Showing posts with label 2002 anti-Muslim Gujarat pogrom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2002 anti-Muslim Gujarat pogrom. Show all posts

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Creating ripples on foreign shores - The Times of India - | My comments

My comments on Times of India webpage over news story:Creating ripples on foreign shores


Ghulam Muhammed•Mumbai•3 mins ago


Modi is travelling the world with a vengeance, having been denied US visa over his controversial role in 2002 Gujarat genocidal riots. He has elephantine memory and will not easily forget that he was humiliated world over, as he was denied a US visa, the ultimate public insult. Even now that the US has lifted his visa ban, he is not satisfied till according to him, the world gives him overwhelming reception and acceptance. That shows he cannot run from his role or supposed role of commission and/or omission in Gujarat riots that rocked the conscience of the world, if not India. He had remained a marked man for all this years and he is trying his best to paper over that hurt and humiliation.
---

Sunday, May 3, 2015

Book Review – ‘A Mirror to Power’ by M J Akbar: Who’s the Most Powerful of Them All? - By

http://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/books/book-review-a-mirror-to-power-by-m-j-akbar-whos-the-most-powerful-of-them-all/

The Indian Express

Book Review – ‘A Mirror to Power’ by M J Akbar: Who’s the Most Powerful of Them All?


m j akbar book review, m j akbar, m j akbar book, a mirror to power, a mirror to power book review, indian express book review, book reviews, books to read, book, indian express review
MJ Akbar turns a merciless eye on those in power, except when he looks at Modi.
Written by Vandita Mishra | Published on:May 2, 2015 12:00 am
Title: A Mirror to Power: Notes on a Fractured Decade 
Author: M.J. Akbar
Publisher: HarperCollins
Pages: 328  Price: Rs 599
M.J. Akbar holds up a mirror to power at just the right angle. He catches the puffery and vanity, shows up the posing and pretence. And mostly, while subjecting the powerful to his elegant torture, he doesn’t appear to take himself too seriously. Early in the book, he tells us why the journalist should be more Joy Mukherjee, less Dilip Kumar.
Joy Mukherjee belonged to the pantheon of popular Hindi film stars of the Sixties. He looked sincere and affable on screen, when he could have played at being grand or epic, tragic or tragi-comic, or, at least, noble. Joy won the girl in the last reel “after struggles with snowflakes, without much strain on his IQ or ours”. He “became a surprise (and perhaps surprised) hit” in 1960, when Love in Simla was released alongside the legendary Mughal-e-Azam.
Like Joy, the journalist should stay away from high drama, suggests Akbar. “Good journalists should evade the temptation of piety, stop believing they are agents of either God or king, and let loose their primary instinct, which is flirtation with the audacious”. Keep it short, Akbar also advises, and the reader will wish that on this, he had not followed his own counsel. The essays in this book, barely two pages each, allow only abbreviated explorations that too often come to a stop at the one-liner.
But the reader may end the book with a more serious gripe, and a what-if. A Mirror to Power: Notes on a Fractured Decade covers the Manmohan Singh government years, when the UPA’s mix of Congress-style blundering and hauteur in a regime divided at the top provided rich pickings for the critic and satirist. Akbar roams the “gilded cages in the Delhi zoo”, stopping to poke fun at occupants, from the “comb-loving” Shivraj Patil to Montek Singh Ahluwalia — “both he and India would benefit from greater familiarity (with each other)”. He looks in at the press conference in September 2013 to chuckle at Ajay Maken’s face when Rahul Gandhi tears the ordinance — “it is such instances that revive the Indian’s deep and abiding faith in the medicinal qualities of laughter”.
But, by and large, he ignores the great and powerful outside Delhi, the regional players and parties. Or concentrations of power outside the political establishment, be it Big Business, or the Anna movement. When he does venture away from Delhi’s political zoo, he does a fine job in a gentler and longer essay, for instance, that plots pre-Independence Muslim history through four poets: Khusrau, who “sparkled with the energy of a new fire”; Ghalib, the “philosopher searching for the mysteries of a dying flame”; Akbar Allahabadi, who “sliced the pomposity of dubious priests”, and Muhammad Iqbal, who “thought that between a complaint and an answer, he had found a denouement”.
But here’s the serious gripe. The decade the book covers was also one in which Narendra Modi made his way from the state to the national stage, and to the top of his own party. Yet Akbar does not turn his unsparing gaze on Modi, or even the BJP, which as the main Opposition party, was a powerful address with its own collection of pretences and pieties. Whenever he does look at Modi, Akbar’s merciless eye moistens, and blinks.
Not surprising, you might say, from someone who once loved and lost the Congress, or was lost by it, and nurses some bitterness. It should not surprise, either, that a man who then joined the BJP spares the BJP. But Akbar joined the party only in March 2014. So, was he, for over a decade before that, choosing his targets accordingly?
In his essay on why he joined the BJP, the audacious Akbar comes perilously close to being pious. When bombs burst in Modi’s Patna rally and he carries on speaking, asking Hindus and Muslims to choose — “they could either fight each other, or together they could confront that shaming curse called poverty” — Akbar seems overcome. “This placed everything in context and priority”, he writes. And how does this Modi square with the Modi who presided over Gujarat 2002? In contrast to his take-no-prisoners style, Akbar ducks the question. His doubts about 2002 were answered, he says, “paradoxically… over 10 years by the UPA government”, which failed to establish Modi’s guilt in a court of law. At the end of the essay, Akbar makes a declaration again remarkable for the acerbic scepticism gone missing: “There is only one way forward. And there is, among the visible choices, only one person best suited to lift the nation out of a septic swamp”.
Elsewhere in the book, writing in July 2014, after Modi has won the election and Akbar has joined the BJP, words that should still sound embarrassingly mawkish: “…the country senses an absence if he shifts to the background for even a week or a fortnight… August needs a return of that fresh breeze”.
Here, then, is the what-if: What fun it would be if Akbar would train that piercing gaze and gifted pen to cut down to size a Modi government that paints itself larger than life like all governments, and more than all governments.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

U.S. court issues summons against Modi - By Narayan Lakshman -Suhasini Haidar - THE HINDU, CHENNAI, INDIA



Return to frontpage

U.S. court issues summons against Modi


    By Narayan Lakshman -Suhasini Haidar
     
Comment   ·   print   ·   T  T  
 
 
U.S. federal law first gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear lawsuits filed by U.S. residents for acts committed in violation of international law outside the U.S. Photo: R.V. Moorthy
The Hindu U.S. federal law first gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear lawsuits filed by U.S. residents for acts committed in violation of international law outside the U.S. Photo: R.V. Moorthy

Even before he touched down on U.S. soil after a nine-year visa ban, a federal court in New York has issued summons against the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his role in presiding over the anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat during 2002 when he was Chief Minister of the state.
 The lawsuit, filed by the American Justice Center (AJC), a non-profit human rights organisation identified among the plaintiffs “two survivors of the horrific and organised violence of Gujarat 2002”, and called for a response from Mr. Modi based on the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA).

Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, whose law firm represents the plaintiffs, explained via email to The Hindu that the summons issued by the Federal Court of Southern District of New York requires Mr. Modi to respond within 21 days after it is served.

The summons document, which also alludes to the 21-day deadline, notes that if the Prime Minster fails to answer the attached complaint, “Judgement by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint,” adding that Mr. Modi was expected to file his answer or motion with the court.

Specifically the twenty-eight page complaint filed was said to seek compensatory and punitive damages and “charges PM Modi with committing crimes against humanity, extra-judicial killings, torture and inflicting mental and physical trauma on the victims, mostly from the Muslim community”.

Mr. Pannun further noted that the “default judgement”, which in other cases has been entered against defendants in their absence, would be a “declaration from Federal Court that 2002 killing of Muslims was ‘Genocide’ as per US and international law”, and possibly grant compensatory and punitive damages for the riot victims.

According to a statement by the plaintiffs the ATCA, also known as Alien Tort Statute (ATS), is a U.S. federal law first adopted in 1789 that gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear lawsuits filed by U.S. residents for acts committed in violation of international law outside the US.

Commenting on the summons issued by the John Bradley, a Director at the AJC said, “The Tort Case against Prime Minister Modi is an unequivocal message to human rights abusers everywhere… Time and place and the trappings of power will not be an impediment to justice”.

The AJC is scheduled to hold press conference on September 26 to clarify the implications of the lawsuit filed in terms of the legal path ahead in the survivors’ quest for justice, according to a statement the organisation issued.