Why It's Not Just About 5A5151516L & 5A5151516M

04-05-2009 gurumurthy.net : S. Gurumurthy

The ''Q'' accounts aren''t the target. The world is against secret stashing.

When L.K. Advani sent across what looked like a googly at the Congress on the issue of Indian black money in Swiss banks on March 29 just three days before the prime minister was to attend the G-20 meeting in London on April 2nd he would only have intended to put the party on the backfoot on an issue on which the Congress looked vulnerable. How his calculation has more than paid off and how the BJP has now on hand a powerful issue that may fix the Congress is the story ahead.

Advani did offer enough evidence on that day to demonstrate that the UPA government had shown perceivable disinclination to get at the Indian moneys abroad. Yet, he boldly counselled the prime minister, who was attending the G-20 meeting, to press the issue vigorously at the meeting, failing which, he warned, the BJP would make it an election issue. Imagine that the prime minister had rung up Advani that evening, told him that was precisely what he was intending to do at the G-20 meet and thanked Advani for drumming up public support for that! He would have hit the Advani googly out of the electoral arena. But Advani obviously knew that nothing of that sort would happen. The reason: the ruling dynasty. This issue, as everyone in the party knew, touched the First Family and its friends. The family's alleged involvement with Bofors kickbacks and Ottavio Quattrocchi and the way the UPA dispensation allowed 'Q' to get off the hook and also to snatch back the Bofors kickbacks held in frozen accounts point to more than just suspicion. Result? The Congress went so far back in defence that it crashed on its own stumps. Read on.

The usual, unprepared spokesmen pressed to take on Advani messed up the case even more. Manish Tiwari, a party spokesman, asked Advani not knowing that Advani had taken up the issue with the prime minister last year itself why raise it now, at the time of the elections? Advani had last year asked the prime minister to write to the German government to avail of its offer to give the names of non-German nationals who had secret accounts in LGT Bank to get the names of some Indians believed to have deposits in the bank. Abhishek Singhvi stepped in next. He said that G-20 was not the forum to raise the issue of secret money in Swiss banks and tax havens, totally unaware that in the preparatory G-20 meet held in Berlin in February, France and Germany had decided to raise the issue in the London meet.

Then came Jairam Ramesh. He questioned Advani's maths, which estimated loot from India into secret bank accounts abroad at between Rs 25 lakh crore and Rs 70 lakh crore. "You are a liar," he wrote to Advani, without knowing that the Swiss ambassador to India had himself confessed to NDTV Profit last year (on March 15, 2008) that a "lot of Indian black money flowed into Swiss banks". Also, the party manager did not read the correct version of the study of Global Financial Integrity, the organisation that had estimated the illicit Indian wealth stashed away abroad in just five years, 2002 to 2006 at some Rs 6.88 lakh crore. The organisation's study had validated the BJP's estimate of the loot.

Pranab Mukherjee and Kapil Sibal then stepped in and counter-charged that the NDA government had messed it all up by replacing the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) with the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), which, they alleged, had increased the flow of illicit money from India. The BJP shocked them by reading out an article authored by P. Chidambaram in The Indian Express (in 2002), in which he welcomed the replacement of FERA with FEMA.

The BJP also cited the media report which said that instead of pressing the Germans for the names of Indians in LGT Bank's secret accounts list, the UPA government was advising the Indian ambassador in Berlin not to take the initiative and pester the Germans for details!

Somewhere in between, the prime minister counselled the people of India to read an article by a former advisor to the government in a Calcutta daily as a counter to the BJP challenge! There was more fun. Despite his family's enviable record in stifling the Bofors read the Quattrocchi case, Rahul Gandhi promised full investigation into Indian monies stashed abroad. When the Congress theatre was looking so disparate, desperate and comical, the other parties the CPI(M), the AIADMK, the Samajwadi Party and the BSP seemed more serious about the issue. They vowed in their manifestos, like the BJP did, to bring back Indian monies abroad, leaving the Congress in splendid isolation.

But the BJP seemed to have done perfect homework before raising the issue. As must have been planned earlier, Advani appointed a task force consisting of four persons Ajit Doval, a security expert; R. Vaidyanathan, an academic with specialisation in finance; Mahesh Jethmalani, a lawyer; and me, a chartered accountant with investigative experience to prepare the roadmap to recover the loot and advise the BJP. Advani released the task force's report in Mumbai on April 16. The constitution of the task force itself was a strategic move. On the dispute over how big is the loot, the task force silenced the sceptics thus: "...the maths of the loot may be disputed but the fact of the loot cannot be." Yet, the report was no partisan political document. It captured how the global situation has taken a U-turn after the economic crisis; how the West, which was celebrating financial secrecy as a sacred part of individual privacy, has started seeing it as evil; how western nations themselves now feel threatened by secret banking and tax havens; how they are determined to dismantle both; how no government in India, of any party, could have done much in the past; how the time is ideal for India now to join the global effort to track illicit monies; how India has been missing its opportunities and has given the impression that it was not keen on getting at Indian wealth stashed abroad; what India as a nation should do, and so on. The report also unveiled the global as well as the national strategy for India not for the BJP as such.

The principal advice of the task force was that the BJP must work for national consensus on the issue or build powerful opinion in the country. In line with its advice, Advani appealed to all to take up the issue as a national agenda. The BJP leader seems to have succeeded in raising the issue beyond electoral limits.

The media, too, seems to view it more as a national issue, though raised by the BJP. The Hindu, not a great friend to the BJP, has in an editorial titled 'A Major Issue on the Agenda', commented: "The recommendations of a task force appointed by the BJP's senior leader L.K. Advani on the steps to be taken to bring back funds illegally stashed away in tax havens by resident Indians are timely." It also seemed to endorse the task force on the volume of Indian wealth stashed abroad; also on how, despite a benign tax regime, the outflow of illicit monies has risen. Commending as "unexceptionable" some recommendations of the task force, the editorial concluded that "...bringing back the money stashed abroad will be an enormously time-consuming task but it needs to be attempted. Mr Advani has done well to highlight a key challenge that should be addressed by the new government that is to take office."

The financial daily Hindu Business Line, too, has in its editorial commented, "Whatever the outcome of the elections, the BJP will be remembered in history books as the first party to discover an issue to galvanise opinion not just across caste and community lines but also globally.Mr L.K. Advani's call for greater action against money stashed in Swiss banks and other tax havens, theoretically at least, raises the bar of the poll campaign and sets it in tune with the global attempts to collar countries that allow unaccounted money into a common course of action." The media undoubtedly sees potential in the issue.

The BJP, too, is playing the issue in a big way. For example, Narendra Modi, one of the principal architects of the Swiss money strategy, has conducted a novel poll among the electorate in Gujarat on the issue of Indian money in Swiss banks. Some 26 lakh people are reported to have voted in the poll, with 97 per cent supporting the move. Has the Swiss money issue turned into a major issue in this poll, which was seen as an issueless one? And has the BJP fixed the Congress on the foreign money issue, which the family-led party is vulnerable on? The BJP appears to have succeeded in both.

Riotous Reportage: Gujarat 2002

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=521

Riotous Reportage: Gujarat 2002

18 Apr 2009 Vijayvaani.com : Sandhya Jain

If ever there was a case for invoking Section 495-A of the penal code – causing religious hurt with intent – it should be invoked against Begum Teesta Setalvad and her accomplices in the Citizens for Justice and Peace organisation, for viciously wounding the religious sentiments and communal dignity of both Hindus and Muslims in Gujarat.

Other relevant sections of the law need to be expeditiously invoked to punish the perpetrators of the most sadistic lies in the wake of the Gujarat 2002 carnage, which burst out after the burning of kar sevaks alive in the Sabarmati Express on 28 February 2002 at Godhra station.

It is well known that the Gujarat riots were a reaction to the well-planned Godhra train atrocity. Yet Begum Teesta et al accused Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and the State Government of complicity, and defamed them before the international community, bringing a bad name to the nation and, as alleged by her own star-turned-hostile-witness Zahira Sheikh, filling her coffers in the process.

Both the Indian State and the Judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, are in the dock of public opinion on this exposure of Begum Teesta et al, as both have willfully subordinated ordinary caution, discretion, and respect for legal process to give her and her cohorts a free run, in violation of law and all norms of decency.

If and when the government does move, it would do well to take action against foreign-affiliated ex-government servants like Harsh Mander, who compromised the dignity of the nation to titillate a western audience and finalize a lucrative employment; his pension must be cancelled forthwith and the amounts paid thus far recovered as arrears of land revenue.

Action is also due against novelist-activist Suzanne Arundhati Roy for her since-exposed lies about the rape-cum-murder of the daughter(s) of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, and her international defamation of the nation.

Sexing up Gujarat incidents

In a sensational development in the Supreme Court on 13 April 2009, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up to investigate the Gujarat riots severely censured NGOs and Teesta Setalvad (Ansari) for cooking up macabre tales of wanton killings in the 2002 riots.

The SIT, led by former CBI director R.K. Raghavan, told the apex court that many incidents of atrocities were simply cooked up by the activists; false charges were levelled against the then police chief P.C. Pandey; and false witnesses tutored to give evidence about imaginary incidents. The SIT report was submitted before a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam. Other members included former DGP C.B. Satpathy and senior IPS officers Geetha Johri, Shivanand Jha and Ashish Bhatia. Their task was to enquire into post-Godhra riot incidents in Godhra, Gulbarga Society, Naroda Gaon, Naroda Patiya and Sardarpura.

# The SIT specifically found that in the Gulbarga Society case, the allegation that P.C. Pandey actually helped the mob instead of protecting the people (read Muslims) facing the wrath of rioters was completely false. At the time of the alleged incident, Mr. Pandey was helping with the hospitalisation of riot victims and arranging police bandobast.

# The SIT found that 22 witnesses, who had submitted identical affidavits before various courts relating to the riot incidents, were tutored and given pre-drafted affidavits by Begum Teesta, and had not actually witnessed riot incidents. On questioning, these persons revealed that they were not even aware of the incidents.

Certain incidents widely-publicised by NGOs were pure concoctions:

# A pregnant Kausar Banu was gang-raped by a mob, who then gouged out the foetus with sharp weapons

# Dumping of dead bodies into a well by rioters at Naroda Patiya

# Police botching up investigation into the killing of British nationals then visiting Gujarat and inadvertently caught in the riots

NHRC, Supreme Court: playing to an international gallery

The SIT findings are especially pertinent because hitherto there has been only ONE VERSION on Gujarat – that of NGOs with a Western audience. Sadly, agencies like the National Human Rights Commission and even the Supreme Court functioned as cheerleaders and facilitators, in utter disregard of their own mandate and ignoring emerging inconsistencies in the story, including victims who denied their victimhood.

The Supreme Court went so far as to dub the Modi administration as “modern day Neros” in the Best Bakery case. But when this mythology was challenged by star witness Zahira Sheikh, she was hauled up for perjury, while nothing happened to the Teflon Teesta.

The National Human Rights Commission felt no embarrassment when Zahira Sheikh proved that the documents upon which the NHRC recommended shifting the trial outside Gujarat were NOT signed by Zahira (who contemptuously referred to them as Teesta’s pamphlet-baazi).

It is a sad commentary on the functioning of the Supreme Court that it also accepted these unsigned documents as “evidence” in the most internationally-watched criminal case in Indian history. Further, the Court used these pamphlets to express lack of confidence in the entire Gujarat Judiciary and transfer cases to a fast-track court in Mumbai. Accountability cannot now be evaded.

Denial rebuffed

Following the sensational disclosures, Citizens for Justice and Peace issued a carefully worded statement trying to deny that any such exposé took place in court. A journalist who covered the court proceedings that day took umbrage at the attempted rebuttal and retorted that his story was based upon the SIT report to which he had access, and not on any claims or documents circulated by the Gujarat government that day

[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Report-based-on-SIT-findings/articleshow/4407437.cms]

To prove his point, he quoted directly from the report:
# Page 9, on the Gulbarga Society carnage of 28 February 2002: “'Insistence of 19 witnesses to take on record their signed statements which according to them were prepared by Smt Teesta Setalvad and advocate Tirmiji” (the reference here is to witnesses giving signed computerised statements which were not accepted by the investigating officer (IO) as under Section 161, the officer is required to write the statement of witnesses after interrogating them personally).

# Page 10: “All of them had brought with them ready-made statements prepared on computer and requested IO to take them on record. IO explained to them that according to law they had to be questioned and examined and their statements reduced in writing by the IO.” Further, “On questioning them in respect of the typed statements, all 3 of them stated that the computerised prepared statements were given to them by Smt Teesta Setalvad and advocate Tirmiji and that they had merely signed and initialed on such prepared statements.”

# The report adds, “There are discrepancies between the prepared statements and statements recorded by the IO. In respect of 6 witnesses, there are contradictory statements relating to the names of the accused they were linking with (the) crime.”

# Page 11 says that when “'questioned about the discrepancies,” the 6 witnesses “stated that they had prepared the statements and not Setalvad and advocate Tirmiji.” In other words, the latter witnesses changed their version about who had prepared their signed statements.

# Page 8, regarding the allegation about then Ahmedabad Police Commissioner P.C. Pandey visiting Gulbarga Society at 10.30 am and assuring police protection to Muslims but not following it up was wrong as “he was proved to have gone to Sola Civil Hospital to take care of the dead bodies of Sabarmati Express arson victims.”

# Lastly, the report cites some instances of police dereliction of duty: senior police inspector K.G. Erda of Maghani Nagar PS was found to be “falsely creating the record” and “allowing the destruction of evidence in order to screen offenders;” and pre-SIT IO was guilty of “preparing slipshod inquest reports.”

Chronicle of the Invented Epic Tragedy

# Zahira Shaikh sprang into the limelight after her June 2003 testimony in a Vadodara fast track court led to the acquittal of 21 accused persons in the Best Bakery case. Zahira claimed that the smoke, darkness, and fear which made her hide when the bakery was set ablaze, did not permit her to recognize any of the accused. Sounds truthful.

# This outraged the secular baiters of Chief Minister Narendra Modi, and they were quick to retaliate. The Sheikh family was “contacted;” some “understanding” reached; tickets to Mumbai purchased...

# Zahira next made headlines when she surfaced in Mumbai in July 2003; newspapers splashed huge pictures of her being received warmly by poet Javed Akhtar – the secularists’ favourite spokesman for minority (read Muslim) rights. She made the sensational allegation that a BJP MLA had intimidated her and said she could not testify freely unless the Gujarat riot cases were transferred out of the BJP-ruled State.

# The derailment of justice began when the National Human Rights Commission, inspired by media ranting and an incurable desire to pander to a Western-International Gallery, jumped into the fray with energy unmatched by basic ability.

# Briefly, NHRC did not do its homework – at all. Buoyed by the wave of Media-NGO ranting, the Commission acted upon an UNSIGNED AFFIDAVIT (a point that needs emphasis because it has been willfully ignored by BOTH the NHRC and the Supreme Court despite being mentioned by this writer over two years ago) furnished by the ubiquitous Begum Teesta on Zahira’s behalf. Accordingly, NHRC asked the Supreme Court to order retrial in the Best Bakery Case outside Gujarat.

# In its enthusiasm not to be left behind in the Race for Political Correctness, the Supreme Court – also without scrutinizing documents – went ahead and established an amazing precedent on utterly non-existent premises! This cannot be the meaning of the term – Justice is Blind.

# The NHRC and the Supreme Court owe the nation a public explanation and a public apology. With its startling decision to transfer the Best Bakery case out of Gujarat, the apex court tarnished the reputation of the ENTIRE Gujarat Judiciary. And whichever way one looks at it, the transfer of cases from BJP-ruled Gujarat to Congress-NCP ruled Maharashtra was a LOADED POLITICAL STATEMENT. Was it warranted?

# Zahira Shaikh justly dismissed this as “pamphlet-baazi,” which indeed it was. The shoddy treatment meted out to her needs immediate redressal and compensation.

# It bears stating that even after Zahira stated that she had been intimidated in Vadodara, she was not given any police protection in Mumbai, but was left at the mercy of hitherto unknown NGO activists. As high-profile NGOs ALWAYS have a Political Agenda, the Supreme Court must tell us why it decided that this was an appropriate manner of protecting witnesses in such a sensitive case.

# Then in late 2004, Zahira suddenly accused Teesta of virtually imprisoning her (Zahira) in Teesta’s Mumbai home, forcing her to sign documents she could not read, pressurizing her to give a certain type of testimony after recognising persons from photographs, and generally threatening her in the guise of organizing her legal defense. This was the first sign that the wheels of Dharma were beginning to turn.

# It is shocking that the authorities refused to investigate this allegation. Who were the agencies that provided Begum Teesta with photographs of accused persons so that she could tutor witnesses under her control?

# Zahira further accused Teesta of making millions in her name and not fulfilling promises of financial help made to her (sounds credible).

# Unnerved at the looming exposé, Begum Teesta and her fellow travellers worked overtime on a vilification campaign, with help from an obliging media. A vicious witch-hunt was launched against the lonely orphan; it was alleged that Zahira had “sold” her testimony to a BJP legislator; worse, it was “suggested” that Zahira’s testimony had become valueless. A Judiciary with eyes-for-Teesta-only went along, though it is well-known that NGOs often enrich themselves after riots and do not pass on commensurate benefits to the victims. In fairness, there should have been an across-the-board examination of the accounts of all NGOs providing so-called relief in the Gujarat riots, and an investigation into the nature of relief and rehabilitation actually made available to victims. This must now be done if the Judiciary is to redeem itself.

# But when Zahira demanded that Supreme Court Registrar-General probe her allegations of offer of inducements, and persons responsible for inducements, she was ignored.

# Instead, Zahira was made the object of intimidatory investigations. Till date, no one has explained how a girl from Gujarat could open a bank account in Mumbai – someone must have introduced her – and how money was deposited in that bank account.

# The Supreme Court Registrar General was assisted by a Joint Commissioner of Police. Yet he failed to furnish evidence to prove his insinuation that Zahira received funds from a politically incorrect source (read BJP). In short, Zahira’s revolt against Begum Teesta was crushed with a judicial sledgehammer. An apology is due.

# Zahira asked the Vadodara Collector for protection from Setalvad and her NGO allies. Given the gravity of the charge that she was taken to Mumbai forcibly and the Mumbai police were unresponsive when approached for help; given the now-incontrovertible evidence collected by the SIT, the Supreme Court must IMMEDIATELY remove all witnesses from the care and possible intimidation of NGO-activists. Press reports that other witnesses were pushed underground by NGOs, which could well result in doctored testimonies, need investigation.

# Zahira alleged that a friend of Teesta threatened she would be “lynched” if she returned to Vadodara. There must be an enquiry into Zahira’s claim that Teesta and her colleagues told Zahira she must lie for the sake of her community. Courts must take cognizance of the assertion that Heena (wife of Zahira’s brother) was at her maternal home when the Best Bakery incident took place, and was falsely made an “eye-witness” by the NGO.

# After the SIT report, there can be no doubt that a well-funded and well-organized extra-constitutional caucus is serving ends remote from justice. Some of these elements are entrenched in political parties and the bureaucracy (which needs a drastic curtailment of its powers) and thus get undue indulgence from the political establishment and judiciary. Most disturbing in the present case is the brazenness with which they pursued an overtly communal agenda with the specific objective of demonizing the Hindu community.

# In March 2006, the Supreme Court FAILED to do justice, and was seen to perpetuate INJUSTICE.

# Zahira once demanded the right to cross-examine then NHRC chairman A.S. Anand because she visited the Commission with Teesta and made an oral submission which was recorded by Chairman and two members. Zahira said her oral testimony differed from the record NHRC placed before the Supreme Court. Today the NHRC is in the dock for a sensational “hijack” of justice.

# Actually, things began unravelling even earlier. A citizen, H. Jhaveri, found that the Citizens for Justice and Peace (represented by Begum Teesta) and the CPM (represented by MP Brinda Karat and Rais Khan Pathan) had distributed money to at least 10 witnesses in various post-Godhra trial cases. One Madina Pathan received Rs. 5 lakhs (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sc-affidavit-wrong-didnt-know-what-we-signed-riot-victim/399007/).

# Caught on the wrong foot, Pathan declared he had been following Teesta’s orders, and sought protection from ‘death threats’ from the Gujarat Police which he once vilified!

# Then there were some “rape” victims who told the court that they were astonished to know they were raped! The case is sub-judice and women’s honour is at stake, but still it needs to be said that Gujarat Muslim women DENIED BEING RAPED during the riots, and said they had signed affidavits written in English in good faith, but did not know the English language and what was written in the said affidavits! A familiar story...

Begum blossoms on International Circuit

Teesta Setalvad’s bold and innovative inventions did not go unrewarded. Over the years, the Begum picked up an impressive array of national and international awards (and we have no way of knowing the extent to which she battened her purse). The awards include:

2003- Nuremberg Human Rights Award 2003

2004-Parliamentarians for Global Action ‘Defender of Democracy’ Award, jointly with Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand

2004-M.A. Thomas National Human Rights Award from the Vigil India Movement

2006-Nani A Palkhivala Award

2007-Padma Shri

Bogus bleeding heart: Harsh Mander

On 13 March 2002, an hitherto unknown and undistinguished gentleman named Harsh Mander made his debut in the columns of a national daily; became a well-choreographed international celebrity; resigned from the IAS after completing 20 years of service and becoming eligible for pension; and became ‘permanent’ with an international NGO where he was on deputation.

As the IAS is already under a cloud as a corrupt and non-performing organisation, this would be an ideal opportunity for it to take in-house correctives and stop pandering to the culture of “the anti-national is truly international.” The nation is fast losing patience with these sleazy types.

Briefly, Mander’s execrable article was titled, “Cry, the Beloved Country. Reflections on the Gujarat massacre.” It was obviously a command performance, and someone well-placed got it positioned in the English language media.

Mander wrote claiming to have toured Gujarat for ten days after the riots, “My heart is sickened, my soul wearied, my shoulders aching with the burdens of guilt and shame.” He spoke glibly of “pitiless brutality against women and small children by organised bands of armed young men,” and YES:

“What can you say about a woman eight months pregnant who begged to be spared. Her assailants instead slit open her stomach, pulled out her foetus and slaughtered it before her eyes.”

Well, we now know that this NEVER HAPPENED, so Mander must explain his information-gathering techniques or admit he simply wrote what he was tutored to write by unknown persons, or that someone did the writing which he passed off in his name because he had an IAS tag and was going to “resign” from service in a manner that would gain instant lucrative international assignment + pension benefit intact.

In these circumstances, it would be a safe bet to conclude that the rest of his ‘true stories’ are similar Bedtime Tales for the Macabre-Minded.

This one is fit for Ramsay Brothers:

- A small boy of six in Juhapara camp described how his mother and six brothers and sisters were battered to death before his eyes; he survived only because he fell unconscious, and was taken for dead.

- A family escaping from Naroda-Patiya… spoke of losing a young woman and her three month old son, because a police constable directed her to `safety' and she found herself instead surrounded by a mob which doused her with kerosene and set her and her baby on fire.

Looking back, I am amazed one did not detect, then, the note of joyous triumphalism, the gloating “I got you” tone in which the piece was written:
“I have never known a riot which has used the sexual subjugation of women so widely as an instrument of violence in the recent mass barbarity in Gujarat. There are reports everywhere of gang-rape, of young girls and women, often in the presence of members of their families, followed by their murder by burning alive, or by bludgeoning with a hammer and in one case with a screw driver…”

Possible. But how does one explain the fact that nearly all surviving ‘raped’ women now say that they never complained of rape, and did not know that their affidavits claimed rape?

Everywhere he went, Mander met people who said Gujarat was not a riot, but a “planned massacre, a pogrom.” Of course, he felt “great shame at the abdication of duty of my peers in the civil and police administration.” And of course he blamed “civil society.” In other words, the whole of Hindu India in whatever guise – politicians, police, officers, citizens. The only true Samaritans he did encounter were Muslims (who else?)

[http://www.sabrang.com/gujarat/statement/nv2.htm]

What must be done?

# Harsh Mander was a SERVING IAS officer when he wrote those outright lies. He must be prosecuted under relevant laws for

1] Scandalizing the Gujarat government in the eyes of the nation and the world
2] Peddling false stories about the torture of Muslim women with the intent to humiliate and dehumanize Gujarati Hindu society in the eyes of the nation and the world

3] Inciting and provoking animosity and hatred among Hindus and Muslims by fanning fires of hatred instead of allowing the return of normalcy and communal harmony

# The Government of India must immediately revoke his pension and recover previous amounts paid by attaching his bank accounts or properties, if necessary.

# The National Human Rights Commission has evolved into a national disgrace and should be wound up expeditiously. It serves no public purpose and panders only to an international audience, which is definitionally anti-Hindu.

# On 23 November 2008, I was part of a citizen’s initiative to the Commission, to demand an enquiry into allegations of illegal detention and torture of Sadhvi Pragya by the Mumbai ATS. No action has been reported to us in this matter till date, and I am quite confident that after one formal notice to the Maharashtra Home Secretary – duly reported in the media – there has been NO follow up action at all.

# Since then, Sadhvi Pragya has been hospitalized for weakness after she refused food on finding non-vegetarian items in her jail food. Would NHRC have remembered that it had sent a formal notice to the Maharashtra Government and not got a reply? No. There seems to be a tacit understanding about what cases need to be followed and what are to be ignored.

# Since the cases taken up are ONLY those pertaining to the Minorities, and we already have a Minorities Commission, the NHRC is truly redundant.

# The Supreme Court must tell us if we need a Supreme Court? Because if the highest judicial institution of the country plays Second Fiddle to West-backed NGOs and activists with unknown agendas and sources of income, we may be better off institutionalizing a true jungle raj in which we Hindus have a better chance of surviving.

# If the Supreme Court does its job properly, what need is there of a National Human Rights Commission? It is not the job of the Indian taxpayer to provide retired judges with paid sinecures. These two organisations should stop their jugalbandi and tell us which of them should survive, and which should be wound up.

# The Supreme Court must immediately initiate steps to undo its own previous prejudicial and punitive treatment of Zahira Shaikh and give the poor orphan a fair compensation so that she can begin to pick up the pieces of her shattered life. The Registrar-General and Joint Commissioner of Police who demonstrated bias against her must be punished.

# All Gujarat witnesses currently being ‘held’ by NGOs must be immediately taken away and put under the custody of the Gujarat State.

# All victims must be given their sworn affidavits in a language they understand and asked if they stand by them or rebut the allegations therein. After that, action must be taken against those who got signatures through unfair means.

# The apex court must retrieve its honour by sending the Gujarat riot cases BACK to Gujarat.

# Action must be taken against ALL NGOs and activists who orchestrated the international opprobrium against the Gujarat state and the Hindu people of India.

# Zahira has exposed major holes in the ethical roofing of statutory commissions that play to an international gallery, and the Hindu-baiting media-NGO nexus. Her demand for a probe into Teesta’s post-Gujarat assets remains pertinent.

# Finally, as the riot cases were transferred on faulty premises, norms must be laid down to prevent the hijacking of justice in future.

Last word

Why were Gujarati Muslims quick to return to normal; why did they refuse to wallow in anti-Narendra Modi rhetoric to the anguish of the media-human rights wallahs; why did they insist that Gujarat was the best place to live and prosper; and why did even Qutbuddin Ansari – the face of the Gujarat riots – quit the safe environs of Kolkata and return to Ahmedabad where he was supposedly nearly hounded to death?

Could it be that Narendra Modi is not such a demon after all?

The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com

The text that could well become an online-petition.

Badri

18 Apr 2009

Sandhya Ji, Congratulations for a well researched, frank and correct analysis of the Godhra and its Gujerat aftermath. You have done a remarkable job in bringing out the VILLAINS of this episode and expose them for what they are... Money Hungry...Lime Light Seekers......anti Nationals with Hindu names enriching themselves at the cost of their Nation and Hindus.

Bhargava

18 Apr 2009

It is ironical that the truth first uncovered by Justice Tewatia Committee Report is now getting revealed by SIT investigations, paradoxically appointed at the initiative of Kapil Sibal to “crucify” Narendra Modi. ### Celebrities like Arundhati Roy graphically described how Ehsan Jaffri’s wife and daughters were disrobed, raped and their abdomen cut open and burning rags inserted - published in OUTLOOK, which was grabbed by international media with alacrity. But WHEN THE WIFE AND DAUGHTERS WHO WERE IN USA RETURNED TO AHMEDABAD AND MET THE MEDIA, no regret was issued either by Arundhati or Outlook at such barbarous reporting!!

SK

18 Apr 2009

I thank the Editor of Vijayvaani.com. I am a regular reader of the article published on your website. Please keep up the good work. I have formed a mail group to which I forward most of these articles. I want to appeal to the other readers of this website to carry out some effort to circulate such articles to counter the biased media. If there is an uproar in the general public about misinformation handed out by media, then only we can expect some change in its behaviour. BJP should make people aware about this new development before the remaining phases of elections. I see no TV channel discussing this issue on their debate programs, Why? because Barkha, Prannoy, Rajdeep and Co have no place to hide their faces. Along with Teesta and Harsh Mander we should take some action against these so-called upholders of forth estate of democracy for spicing up the hatred against Gujarat Government without proper investigation. BJP should include the issue of Foreign funding to NGO's at par with the Swiss Bank monies. We as a citizens of India wants to know why so much money (appx Rs.12000 Cr) is coming to NGO's in India and how it is spent. I congratulate Shri. Narendra Modi for taking a tough stand and people of Gujarat for supporting a good leader for all these difficult times.

Sharmila Gharpure

18 Apr 2009

Congress deserves to lose India’s elections

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8524754-29f4-11de-9d01-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

April 15 2009 FT.com(Financial Times) : Razeen Sally

Indians will from Thursday begin heading to the polls in a month-long election for a new government. The Congress party is standing on the record of the government it has led since 2004. But polls are taking place when the Indian economy has taken a sharp turn for the worse, in a climate of global economic crisis. This exposes the do-nothing, zero-reform record of Manmohan Singh, prime minister, and his government. More generally, it lays bare India’s huge reform gaps and its brittle, decaying institutions. Finally, it deflates the “India hype” peddled by smooth-talking upper-caste politicians, ambassadors, businessmen, management consultants and some academics.

A word about India hype. It highlights high-end services, and now manufacturing sectors, with their globalising, world-beating companies. But it overlooks reform deficits in agriculture, services and manufacturing. It talks of “Chindia”, the notion that India plays in the same league as China as an emerging superpower – which is pure myth. Not least, it glosses over the record of the present Congress-led government.

There have been practically no market reforms since 2004, save for the opening of domestic civil aviation. Nothing has moved on privatisation, the reduction of government equity in banks and insurance companies, pensions, competition regulation or the administration of subsidies. Industrial tariffs have come down, but otherwise external protection has not been reduced. India remains the most protectionist large emerging market.

Worse, there has been reform backsliding and reversal. Fiscal restraint, written into law in 2003, has been thrown to the winds. Now, with an economic downturn, the consolidated government deficit is projected to rise above 10 per cent of gross domestic product. Funding for much-needed infrastructure projects will suffer. Controlled pricing of petroleum products was reintroduced in 2008. Off-budget expenditure has increased significantly, especially through populist measures to support rural employment and the energy sector.

The government’s response to the present global economic crisis was to introduce further market-distorting restrictions, including higher tariffs, anti-dumping duties and assorted non-tariff import barriers.

Finally, the Congress party entered the general election campaign with pledges to expand its hugely wasteful rural employment guarantee programme and increase food subsidies.

The government has squandered the boom years, left the country more vulnerable to malign global economic conditions and compromised prospects for a healthy recovery. But Manmohan Singh and his “dream team” have been given an easy ride: they have escaped blame, especially outside India. The conventional excuse is that their hands are tied by Sonia Gandhi and her Congress coterie, and by coalition politics.

This explanation just does not wash. Mr Singh has impeccable academic credentials and is by all accounts incorruptible. He deserves credit for his performance as finance minister in the 1990s – although credit should also go to Narasimha Rao, then prime minister, who took the tough decisions.

But Mr Singh has proved a hopeless decision-maker as prime minister. Sadly, he proves the rule that academics should generally be “on tap” but not “on top”.

The whole reform programme relies on the prime minister himself. Mr Rao and A.B. Vajpayee proved their mettle, despite heavy political constraints. Mr Singh has failed; he should bear much of the blame. The Congress party does not deserve to be re-elected and the dream team does not deserve to continue in office. An alternative BJP-led government may do better if it has a decisive leader with a core of able reformers. It will not if its leader follows the dictates of short-term opportunism and messy coalition politics.

Nevertheless, the failures of the Congress-led government should be put into a larger institutional context. The Indian state, led by a venal political-bureaucratic elite, remains unreformed. State institutions – the political class, political parties, parliaments, the bureaucracy, the judiciary – have got worse at both national and state levels. Since the late 1980s, “stealth” reforms have taken place outside the state. But India cannot be expected to grow fast with such shaky foundations. The upshot is that much-needed market reforms cannot continue to skirt round the reform of the state itself. Politically, that is the hardest nut to crack.

The writer is director of the European Centre for International Political Economy

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Unquestioned loot

13-04-2009 Gurumurthy.net : S. Gurumurthy

All that the BJP leader L K Advani had perhaps intended to do — when he took up the issue of Indian black wealth stashed away in Swiss and other secret shelters — was to put the Congress party on the back foot at the time of the elections. But he would never have imagined that the Congress would go so far back as to hit its own wicket.

This is how the play opened. L K Advani told the media: the Swiss ambassador to India has himself admitted that lots of Indian black money gets secretly lodged in Swiss banks

; estimates of Indian black money abroad vary from $500 billion to $1400 billion; forced by the economic crisis, the West, that is Germany, France, US and UK, which had winked at the illicit monies in the past, have begun a crusade against Swiss banks and other secret tax shelters to flush out the money; India must join the Western effort to bring back the Indian black wealth from abroad. With elections round the corner, Advani did turn the issue into a political one. He charged that the Congress was not keen to get back the Indian monies lodged abroad. He cited two instances to support the charge. First, despite his writing to the Dr Manmohan Singh in April last year to ask for the names of Indians reportedly mentioned in the secret record of LGT bank — which the German authorities had offered to open free of cost to give to all who asked for it — the government would not press for the Indian names from Germany. Second, he said that in the G20 preparatory meet in Berlin where Germany and France had called for blacklisting of Swiss and other tax havens, the Indian representatives at that meeting never opened their mouth on the issue.

Advani rounded off asking the prime minister to take up the issue of Indian monies stashed away in secret Swiss banks and in other tax havens at the G20 meet at London slated for April 2, 2009. Yet, at the London meet, Dr Manmohan Singh would not utter a word. Had he just said that India would join the G20 efforts, the Advani googly would have gone for a six. But, the Congress party went on the back-foot and hit its own wicket instead. But, why did the Congress hit its own wicket instead of a six? Read on.

“Why this now, at the time of the elections?” asked the Congress spokesman Manish Tiwari, not knowing that Advani had written to the prime minister long before, in April 2008 itself, on the LGT bank issue. Then entered Abhishek Singhvi, the more articulate spokesman of the party. He asked what did Advani do when NDA was in power. Obviously he has not even read Advani’s statement. Advani has only questioned why the Manmohan government is not acting now [in March 2008] in tandem with the West which has begun crusading against secret banking. Only now the West has turned against secret bank funds. So the question why did the BJP, or even the Congress, not act in the past does not arise. More. Singhvi said that “G20 is not the forum for the issue” of Indian black wealth in Swiss banks. Obviously, running between courtrooms and newsrooms, he had no time to follow the media abroad which were full of news about how the main agenda of G20 was about secret banking. He was all at sea. With the first two failing, entered Jairam Ramesh, the campaign manager of the party.

Like Sehwag deploying offence for defence, he wrote a harsh letter to L K Advani saying, “to tell bluntly — Mr Advani, you are lying”. Advani, he charged, was lying on his maths about the estimate of the Indian black wealth at between $500 billion and $1400 billion. These numbers, he said, were drawn from questionable Internet sources! All his shouts meant only this: “Mr Advani, the loot from India is not as big as you make it out to be”. But, when the Swiss Ambassador himself has admitted that ‘lot’ of Indian black wealth was flowing into Swiss banks, where is the need to quarrel over how big the loot from India is — as big as Advani says or as small as Jairam Ramesh thinks? The question is where does the Congress stand on the issue of bringing the hoarded Indian wealth from abroad. The three who shout at Advani are deafeningly silent on that.

The Congress campaign manager cites a well-known economist Bibek Debroy who has questioned Advani’s estimate of Indian black wealth at a minimum of $500 billion. Debroy, usually an agile and meticulous analyst, has erred in this case. He has looked at the wrong version of the right report and reached incorrect conclusions. Both Advani and Debroy have relied on the Global Financial Integrity (GFI) study that has estimated the global black wealth stashed away in tax havens including India’s. There are two versions of the GFI study — one a layman’s version and the other, the economists’ version. Debroy, an economist, seems to have relied on the layman’s version. And L K Advani, not an economist, has relied on the economists’ version. The economists’ version of the GFI study (at pages 29 and 30 supported by charts, specifically chart 18) estimates, in specific numbers the amount of black wealth stashed away from India between 2002-06 at $137.5 billion. If, in five years, the amount could be $137.5 billion (Rs 6.88 lakh crore), the Advani estimate of $500 billion (Rs 25 lakh crore) to $1400 billion (Rs 70 lakh crore) for six decades since 1947 is not wide off the mark. Bibek Debroy who seems to have looked at only the layman’s version of the GFI study, appears to have missed the specific estimate of the annual loot from India at $27.3 billion which only the economists’ version of the GFI report mentions. This is the cause of the dispute on maths. But even otherwise all maths of monies held in secrecy can only be estimates. There can be nothing final about it.

That lots of Indian black wealth is lodged in secret Swiss banks and elsewhere is undisputed. The dispute is no more about the loot from India. But only about how big that loot is. The Congress masks the undisputed fact of the loot by questioning the maths of it. Obviously the party seems frightened about the Indian black wealth abroad becoming an issue once again after 1987 when the Bofors bribe scam broke out. The Congress spokesmen do not seem to be defending their party. They are actually exposing their leader whose connections with her Italian friend Quattrocchi who got bribes from Bofors out of the defence budget of India are well known. They seem to confirm the cynical ones who ask: “Do we expect those who assisted Quattrocchi to run away with the money caught stolen from India to bring back the Indian black wealth from Swiss banks?” Understand why the Congress chose to hit its own wicket instead of hitting the Advani googly for a six?.

Defending India: No Compromise, No Concession

16 Apr 2009 Vijayvaani.com : N S Malik

“If ever things come to a sordid pass when, on a given day, the Mauryan soldier has to LOOK BACK over his shoulder (simhawalokana) prompted by even a single worry about his and his family's material, physical and social well being, it should cause you and your Council the greatest concern and distress. I beseech you to take instant note and act with uncommon dispatch to address the soldier's anxiety. It is my bounden duty to assure you, My Lord, that the day when the Mauryan soldier has to demand his dues or, worse, plead for them ,will neither have arrived overnight nor in vain. It will also bode ill for Magadha. For then, on that day, you, My Lord, will have lost all moral sanction to be King! It will also be the beginning of the end of the Mauryan Empire!!"
- Kautilya to Chandragupta on the Mauryan Soldier

Taking note of the deteriorating security scenario, at least one political party has issued a comprehensive manifesto covering all aspects of national activities for creating a modern, powerful, prosperous, progressive and secure India through the three main instruments of ‘Good Governance, Development & Security.’

National Security covers both areas of external and internal security. Today with state-sponsored terrorism through non-State actors and religious fundamentalists, internal security has assumed menacing shape and cannot be left to police and CPO forces alone. Armed forces and Para Military Forces (PMF) of the nation, therefore, face a much bigger challenge on both fronts simultaneously. Political parties must understand this and devise a Defence Policy based on the above threat perception. In simple words understanding the common citizen’s basic need of security, the mantra is “Fear shall no longer stalk this land.”

Armed Forces are the ultimate weapon with which the state is to fight the external aggressor and the internal insurgent. Thus the need to strengthen the armed forces to be ever ready to crush any attack on the sovereignty and integrity of India. Tragically, the armed forces have been ignored by the government and its failure to address legitimate military concerns has bred undesirable discontent among the serving soldiery and forced the veterans to come out in protest by returning their most precious possession, the war medals, to the President of India.

Thus the promise to ‘address all pending issues immediately’ is welcome, and must include:

1] The long-pending acquisition of military hardware must be expedited through absolutely transparent means in a time-bound manner.

2] Budget allocations for defense forces must be spent without being allowed to lapse. The criminal negligence of the defense forces so far has resulted in nearly Rs. 24,000 crores of budgetary allocations being allowed to lapse over five years. This endangers the lives of our soldiers and also the security of the nation.

3] Our forces are performing a service to the nation and deserve better pay and privileges. This includes:

a] Pending issues of pay and privileges must be revisited and resolved to the satisfaction of the defense forces. The modalities for setting up a separate Pay Commission for the forces must be expedited;

b] All personnel of the Army, Air Force and Navy, as also paramilitary forces, should be exempt from paying income tax on salaries and perquisites;

c] Honorarium for winners of gallantry awards like Pram Vir Chakra, which is abysmally low at Rs 500 to Rs 3,000, may be enhanced to Rs 5,000 to Rs 30,000, and made tax free.

d] The principle of one rank, one pension be implemented;

e] Incentive-based steps be taken to make joining the defence services an exciting proposition for young men and women to overcome shortage of officers; and,

f] Incentives be offered to State Governments for ensuring honourable settlement of retired personnel of the defence services.

4] Present shortage of defence personnel at all levels be met by making the Services an attractive career option through competitive pay and privileges and pension benefits.

5] Enhance capacities of Defence Research and Development Organisation; explore the PPP route for conventional defence production bearing in mind the nation’s needs and make India a competitive player in the global market by 2020.

The above has concentrated on four major issues directly effecting national security: a] Defence Budget and its correct use; b] pay and perks for the soldier and the veteran; c] shortage of officers in the services and d] independent strategic nuclear programme.

There are basically two burning issues for the forces: Income tax exemption for Armed Forces and PMF personnel, and implementation of ‘One rank One Pension.’ Here a few points stand out and need to be correctly understood.

The point that the armed forces are unique and need to be dealt with on a special footing in matters of pay, perks and privileges is accepted by all. Income tax exemption mooted by a political party has been taken by some as a form of ‘bribe;’ they have opined that it was not really necessary as it could lead to other government and non-government employees demanding the same.

This argument is very unfortunate, as incentives given to the soldier in the form of Gallantry Awards, or to players in the form of awards and monetary benefits, besides a host of other bonuses in the corporate sector, can all be brought under the same argument. Besides, government schemes for relief or upliftment of some sections of society, such as loan waivers to farmers, could come under the same accusation.

Reiterating that armed forces are unique, in that they are asked to sign a blank cheque to the nation with no limits up to and including the supreme sacrifice, why begrudge them a minor concession? More than monetary, it is psychological, to make the armed forces feel they are special.

Regarding the one-rank-one-pension demand, there is misunderstanding regarding its financial burden and a fear that civil servants will demand the same, making it unbearable for the government. First, only a small sum of Rs. 1500 crores annually is likely to go out initially and will taper off; secondly, conditions of service and retirement are quite different between the civil and the military and cannot be equated. A soldier is compulsorily retired after 17 years of service in the age group of 35-38 years, and gets a very meagre pension based on last pay drawn; other Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) are also retired at various stages before they reach the age of 50 years. Similarly, the bulk of officers retire at the age of 54-56, only a miniscule number going to 58 and 60 (a mere 0.02%). In contrast, all civil servants retire at 60 years, having drawn maximum pay of grade and pension at the highest scale of grade.

Then, service conditions often take the soldier away from his family and children; there are problems of education, among other problems.

Another important issue bearing on the OROP principle is that a soldier retiring at the age of 35-38 faces many Pay Commissions in his retired life, but benefits from only the initial one; rest of the time being left out as his pension is kept at the bottom of his grade at the next Pay Commission. The civil servant having retired at 60 faces only one or at best two Pay Commissions before we all succumb to the laws of nature.

To conclude:
“The Armed Forces are not like a limited liability Company to be reconstructed from time to time as the money fluctuates. It is not an inanimate thing like a house to be pulled down or enlarged or structurally altered at the caprice of the tenant or owner. It is a living thing; if it is bullied, it sulks; if it is unhappy, it pines; if it is harried, it gets feverish; if it is sufficiently disturbed, it will wither and dwindle and almost die, and when it comes to this last serious condition, it is only revived through a lot of effort and lots of money” (Winston Churchill)

Lt. Gen. N.S. Malik, PVSM, is former Deputy Chief of Army Staff

Gujarat riot myths busted

http://www.dailypioneer.com/169490/Gujarat-riot-myths-busted.html

The so-called human rights activist, Teesta Setalvad — who paraded the Gujarat riot victims before the Supreme Court and claimed they had been denied justice — suffered embarrassment on Monday after a Special Investigation Team (SIT) gave sufficient grounds for the apex court to doubt the authenticity of incidents highlighted by her NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace.

The SIT, headed by former CBI Director RK Raghavan along with former DGP CB Satpathy and three senior IPS officers — Geetha Johri, Shivanand Jha and Ashish Bhatia — had been entrusted with the enquiry into post-Godhra riot incidents in Godhra, Gulbarg Society, Naroda Gaon, Naroda Patiya and Sardarpura.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the State, read out portions of the report that refuted the petitioner’s charge of the State’s complicity in the riots.

Pointing out a specific instance, the SIT report stated how the evidence of 22 witnesses was “suspect” owing to the identical submissions made in their affidavits submitted to the court. On enquiry, the SIT found that all the 22 affidavits were drafted, typed and printed from the same computer, giving sufficient grounds to believe they were “tutored”. When the SIT questioned those who signed the affidavits, it was shocked to learn that these complainants were not even aware of the incidents.

Referring to another instance that exposed the Citizens for Justice and Peace’s much ‘trumpeted’ charges, Rohtagi said the SIT investigation found untrue allegation about a gangrape of a pregnant woman Kauser Bano, whose stomach was allegedly pierced by sword and her foetus killed.

Even the instance of dumping of bodies into a well at Naroda Patiya and a charge of the police allegedly shielding accused persons in murder of a British national was found to be untrue, Rohtagi said.

Firing a salvo at the NGO, Rohtagi said, “It is clear from the report that the horrendous allegations made by the NGO were false. Cyclostyled affidavits were supplied by a social activist and the allegations made in them were untrue,” he added, with an obvious reference to Setalvad.

The NGO’s counsel Aparna Bhatt objected to such comments being made on the strength of the report, which had also added several persons as accused in the case. Refusing to be drawn into the slanging match between the opposing parties, the Bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat said, “In riot cases, more the delay, there is likelihood of falsity creeping in. So, there should be a designated court to fast track the trials.”

The court asked the State Government, petitioners and amicus curiae senior advocate Harish Salve to suggest recommendations on these lines. Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the Centre, suggested selection of public prosecutors on consultation from the SIT. Salve informed the court that the matter would be taken up with the SIT. Based on a suggestion by another NGO petitioner counsel Indira Jaising to evolve a witness protection system, Salve assured that the same would also be discussed in the light of the sensitivity attached to the case. The bunch of petitions was posted for further hearing after next week.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4396986.cms

NGOs, Teesta spiced up Gujarat riot incidents: SIT

14 Apr 2009, 1213 hrs IST, Times Of India : Dhananjay Mahapatra,

NEW DELHI: The Special Investigation Team responsible for the arrests of those accused in Gujarat riots has severely censured NGOs and social activist Teesta Setalvad who campaigned for the riot victims.

In a significant development, the SIT led by former CBI director R K Raghavan told the Supreme Court on Monday that the celebrated rights activist cooked up macabre tales of wanton killings.

Many incidents of killings and violence were cooked up, false charges were levelled against then police chief P C Pandey and false witnesses were tutored to give evidence about imaginary incidents, the SIT said in a report submitted before a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam.

The SIT said it had been alleged in the Gulbarg Society case that Pandey, instead of taking measures to protect people facing the wrath of rioteers, was helping the mob. The truth was that he was helping with hospitalisation of riot victims and making arrangements for police bandobast, Gujarat counsel, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, said quoting from the SIT report.

Rohtagi also said that 22 witnesses, who had submitted identical affidavits before various courts relating to riot incidents, were questioned by the SIT which found that they had been tutored and handed over the affidavits by Setalvad and that they had not actually witnessed the riot incidents.

The SIT also found no truth in the following incidents widely publicised by the NGOs:

* A pregnant Muslim woman Kausar Banu was gangraped by a mob, who then gouged out the foetus with sharp weapons

* Dumping of dead bodies into a well by rioteers at Naroda Patiya

* Police botching up investigation into the killing of British nationals, who were on a visit to Gujarat and unfortunately got caught in the riots

Rohtagi said: "On a reading of the report, it is clear that horrendous allegations made by the NGOs were false. Stereotyped affidavits were supplied by a social activist and the allegations made in them were found untrue."

Obviously happy with the fresh findings of the SIT which was responsible for the recent arrests of former Gujarat minister Maya Kodanani and VHP leader Jaideep Patel, Rohtagi tried to spruce up the image of the Modi administration, which was castigated in the Best Bakery case by the apex court as "modern day Neros". He was swiftly told by the Bench that but for the SIT, many more accused, who are freshly added, would not have been brought to book.

The Bench said there was no room for allegations and counter-allegations at this late stage. "In riot cases, the more the delay, there is likelihood of falsity creeping in. So, there should be a designated court to fast track the trials. Riot cases should be given priority because feelings run high having a cascading effect," it said and asked for suggestions from the Gujarat government, Centre, NGOs and amicus curiae Harish Salve, who said the time had come for the apex court to lift the stay on trials into several post-Godhra riot cases.

While additional solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam agreed with the court that public prosecutors should be selected in consultation with Raghavan, counsel Indira Jaising said there should be a complete regime for protection of witnesses as the same government, which was accused of engineering the riots, was in power now.

Salve said that he would consult Raghavan and let the court know about a witness protection system for post-Godhra riot cases. The court asked the parties to submit their suggestions within a week.

dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com