Sunday, December 16, 2007




A Controversial figure

(hey, don't let the turban fool you, this guy is not a Moslem, far from it, as a matter of fact)

(NOTE: "turban" formerly misspelled "tuban")

Why should we care about him? Read on. This guy knows a thing or two.

Narendra Dāmodardās Modī
(Gujarātī: નરેંદ્ર દામોદરદાસ મોદી, born 17 September 1950) has been the Chief Minister of the Indian state of Gujarat since 7 October 2001.

The above is from Narendra Modi - Wikipedia

The following is from Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures

"Islam is a primitive and brutish religion and unfortunately hence, only
primitive and
brutish methods work with islam"


"[A major step in curtailing Islamic dominance of a non-muslim territory] is a policy of active containment

"For example strict law enforcement
In Gujurat, Modi has tamed the muslims by periodically cutting off
electricity to muslim areas and getting them to sweat in the hot Indian sun
and giving the police a free hand to thrash muslims
Strict law enforcement has a side effect, each time the more jihadist
elements come out to protest, thrash them and the rest get tame Interestingly the only 2 areas in India free of islamic terrorism is Indian punjab, where sikhs solved the problem in 1947* and Gujurat where Modi used islamic methods on muslims"
*Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures
See "Indian Punjab was 33% muslim in 1947, the sikhs reduced it to 0% in 2
months. The sikhs used islamic method on muslims . . . " and following text
[emphasis (in bold) mine. lw]

The rest of this post, up to the COMMENTS section, has been taken from Narendra Modi - Wikipedia

Position on terrorism

On 18 July 2006, Modi delivered a speech criticizing Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh "for his reluctance to revive anti-terror legislations" such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He asked the Centre to empower states to invoke tougher laws in the wake of the blasts in Mumbai[13][14].Quoting Modi:

Terrorism is worse than a war. A terrorist has no rules. A terrorist decides when, how, where and whom to kill. India has lost more people in terror attacks than in its wars[13][14].

Gujarat violence

Main article: 2002 Gujarat violence

In February 2002, when Narendra Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat, violence broke out across the state claiming around a thousand lives. While some consider the violence to have been sporadic communal riots, others allege that the violence was directed against Muslim communities. An official estimate states that 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed, with 223 more missing.[15] The riots followed the Godhra Train Burning incident, where 58 Hindus were burnt alive on a train carriage, which was believed to have been set on fire by a Muslim mob[16][17]. A panel set up two and a half years after the incident claimed that the train burning was an accident. However, the panel was declared illegal by the Gujarat High Court[18][19][20].

Subsequent reports from several human rights organisations and political opponents have claimed that Modi and his ministers instructed Gujarat's police officers not to obstruct the attacking Hindu right wing mobs. The National Human Rights Commission criticised the government, pointing to "a comprehensive failure on the part of the State Government of Gujarat to control persistent violations of rights".[21]. In turn, several of these human rights groups have been criticized for biased reporting against Hindus and overt generalizations by the BJP. These claims have thus been rejected by Modi, and the BJP and its supporters have attacked the reports as being politically motivated, due to the fact they came out at the time of an election. A judicial commission constituted to examine allegations of Gujarat state administration's involvement in the riots of 2002 has twice so far said that there was no evidence "as yet" to implicate either Modi or his administration in the riots. However, recently the widow of ex-Congress MP Ahsan Jaafri filed a court case against Modi and his government[22][23] As an aftermath to the riots, there were calls for Modi to resign as chief minister of Gujarat.The opposition parties stalled the national parliament over the issue. Even allies of the BJP like DMK and TDP were asking for Modi's resignation[24]. Modi submitted his resignation to the Governor, Mr. Sundar Singh Bhandari, only after three months and recommended the dissolution of the 10th Gujarat Legislative Assembly[25]. In the subsequent elections, the BJP, led by Modi, won the elections by a huge margin.

Visa controversy

Narendra Modi applied for a diplomatic visa to visit the United States of America, to attend meetings organised by the Asian-American Hotel Owner's Association (AAHOA) on 20 March 2005. The visit was not official, but a private one at the request of the association. The majority of the Members of AAHOA are from Modi's home state of Gujarat. Following a House resolution introduced by Congressmen John Conyers and Joe Pitts criticizing Modi's actions as Chief Minister[26], the Bush administration revoked Modi's tourist visa, citing the provisions of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act and the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 that forbid foreign government officials who are "responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom" from being eligible for a visa. Modi was also denied a diplomatic visa, on the grounds that the purpose of his visit did not qualify for one.[27] Modi said that the US had "insulted" India by revoking his visa, and asked the Indian government to take up the matter with the US authorities.[28]

Reaction in India The matter brought a protest to the United States from the Indian government in Delhi who condemned the decision.[29]. The Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, who represents the political opposition to Modi's party, endorsed the protest, unequivocally expressing India's concern at the denial of a visa by the United States to the Gujarat Chief Minister. BJP party member L.K. Advani expressed his protests, saying "the U.S., by denying him a visa on a baseless ground, had linked him with India's self-respect and pride".[30]

Narendra Modi attacked the denial of his US visa by saying that he had never been charged with a crime or proven guilty in a court.[31]

Furthermore, Modi was not denied a visa by Singapore, Japan[32], England [33] Australia[34] or China. [11]

Mr. Modi participated in the event hosted by AAHOA via satellite.

Gujarat Fake Encounter Controversy

On June 15, 2004, Gujarat Police said they engaged four alleged members of the Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist outfit in armed confrontation, shooting them down in the process. The dead included a 19 year old college girl Ishrat Jahan. Top Gujarat officials said that "the terrorists had come to assassinate the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi" [35]. This claim was disputed by the family members of Ishrat Jahan who maintained that she was innocent and the incident was a fake enconter.[12]. Gujarat police later produced a diary, allegedly recovered from Ishrat's bag, showing her links with Lashkar-e-Toiba.[13]. The Gujarat opposition was of the view that the incident was staged in order to create public sympathy for Narendra Modi.[14]

However the BJP attacked the focus on Modi's responsibility, with party leader Venkaiah Naidu noting:

The Congress party has asked for his (Modi's) resignation. Did Home Minister Shivraj Patil resign when there was a fake encounter in Jammu and Kashmir?[36]

[End of Wikipedia text on Chief minister Modi]

by Leslie White

That Congressman John Conyers intoduced a House Resolutionl criticizing Modi's actions as Chief Minister does not surprise me. I do not know enough about Congressman Joe Pitts as to his motivation for abetting Rep. Conyers in this.

As to the Bush administration's revocation "of Modi's tourist visa, citing the provisions of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act and the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 that forbid foreign government officials who are 'responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom' from being eligible for a visa," that is a joke when officials of the Saudi government (among other Moslem governments) are freely extended visas although their government enforces a severely restrictive policy violating religious freedom, even extending to the display of religious symbols on personal jewelry and non-Islamic religious books. But that is the Saudis, and we all know the "most favored ally and friend" status they enjoy from the Bush administration and the State Department.

There is also the US administrations' bias against any violence extended to Molsems, even when reciprocal. There is not much outcry by the administration or State when atrocities, even mass murder, are committed by Moslems in the name of Islam. The murder of Israeli Jews is "regretted" by US administrations, always with the caveat of restraint being urged on the victim and warnings against reprisals.

by Leslie White

Reciprocal killings of innocents civilians can never be condoned. As my East Indian correspondent says, "Ethnic riots are wrong, no matter what the provocation." In this I concur.



No comments: