Noose for Modi?

The whole of India’s media is abuzz because Narendra Modi said, “Hang me if I am guilty”. This “candid interview” was given to Samajwadi Party MP Shahid Siddiqui, who is also in the news. It is interesting that he says the idea for the interview was hatched with some friends like Salim Khan and Mahesh Bhatt. No wonder Modi played the Bollywood plot.

Much is being made about this appearing in an Urdu daily, Nayi Duniya. What is so surprising? Urdu is one of the official languages of India, and it has little to do with Gujarat.

Modi and Siddiqui are entitled to their PR exercises, but this yogic meditation is absurd. Is Modi saying this to the Supreme Court? For all you know, he might be using this as a swipe against the new President who might have to entertain a mercy petition should such a sentence ever be pronounced. Modi has not dirtied his own hands, so this sort of declamation is just so much noise.

What we must take note of is the clause that if he is proved innocent the media should apologise for tarnishing his image. What exactly does this mean? Is he only concerned about his image? Is the media India? Even if some in the media do apologise, it does not count. He is answerable to the people of Gujarat, to the people of India.

And to those who think that giving an interview to an Urdu daily amounts to trying to win over Muslims, please do not forget the pamphlets that were distributed in the state in the local language against them, their culture, and a call to boycott their businesses. This man now talks about development of Gujarat when in 2002 a whole section of the population’s development was sought to be derailed, at a time when so many had lost earning members of their families, whose houses were destroyed.

Shahid Siddiqui and his band of filmi boys can go drum up a frenzy about this, and make it seem like he has done a huge favour, but if Narendra Modi has to apologise to anyone it is the people of his state, irrespective of whether he is personally guilty or not. All this happened when he was in charge and the noose was on his people.

Talk about hanging seems so churlish, if not insensitive, in the context.


  1. FV,

    I knew this article would come sooner than the rest of them usually do!

    QUOTE: "Narendra Modi has to apologise... irrespective of whether he is personally guilty or not."

    Good you came clean. This reads "Modi is hereby condemned without trial by a sekulaar lynch mob!" (Too bad they can't physically enforce their judgment!) That saves me the mental agony of expecting a rational discourse and finding bloodthirsty baying of hounds.

    Had you NOT come clean, I would have asked the following questions:

    1. Modi gives a patient explanation in response to each and every question by Siddiqui. Siddiqui belongs to a party which is Modi's staunch political opponent. So why not give the man credit for being unafraid of scrutiny? How many Muslim intellectuals (sounds like a contradiction in terms post-2002!) or politicians, or Mullahs will agree to be interviewed by Salman Rushdie publically? For that matter, how many Congressmen will agree to an interview by Sarsanghchalak?
    2. Modi places each issue in perspective. He brings out the encounter statistics of other states and asks why Gujarat is being singled out. No wetpant sekulaar has the guts to answer this issue in earnest. So who is being duplicitous and cowardly here?
    3. Siddiqui asks what Gujarat is doing SPECIFICALLY for Muslim community. Modi says whatever he is doing is for the entire Gujarat. E.g. To achieve 100% enrolment of girls in school. This automatically includes Muslims. But wetpants sekulaars will still condemn him as communal because he is not scared of bloodthirsty Mullahs and their "minority" ransom demands. Now who is being communal AND weak?

    I am going by public statements of intent and not by actual data, since the wetpant brigade prefers it that way! (Refer the mad din for apology above and elsewhere)
    4. Modi says the Muslims in Gujarat are far better off on all indices than Muslims elsewhere in India. When Siddiqui talks about the Muslims "misery" under BJP rule, Modi rightly asks how Muslims are still so well off after 20 years of BJP rule. No wetpant sekulaar will agree to give an answer because there is none. At least none that can satisfy the sekullar bloodlust for anything Hindu.
    In the end, I reiterate what I have said before in my comments. Truth about Gujarat 2002 is what one WANTS to believe, facts be damned! It applies to both, wetpants as well as knotted knickers! One "truth" will continue to feed on the other!

  2. F&F:

    Why am I not surprised that you responded to this sooner than you otherwise do?!

    I do not need to come clean.

    Re your points:

    1. I don't care for Siddiqui, who was playing to the gallery in the clip that is linked. But, Modi giving an interview to him is no big deal. Will he give an interview to Sanjiv Bhatt? You think he was courageous? Does it mean he needs to be courageous? Why? Is he guilty?

    Don't be naive. Politicians are good at horse and other trading. Political parties form coalitions. What is the big deal about this interview?

    Will the Congress leaders agree to be interviewed by some saffronites? Maybe. Whoever said they were better?

    Your Rushdie example is off. The point is will Rushdie agree to be interviewed by the mullahs? Do not forget he did apologise, tail between legs.

    2, 3. 4: So? HE is giving the figures. Statistics do not negate the issue of riots. He is doing a whitewash job, and it does not matter whether wetpants or drypants respond or not.

    In the end, as I have always said, he was in charge when people were killed in cold blood. he is responsible. This is not about what anyone wants to hear but about what happened when he was in power.

    He is therefore culpable of not taking action against those who murdered. No waterparks can wash that away.

    Sometimes lies feed the truth.

  3. >>Do not forget he did apologise, tail between legs.

    which is a glowing tribute; neither to Rushdie nor to Mullahs.

    >>He is therefore culpable of not taking action against those who murdered.

    If this is true, then it indicates to me that real "culprits" are much more powerful than him.

    More and more looking from the outside it seems that "religion" is the only glue holding people together in South Asia, especially given the corrupt and negligent nature of the so-called "legitimate" government.

    Having come from a conservative Hindu background myself and witnessed similar riots in person, I have not been able to come up with any satisfactory answer other than when India becomes as rich per capita as Sweden; this would go away. Absurd, I know.

    Given all the Hindu Zealots roaming around this part of the world; it is difficult to talk of secularism even from so far away; how can it make sense to anyone living their life over there?

    Who knows, people over there have already figured out peaceful co-existence (necessity being mother of invention and all) but for the interference of all the far away social doctors.

    Back to the topic of Modi, as I have said before; even if it were treated simply as a law-and-order matter, record of Indian Judiciary is not something that inspires hope.

    After resisting several times, I did end up reading the details of what happened in those riots.

    But, I am really done with sad and dejected. Regardless of what Indian Judiciary does, I want these horrors to torment the perpetrators rather than the victims.

  4. FV,


    QUOTE: "...he was in charge when people were killed in cold blood. he is responsible."

    I have addressed the hypocricy behind this argument in my previous comments. Refer http://farzana-versey.blogspot.in/2011/09/modis-fast-undo-death-gujarats-shame.html

    However, I wil take the liberty of repeating some parts:

    * Rajeev Gandhi (Congress) "presided over" 1984 riots, with Delhi police directly reporting to his govt.

    * Srikrishna Commission has noted that during the 93 Mumbai riots, Sudhakar Naik "failed to act promptly and effectively and give clear-cut directives."

    * The 1989 Bhagalpur riots in which more than 1000 were killed, took place under Congress govt of Satyendra Narayan Singh. BJP was nowhere on the scene in Bihar.

    * Vilasrao Deshmukh "failed to prevent" 2001 Malegaon riots. The Congress-appointed Motilal Vora committee said he was not to blame at all.

    * As we talk, Gogoi is "presiding over" a Jehadi murderous spree in Assam, which in turn is provoking a tribal backlash. He says it is only in three districts and the media is hyping the issue... etc etc

    Did you say "mass murderers"? Did you say "Cheap Ministers?" Or did you say "summarily guilty even if aquitted by courts"?

    Sorry, I could not hear clearly! Can you say that again please? Or should I wait for your next post? :)

    Rushdie did apologise and it was utterly shameful on his part. If he had courage of conviction, he would have, as you suggest, offered to participate in a public debate with his detractors. The pathological Islamic hostility to freedom of expression is an entirely different issue with no relation to Rushdie's apology. When targetted violence in the name of God is threatened, Sekulaar tails sometimes do go into (wet) pants. Smelly but true.

    QUOTE: "He is answerable to the people of Gujarat, to the people of India."

    This view is taken by sekulaars only when it is convenient in the context. Modi has been voted to power with thumping majority by the very people who he is accountable to. Bring this up and the sekulaar simians promptly leap to the "judicial verdict / moral responsibility" swing (tail in air!) and begin snarling again.

    Do you think Muslims should be given seperate, crescent shaped ballot papers? Preferably in green colour?

    QUOTE: "Does it mean he needs to be courageous? Why? Is he guilty?"

    Funny! The riots did occur, My Lord! A zombie-like chorus of wild, baseless allegations did go up (and hasn't really come down, facts be damned!). On one hand he is being whipped for refusing to apologise. On other hand, you are insinuating that this unusual interview itself proves he is a closet rioter! Hail the sekulaar justice! Taliban would be proud!

  5. Modi is trying to warm up with the muslims , first he tried to influence (deoband fiasco) and now shahid siddiqui. The problem with shahid is that he wears two hats, one as a MP and other as journalist and he wants to switch back and forth for his benefit.Modi can't get into national politics without rebranding his image and he can't become PM without winning UP and Bihar , which would need minority support and the support of the regional parties. All these metrics is against him and I can conclude "it is a bridge too far" for him let alone PM's office.

  6. Rizwanalam,

    Wishful thinking, Sir. Let me remind you of some names, since you appear to have forgotten them. HD Deve Gowda. IK Gujaral, PV Narsimha Rao, Manmohan Singh....

    I suppose that in your view, these guys had solid voter base in UP and Bihar and were also darlings of the minorities!

    How about deputy PMs? : Devi lal and LK Advani?

  7. Mr footloose

    You don't have to remind me anything because I remember them all :) deve gowda, gujral formed minority govt devi lal is dead and advani is an octogenarian. Manmohan singh is a class economist and there is no match in the BJP ( sorry to disappoint you - s. swamy happens to be a fan of dr singh) . ruling parties of UP and Bengal are supporting the current admn and maybe nitish could volte face , if any party who conjoins with modi will never win in their state, this fact has been well established by the leaders , they would not even allow them in their states. To reverse these stigma, modi is quenching and grudingly trying to break even - chill

  8. Rizwanalam,

    QUOTE: ".... he can't become PM without winning UP and Bihar"

    I was only responding to your sweeping statement here. The names that you commendably remember, fail to meet this description by a long stretch. Yet, they successfully occupied the august office. After all, politics is the art of the possible.

    On the other hand, if Modi is ready to do what HE THIINKS it is going to take, then what is the harm? :)

    Let me, however, clarify that I hold no brief for Modi, neither do I have a Modi mask stowed away at home! I just want to say that government formation in India is a hugely complex, fascinating and dare I say, amusing exercise.

  9. Hitesh:

    If this is true, then it indicates to me that real "culprits" are much more powerful than him.

    No. It is just that the foot soldiers are sometimes numbers, with effaced identities to leave no trace.

    I am not so gung-ho about wealth solving these problems. Poverty did not cause the riots.

    We have no choice but to depend on, and trust, the judiciary for extra-judicial occurrences. Tragedy. Farce.

  10. F&F:

    Thanks for the link.

    1. I have not condoned the others, so what is your point? Can I hear it? Louder please.

    Besides, why when there is a discussion on those topics, Modi is NEVER used as the other example?

    2. Of course, it has to do with such exigencies...dear me.

    3. The secular people of India stand up for it at all times, except the Modi supporters do not notice. You may keep saying you do not support him, but you always jump in when he is mentioned.

    I am aware that he has been voted back to power and also spoken about opportunistic Muslims in that context.

    Do you think Muslims should be given seperate, crescent shaped ballot papers? Preferably in green colour?

    Read above. It would be a good idea though if Hindutvawaadis were given paper trishools to go fly a kite.

    4. I was taking a sarcastic potshot at you. So, like the Taliban not to get it!

  11. Rizwan:

    I reiterate that Modi is too smart to realise he has no chance at national politics. This was not to appeal to Muslims, but to give out the impression that it just might work.

    Shahid Siddiqui knew the game as well.

    As for the rest, you are F&F know better!

  12. FV,

    QUOTE: "We have no choice but to depend on, and trust, the judiciary for extra-judicial occurrences."

    Try and see if mustering up courage to state the truth to a Jehadi works. It may at least pull you out of this self-imposed gloom of helplessness.

  13. FV,

    QUOTE: "I have not condoned the others, so what is your point?"

    I am yet to see ANYTHING written by you which talks about these "others" in the same tone of vicious, blind hatred that you reserve for Narendra Modi. Not that it will make any difference to things, but surely it will boost your credibility IN YOUR OWN EYES.

    I am just another nobody, I reiterate! But I can fill you in with past data on these dyed-in-blue sekulaar stalwarts and their honest, competent, sekulaar handling of riots... :)

    Next post? Or will it have to be next year, if at all? :)


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.