the 2002 riots submitted it's report to the court and the petitioner. A separate post (or maybe multiple posts) are in order to detail the timelines etc. One of the things that the petitioners did was to ask the Supreme Court to appoint an "amicus curiae". He will give his opinion on the report. On Monday May 7th, 2012, that "opinion" was published everywhere. A totally misleading headline 0n the front page of The Hindu on Tuesday, May 8th too. .

Front page on the Friday, May 11th, 2012.

Front page on the Saturday, May 12th, 2012

So what happened on Wednesday and Thursday?


Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

Thursday, May 10th, 2012

Nothing on the front pages on Wednesday and Thursday.

And today, Monday, the May 14th, 2012

The SIT report was uploaded here, on the evening of Tuesday, May 8th. Then one would assume that since the report is 547 pages long, perhaps they were still reading it and hence no  front page report. That's where The Hindu surprises you - detailed reports based on SIT's findings in pages 14 and 12 !! 

So if you are guilty based on an "opinion", it is Front Page (note that all three front page items are views and not news). If you are not guilty, based on an "investigation", then it is Page 14 news. Why? 

Earlier too, The Hindu did something similar (you can read about that here). Again, why?


The "letters to the editor" column was also filled with those praising the Hindu or those ridiculing the SIT (barring 1-2 exceptions). Infact some letters were less than 140 characters too! Sample them below:

Selective History...

Year 1990: In Hyderabad, the capital city of Andhra Pradesh, about 300 citizens of this country were killed just because the police shot down a gangster who happened to be a Muslim. There was curfew in the ENTIRE city of Hyderabad. I was a kid then, but still vividly remember the empty streets, roads and also the mad traffic rush to buy stuff when the curfew was relaxed. How many of us even know the name of the Chief Minister, leave alone remember it? The then Chief Minister Mr. Marri Chenna Reddy openly accused factions within Congress party of engineering these riots to unsettle him. Internal bickering cost 300 lives, devasted 1000's of life, disturbed peace in the capital city of Andhra Pradesh, and yet we never, NEVER hear of these riots anywhere in the media. Not one rioter was arrested, Chenna Reddy resigned as CM, but went on to become the Governor of Tamil Nadu some years later, and died in office.

Year 1983: Nellie massacre in Assam.Official records itself indicate about 2000 Muslims were killed. Most of those killed were immigrants from Bangladesh. There was an agitation going on in Assam to expel these immigrants, but the Central government was keen having elections to tap this vote bank, and despite severe objections, went ahead and announced the elections. In terms of numbers, this is one of the biggest massacre, completely ignored by the state government. And hey, even I knew about this only in recent times after the advent of the superb information available on the Internet. Does anyone know the name of the Chief Minister of the state? And go figure out who the Prime Minister of the country was then.

How many of us know who the Chief Minister of Maharashtra was during the 1993 riots? How many of us know who the Home Minister of India was during 1984? These are just a couple of incidents of the many many riots that have happened in India.

Which brings me to my basic question. Who is responsible for the exclusive concentration of ANY riots related debate to center around 1984 ad 2002? Why is the media shying away from discussing in an impassionate way, ALL these riots/carnages etc. My stand on 2002, 1993, 1990,1989, 1984, 1983 1978 etc is the same, but if I demand equal justice in all cases, why am I being looked upon as someone with dubious political intentions?

Say for example, if I demand that the perpetrators of 1984 be punished on par with 2002 riots, why on earth is that argument twisted as if I am "justifying" the 2002 riots? Media blames Congress for 1984, Modi for 2002. Why can't it blame Rajiv and Modi, or the Congress and the BJP? How does my questioning of this distortion of the media, which has phenomenal reach to people of this country construed as a "justification" of the 2002 riots?

When questioned about the recent lak of coverage imediately after 2010 Hyderabad riots erupted, journos answer saying these are because of the political games. So, does that justify not covering them and discussing them?

Why is the discourse of the riots in India, the "reliving of ghosts" exclusively limited to the 1984 and 2002 riots alone? Don't the people of this country need to have maximum information at their disposal and then be allowed to come to their conclusion? Why is asking for a full account of history termed as being loony and a right winger?

Who is responsible for not putting a full stop to the devious methods many many cheap politicians used to fan thse emotions, and even continue to do it today? Why can't we debate and set in process a motion that will ensure rioters think twice before embarking on mass killing and destruction?Why has the judiciary been let off in the criticism so far? If we are willing to go back in history to study these occurences in depth, why are we stopping at 1984? Aren't all these topics worthy of debate, or will I be called names for even suggesting this?

Go ahead and blame Narendra Modi. It's your opinion, I won't contest it. But please extend that same courtesy to all those leaders mentioned above too. Please don't make the whole riots thing sound as a debate between 1984 and 2002. You are doing grave injustice by discussing selective history.

PS: A similar piece on the "C-word" is here.