Andher Nagri Chaupat Raj in Mumbai - Letter to the Editor - By Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Letter to The Editor

Andher Nagri Chaupat Raj in Mumbai

The way Mumbai’s Municipal Corporation is following up Supreme Court orders to demolish scores of flats in  Mumbai’s Campa Cola Colony residential complex, it is now confirmed to the people at large that they are now living in an infamous ‘Andher Nagri Chaupat Raj’.

Residential apartments in Mumbai is the lifeblood of its people. The way, the case of illegal building of flats by criminal builders and their accomplices in the Municipal Corporation, who overlooked such illegal activities, has been judged by the Supreme Court, punishing the hapless owners who had invested their life-savings and are now to be unceremoniously dumped virtually on the streets --- while completely exonerating the criminal nexus of the builders and bureaucrats, shows that justice is truly blind. Supreme Court must review its verdict and take a holistic view of this unholy alliance of criminals and their modes operand i; thus saving the victims of the criminal nexus and restoring them their right to properties they have paid for and are staying for long years.

NGOs should organize a Mumbai Bandh in favour of the unfortunate families to protest against the ‘Andher Nagri’s Chaupat Raj’.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

Congress, BJP mum on 75% of funds - By Manoj Mitta - The Times of India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Congress-BJP-mum-on-75-of-funds/articleshow/25606771.cms

|

Congress, BJP mum on 75% of funds

Manoj Mitta, TNN | Nov 12, 2013, 01.18 AM IST

Print Edition Headline: Mainstream parties opaque on funding - Newbie AAP, However, Claims to be Transparent Even On  Amounts Lower Than Those Required by Law

NEW DELHI: Is it a case of the pot, namely, the Congress-led government, calling the kettle, namely, Aam Aadmi Party, black? Or, is this about Arvind Kejriwal being hoist by his own petard? Underlying the announcement of a probe into the alleged foreign funding of AAP is its innovative legal interpretation, which is sharply at variance with that of the government and two leading parties, Congress and BJP.

In a departure from a long-entrenched practice, AAP professes to be transparent about the funding it has been receiving from abroad. It claims to have disclosed all the details on its website in keeping with its interpretation that the law permits donations from NRIs who are Indian citizens. Accordingly, it has also published the Indian passport numbers of all its donors from abroad. Though the law exempts political parties from revealing sources of donations worth less than Rs 20,000, AAP says that it has been disclosing even the donations that are below the lower limit.

While the two related claims of transparency by AAP will now be verified by the official inquiry, it is ironic that mainstream parties which are notoriously opaque about their funding sources are not being subjected to similar scrutiny. This is despite the fact that their funding is admittedly on a much larger scale and the recent report of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has shown that about 75% of their funding comes from unknown sources.

According to the ADR analysis of income tax returns and statements with the Election Commission, the total income of the six national parties from 2004-05 to 2011-12 was Rs 4,896 crores. Yet, for as much as Rs 3,675 crores, those parties gave no details of their sources. Given their general proclivity to be secretive about the sources and probably even the quantum of their income, the question whether donations can be received from NRIs holding Indian passports never arose in the case of parties like Congress and BJP.

From the details that have been disclosed by Congress and BJP, ADR filed a PIL earlier this year before the Delhi high court alleging that the two parties had been violating the Foreign Contribution Regulatory Act (FCRA) by receiving donations to the tune of tens of crores from foreign companies through their Indian subsidiaries. The one example cited in the PIL argued by AAP leader Prashant Bhushan is of UK-registered Vedanta Resources, in which Indian citizen Anil Agarwal holds at least 50% of the paid-up capital. Vedanta made donations to Congress and BJP through three of its Indian subsidiaries, Sterlite, Sesa Goa and MALCO.

In August, the home ministry and two leading political parties filed affidavits claiming that a political donation from the Indian subsidiary of a foreign company was permissible if an Indian held a majority shareholding in the foreign company. Making a similar interpretation of Section 591 of the Companies Act, all the three affidavits claimed that a donation by any foreign company through its Indian subsidiary would not be regarded as a foreign contribution so long as an Indian held a majority stake in the parent company.

ADR's rejoinder, however, asserted that the purpose of Section 591 was merely to ensure that Indian subsidiaries of a foreign company were accountable to Indian authorities. It said that this clause in the Companies Act could by no means be cited to circumvent the express prohibition on foreign contribution to political parties in FCRA and the Representation of the People Act. Little wonder that AAP is citing ADR's PIL to hit back at the rest of the political class, in the wake of the probe into the donations it had received from abroad.
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/assembly-elections-2013/delhi-assembly-elections/Probing-source-of-foreign-funding-to-AAP-Shinde/articleshow/25589607.cms

Probe Congress, BJP funds too, says Kejriwal - Print Edition Headline

Probing source of foreign funding to Aam Aadmi Party: Govt

Bharti Jain, TNN | Nov 11, 2013, 02.35 PM IST
NEW DELHI: The Centre has initiated a probe into the source of funding of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), with the Union home ministry trying to establish if it received any money from foreign donors in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).

"We have ordered an enquiry into funding of AAP to verify if any foreign donations were routed to it," Union home minister Sushilkumar Shinde told newspersons here a day after Delhi chief minister Shiela Dikshit questioned the source of nearly Rs 19 crore collected by the newly floated party led by activist-politician Arvind Kejriwal.

However, Shinde refused to put a timeline as to when the results of the enquiry would be available. "Such matters take time...one has to see from which foreign country the donations may be coming," he said, giving ample indications that the probe might continue well after the Delhi state polls, due on December 4.

The Representation of People Act (RPA) debars political parties from receiving contributions from a foreign source defined under clause (e) of the Section 2 of the FCRA, 1976. The FCRA, too, states that it has been formulated "to ensure that the foreign contribution and foreign hospitality is not utilized to affect or influence electoral politics, public servants, judges and other people working in the important areas of national life like journalists, printers and publishers of newspapers among others.

According to the AAP, it has collected Rs 19 crore as donations from around 63,000 individuals belonging to cross section of society. The party claims to have received donations ranging from Rs 10 to several lakhs, from rickshaw-pullers, traders, industrialists and NRIs .

"Our aim was to collect Rs 20 crore for Delhi assembly elections, and we would soon be achieving that target. Till the last week of September, we had collected around Rs 10 crore but within a span of a month, we have received Rs 9 crore as donations," said an AAP spokesperson.

The Delhi high court had on October 24 asked the government to enquire into whether any of the donations received by Aam Aadmi Party came from foreign source in violation of the FCRA. It asked the Centre to report by December 10 about the accounts of AAP.

The AAP, however, questioned the probe sought by the court on the basis of "mala fide" petition by advocate M L Sharma, "who has not made AAP a respondent but made Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Prashant Bhushan and Shanti Bhushan as respondents".

"Though the petition makes all types of ridiculous allegations against Team Anna and an NGO Kabir with which Manish Sisodia was associated, it does not disclose the result of an earlier petition filed by Sharma against foreign funding of Kabir. The government after full investigation had found everything to be in order," claimed AAP.

The AAP also drew attention to a similar petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms questioning the funding of Congress and BJP by foreign firms like Vedanta. "The government has been dragging its feet in that case and has taken no action despite documentary evidence of substantial funding of the Congress and the BJP by foreign companies," alleged an AAP spokesperson.

Muslim voters do not behave any differently from the rest of India - By Sohail Hashmi - DNA English Daily

Muslim Vote Bank, compared to other Vote Banks, is more impactful and decisive when it is negative. It thrashed very decisively the 30 year long Communist regime in West Bengal, when the insensitive Communist Brahmins cracked down on Muslims in Sangrur. The Muslim Vote Bank is now certainly relevant as it is bound to act against Modi's candidacy for Prime Ministership through coming Lok Sabha election. Modi's 2002 Gujarat record is enough to activite Muslim Vote Bank all across the nation and especially in the 4 states - UP, Bihar, West Bangal and Kerala where Muslim Vote Bank is most effective.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

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

http://www.samsung.com/in/consumer/mobile-phone/mobile-phone/smartphone/GT-I8552RWAINU?subsubtype=android-mobiles

Muslim voters do not behave any differently from the rest of India

The only exception, of course, is their opposition to any form of communalism.
 

Saturday, Nov 9, 2013, 7:07 IST | Agency: DNA

Sohail Hashmi

If, and this is a big If, a Muslim Vote Bank (MVB) existed, it would reveal itself in even a cursory study of the constituencies where Muslims are in a position to determine the outcome of the elections. If it did exist it would be very easy to show how 10-12 per cent of the total electorate was behaving in a manner that was different from the general electoral trends. In fact, the existence of a disconnect between the electoral performance of the so-called non-Muslim seats and the so-called Muslim seats would be the clearest proof of the existence of such a vote bank.

Let us take the first three general elections to the Lok Sabha. The Congress party got more than 73 per cent of the seats in all of them. Almost everybody was voting for the Congress and one assumes, so were the Muslims. Bengal and Kerala with about 25 per cent Muslim population and Bihar and UP, with 16 per cent and 18 per cent Muslim population respectively, elected a large number of Congress candidates to Parliament. If a MVB existed at this time it would be hidden behind the general trend that was operating during this period.

Therefore, the only time one could actually begin to see the impact of the MVB on the fortunes of the Congress would be when there is a general loss of faith in the Congress, as reflected in the results of the fourth general elections held in 1967. It is in times such as these that the MVB, if it ever existed, would buck the trend, as it were and come to the aid of the old party. 

Let us take a closer look at the goings on in Bengal Kerala, UP and Bihar in 1967 and see if we can discover the MVB in operation. In 1967 the Congress was, in fact, ejected from seven state assemblies and it is here that it also suffered its biggest Parliamentary losses as well. The four states of West Bengal, Kerala, UP and Bihar were among the states that rejected the Congress. Madras, Odisha and Punjab were the other three.

Throughout the life of this argument it has been said that the Muslims are the pocket borough of the Congress. If there was a MVB working for the Congress, it should have stood up to be counted in 1967 but it did not. In fact Kerala with 25 per cent Muslim votes elected the first non-Congress government in 1957.  Muslims in Kerala are, by and large, concentrated in the North and it has generally voted against the Congress since 1957.

In Bengal, the areas of Muslim concentration are Malda, Murshidabad, Burdwan, Nadia, 24 Parganas and Kolkata. With the exception of Malda, the rest have, post-1967, traditionally voted against the Congress and mostly for the Communists and now when the Communists have lost out in Bengal they have generally lost in these areas as well. The interesting thing is that these ‘Muslim’ seats have not come back to the Congress; they have gone to Trinamool Congress as they have in other parts of Bengal.

Bihar too, with Muslims concentrated in the districts of Katihar, Purnea, Araria and Kishanganj, demonstrates the same trend. The first break comes in 1967 and then it has been the same roller-coaster ride that the entire country has been through. 

Several districts of west UP, where Muslim electors would hold the key if they voted en bloc, demonstrate the same trend. Incidentally, Chaudhary  Charan Singh owed his rise to power on the basis of his political base in the same region of west UP.

Now let us see what is happening in the Parliamentary seats where Muslims either do not have a decisive electoral strength or they are in such small numbers that they would not be able to influence the results even if they voted en bloc. Those who swear by the MVB will be more than a little disturbed with the trends. Almost three-fourths of the so-called non-Muslim seats went to the Congress till the third general elections and then turned away from the Congress in 1967.

The point that is sought to be made is the following: Generally speaking, the rule that holds is that Muslims do not betray any tendency to vote differently from the national or major regional trends, and this can be seen and demonstrated again and again through the results of all the general elections.

In 1971 with the rise of Indira Gandhi and the Garibi Hatao campaign, everyone went back to the Congress and so did the Muslims. In 1977 everyone deserted the Congress and so did the Muslims. In the 1980 elections there was a trek back to the Congress and the routine was repeated in 1984 and it has been the same through all the remaining elections. In fact, if Muslims are a vote bank, all of India is a vote bank, because, by and large, the entire lot moves together, non-Muslims and Muslims together.

This rule, too, has an exception: the Muslims try not to vote for communalists. They did not vote for the minoritarian communalism of the Muslim League in the provincial assembly elections in 1936 and they are not about to help their majoritarian kinsmen now. The overwhelming majority of Muslims who chose to stay in India had chosen a secular State over a theocracy; they are not going to help another theocracy come to power. And that, perhaps, is the worry of the votaries of the theory of the MVB.

The author blogs at Kafila.org and conducts heritage walks in

What India got or lost by invading Kashmir and holding on to it - By Ghulam Muhammed

Friday, November 08, 2013

What India got or lost by invading Kashmir and holding on to it

Now that there is open discussion about how the crucial decision to send troops into Kashmir (Patel alternative, instead of treating the hold-out state with international code of behavior and bringing in democratic play into any voluntary association with India, a trial balance could be charted as to what India gained or lose, by opting for Patel Option. That small contingent that landed on Srinagar that historical night, was not the end of story, but beginning of a saga, that entailed wars, terror attacks, insurgency and torture regime of insurgents, beside cold-blooded murders, heavy defense outlays, and constant vigil against the neighbor’s ongoing agenda of the thousand cuts. The list is incomplete. The Nehru option though aborted and derided as impractical and infantile, do have its supporters. Just as Modi recalls and asserts that Patel as Prime Minister would have been better than Nehru, a similar comparison could be made to find how Nehru option on no-war could have benefitted the normalization of relations between the new neighbors. Could wars have been avoided? Would the arms race be minimized? Whether both the neighbors may not have been compelled to develop nuclear options? 

Would the minimization of defense outlays, helped both neighbors divert the resources for the welfare of their people, uplifting them out of poverty and destitution?

The analysis will chalk the derivatives from the future course of events that may have to be chosen in view of clear cut alternatives between Nehru and Patel options.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

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

Nehru had called Patel ‘a total communalist’: Advani - The Times of India, Mumbai, INDIA

The narrative as described in quotation by LK Advani, itself clearly establishes that it could be conspiracy against Pandit Nehru's position on Hyderabad as not to use Indian Army and better to approach the UN. The role of Rajaji, VP Menon and Sardar Patel, together with a British Ambassador's letter protesting about an alleged rape of 70 year old nuns in Hyderabad, strategically introduced in the discussion at the Rashtrapati Bhavan meeting to shake Nehru into giving up his resistance to Patel's proposal to send Army to invade Nizam's Hyderabad State. Nehru was rightly agitated at the international repercussion of an army invasion by the new independent India, so early in its inception period. It is mystery how the massacre of that scale by Army and by common people against Muslims in the so-called 'Police Action' so completely covered up from the world media and world opinion, nay even world history. Granted that the Nehru route would have entailed the same miasma that was faced in Kashmir. However, sooner or later, a nation that was supposedly liberated by Gandhian non-violent means, as per world perception, and later to become known as leader of non-enlightenment movement for peace around the world, will have to answer to History for the bloodshed of hundreds of thousands of civilians, without any sense of remorse, accountability, much less even any public discussion of the blood shed in that supposedly 'Police' Action in erstwhile Hyderabad State.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

----- 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Nehru-had-called-Patel-a-total-communalist-Advani/articleshow/25287513.cms

Nehru had called Patel ‘a total communalist’: Advani

TNN | Nov 6, 2013, 05.42 AM IST

NEW DELHI: BJP on Tuesday raked up another controversy over Sardar Patel with senior party leader LK Advani quoting from a book to allege that then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru called his home minister a "total communalist" when the latter suggested that the Army be sent in to take over a defiant Hyderabad after independence.

In his latest blog posting, Advani referred to extracts from a book, 'The Story of an Era Told Without Ill Will' by MKK Nair, an IAS officer of 1947 batch who was believed to be close to Sardar Patel.

The book refers to "sharp exchanges" between Nehru and Patel in a Cabinet meeting before "police action" against Hyderabad. Written in Malayalam, the book is being translated into English.

"At a Cabinet meeting, Patel had described these things and demanded that the Army be sent to end the terror regime in Hyderabad. Nehru, who usually spoke calmly, peacefully and with international etiquette, spoke losing his composure, 'You are a total communalist. I will never accept your recommendation ..." Patel remained unperturbed but left the room with his papers," Advani quoted from Nair's book.

BJP has been trying to appropriate Sardar Patel as a leader close to the Hindutva ideology. On Patel's 138th anniversary on October 31, Advani had heaped praise on India's first home minister at the inauguration of a project to build a 182-metre tall statue — the tallest in the world — of the leader.

Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, who is behind this endeavour, said India needs Patel's secularism which united people and not the "vote bank secularism being practiced today".

Both Advani and Modi have sought to fashion themselves as inheritors of Patel's legacy. BJP has also alleged that Patel's contribution was never acknowledged by the Congress and that it only eulogized the Nehru-Gandhi family.

Advani, in his blog, said then governor general C Rajagopalachari prevailed over Nehru to send the Army to Hyderabad. As the situation continued to worsen, Rajaji called Nehru and Patel to Rashtrapati Bhavan to discuss the issue. Meanwhile, the Army was kept battle-ready.

During his meeting with Nehru and Patel, Rajaji used a letter from the British high commissioner protesting against the rape of 70-year-old nuns of a convent two days earlier by Razakars of Hyderabad. V P Menon, a bureaucrat and close aide of Patel, had given this letter to Rajaji before the meeting.

"Rajaji in his typical style described the situation in Hyderabad. He felt that, to safeguard India's reputation, a decision should not be delayed any longer. Nehru was concerned about international repercussions. Rajaji then played his trump card -- the letter from the British high commissioner.

"Nehru read it. His face turned red ... Anger choked his words. He shot out of his chair, slammed his fist on the table and cried out, 'Let's not waste a moment. We'll teach them a lesson.' Rajaji immediately told Menon to inform the commander in chief to proceed according to the plan," Advani said, quoting from the book

 

Confront these painful truths about communalism By Rajdeep Sardesai - Hindustan Times

http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/rajdeepsardesai/confront-these-painful-truths-about-communalism/article1-1145992.aspx

Confront these painful truths about communalism

By Rajdeep Sardesai

First Published: 00:47 IST(1/11/2013)
Last Updated: 18:04 IST(1/11/2013)

249  comments    Why does an underworld don who offered the Indian cricket team Toyota cars if they beat Pakistan in Sharjah in 1986 become a resident of Karachi and India's most wanted in 1993? Former India captain Dilip Vengsarkar's revelation (made on camera at a function despite a subsequent denial) only confirms what many players of the 1980s have confessed in private: Dawood Ibrahim was at one time in his life an ardent Indian cricket team supporter. This columnist had been targeted for saying as much in an article I wrote soon after the Mumbai blasts of 1993 in The Times of India. The blasts were widely seen as a 'Muslim conspiracy' with Dawood as the mastermind. The political narrative at the time had an ominous ring of stereotyping an entire community which one found abhorrent and one said as much in a column. At the time, Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray had publicly announced that a true test of an Indian Muslim's 'patriotism' was if he waved the tricolour at an India-Pakistan match. I pointed out that by this spurious definition even Dawood should be seen as a patriot since he had been seen supporting the Indian team in Sharjah. The comment on Dawood was designed to point out the inherent dangers of handing out 'certificates' of patriotism to minority group members in a politically surcharged atmosphere. Instead, it stirred such a controversy that Thackeray attacked me in a public meeting, death threats were issued and I was offered police protection. A BJP MP even raised the issue in Parliament and distributed copies of the article which he dubbed as 'anti-national'. Even today, the Hindutva army on the social media tries to occasionally revive the issue by suggesting that I had validated Dawood as a 'nationalist' when that was far from the case. Few were willing to recognise the real nub of  the argument: one was only asking a central question as to what had changed between October-November 1992 when Dawood was seen cheering the Indian cricket team and March 1993 when he chose to blast the city of his childhood. Till today, no one (except Anurag Kashyap in his brave film Black Friday based on a book by journalist Husain Zaidi) has sought to address this inconvenient truth: why did a gangster involved in gold smuggling and contract killings with several Hindu members in his D company transform himself into an ISI-backed terrorist heading a 'Muslims-only' gang? The answer probably lies in the traumatic events of December and January 1992-93 when, in the aftermath of the Babri masjid demolition, Mumbai's cosmopolitan veneer was ripped apart by terrible communal riots. If the city's elite and middle class got divided on religious lines, then so did its underworld. Only the latter had AK-47s and RDX to add a horrific twist to the polarisation. There are, of course, many other inconvenient truths which we do not wish to confront, especially in the context of communal riots. Is it not true for example that the barbaric pogrom of 1984 which saw 3,000 Sikhs being massacred became a trigger for the Khalistani terrorism that followed? Is it also not true that the Gujarat riots of 2002 became a magnet for terror groups like the Indian Mujahideen to be formed? Violence begets more violence is the oldest truism and one which has seen a cycle of rage and vendetta in the name of religion destroy neighbourhoods.  Perhaps this is what Rahul Gandhi was alluding to when in a speech in Indore he spoke of how intelligence officials had told him that 10 to 15 Muslim youth were being sought to be recruited by the ISI in the aftermath of the Muzaffarnagar riots. Purely as an academic argument, Rahul may have had some basis for drawing a connection between riots and terrorism. But Rahul is neither a journalist nor an analyst seeking to understand the origins of violence. He is a politician and the Congress' heir apparent, and as a public figure he is expected to weigh his words much more carefully. To suggest, without providing concrete evidence, that Muzaffarnagar's Muslim youth were now being won over by the 'enemy' is to treat the victim as 'suspect'. Worse, it could only confirm the worst suspicions and prejudices of those who seek to repeatedly question the integrity of the Indian Muslim. The reality of Muzaffarnagar is far away from the political battleground. Even today, several weeks after the riots, hundreds of families are living in wretched conditions in relief camps, too scared to return to their homes. Their plight, in a sense, is no different to any victim of communal violence: then whether you travel to the outskirts of Ahmedabad to Citizen Nagar to meet 2002 riot victims living next to a garbage dump, or to the overflowing drains of Tilak Vihar where the widows of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots live, or the makeshift homes for Kashmiri Pandit families in Jammu, the one common factor that binds these groups is the fact that their condition represents the utter failure of the Indian State to uphold the rule of  law. This is not about being Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus: it is about a society that doesn't protect and provide justice to its own. Has Narendra Modi ever even visited Citizen Nagar, or does it simply fall off the map of Vibrant Gujarat? Has Rahul Gandhi fought for justice for the widows of Tilak Vihar? Will Omar Abdullah provide the healing touch to Kashmiri Pandits? And will Akhilesh's government provide a sense of security to Muzaffarnagar's homeless? Perhaps these questions will never be raised because no political party can emerge with clean hands on the issue of rehabilitating victims of mass violence. Instead, we will engage in a zero-sum high decibel game of 1984 versus 2002. So much easier than facing inconvenient truths. Rajdeep Sardesai is editor-in-chief, IBN 18 network The views expressed by the author are personal

Akhilesh has a job on hand - By Dr. Mookhi Amir Ali

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Dr Mookhi Amir Ali <drmookhi@hotmail.com> wrote:

 

Akhilesh has a job on hand

It is alarming to learn that the recent riots in Muzaffarnagar may change the demography and the land holding pattern of the region unless Akhilesh government acts with some alacrity. Thousands of Muslims have left their land with ready to harvest  crop of sugarcane standing in their fields. It is reported that the Muslims’ former neighbor Jats have given a call that the one who harvests the crop will own the land.

 

Naturally it will be Jats who will harvest the crop in the absence of Muslim owners of the land who have fled to the relief camps. Also new locks are seen on some Muslims’ houses, placed by Jats thereby appropriating the land and homes of the displaced people. Hopefully these are isolated cases but the authorities should be alert to the possible jungle raj in the offing. Akhilesh Yadav should take up the challenge head on. He must act with promptitude to see that the rule of law is not usurped. There is a danger, otherwise, of the temporarily displaced population becoming permanently displaced. Also restoring the legendary communal harmony between Jats and Muslims will have to be given great effort. The central government should extend both moral and material support to the state government towards these ends. Yes, criticizing Akhilesh for not being able to prevent the violence is justified but the need of the hour is to heal the wounds and the restoration of status quo ante.  Muzaffarnagar should not be allowed to become Gujarat post 2002.

Dr Mookhi Amir Ali <drmookhi@hotmail.com>