Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
This debate reminds me of how-many-angels-can-sit-on-the-head-of-a-pin ... FN
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
To my comment: However, in his latest message, Santosh is actually giving two figures - 2000 killed and 1200 killed. I do grant that my earlier figure of 1100 could well be wrong. But then given the final quote in his message, surely I am nearer the correct figure than Santosh is. Santosh Helekar responds: Just a small correction. The two figures I gave are 2000 killed and more than 1200, not just 1200. In terms of accuracy, I believe that 2000 is indeed more than 1200. Let us not quibble about figures, but concentrate on the main thrust of my message, which is to look at to whom compensation has been given. As I had said, the government figures have been on the basis of how many families received the monetary compensation. If we are to accept Santoshs figure, then surely it means that the families of around 800 victims have not received the compensation. I hope Santosh agrees to this contention. If he does, then should we not be asking what the human rights organizations are doing about it? U. G. Barad.
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
Santosh Helekar had earlier written: I have no obligation to accept what U. G. Barad claims to be the official estimate. There are many official estimates, each one different from the other and from Barad's official estimate. I for one is using the estimate of Human Rights Watch given in the following quote from 2012. I do not wish to thrust the estimates made by the Government of India and Government of Gujarat on anyone. Simultaneously I presume that Santosh does not wish to thrust the estimates of the Human Rights Watch on anyone. Now he says: But he seems to be continuing to insist by various means that his estimate is somehow more accurate than mine... However, in his latest message, Santosh is actually giving two figures 2000 killed and 1200 killed. I do grant that my earlier figure of 1100 could well be wrong. But then given the final quote in his message, surely I am nearer the correct figure than Santosh is. Irrespective of the figure, let me put forward a perspective. The victims of the riots have been given financial assistance to try and reduce the impact on their families. The government figures are based on the number of people to whom this assistance has been given. If we are to accept the HRW figures, then obviously a large number (around 800) of families of the victims have not received the assistance. Should not organizations like HRW devote their boundless energies of taking up their cases with the government and ensure that at least some justice is done to them? I find the behaviour of organizations like HRW to be very strange. Regarding Narendra Modis culpability. Perhaps Santosh would like to read these two articles: http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1685ptype=pgno=1 http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1688ptype=
Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
- Original Message - From: U. G. Barad dr.udayba...@gmail.com However, in his latest message, Santosh is actually giving two figures – 2000 killed and 1200 killed. I do grant that my earlier figure of 1100 could well be wrong. But then given the final quote in his message, surely I am nearer the correct figure than Santosh is. Just a small correction. The two figures I gave are 2000 killed and more than 1200, not just 1200. In terms of accuracy, I believe that 2000 is indeed more than 1200. Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
Santoshbab: 2000 Dr. Barad: No only 1100 Santoshbab: Barad's estimate of 1100 wrong, Dr. Barad: My estimate of 1100 is 'official'. 'Official' Ruling from CCGPO ( Court of CyberGoan Public Opinion), Hon. Xri Zuze Karrom Ali presiding: 11 years and all we have is Atya Patya? Whoever has been in charge of doing ghuspott is hereby awarded a lifetime of free food and accommodation at the Fort Aguada Sea View Residential Complex. Comment from an ordinary Janta manoos like me: If the estimate was just one (1), at least 20 years accommodation would be made available. Let us accept (provisionally) that the number is 1100. The preferred customer is owed a whole lot free nights at Fort Aguada. Let us give due credit where it is due. jc On Jun 29, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com wrote: The fact that Barad's estimate is not accepted by independent observers is also clear from the state department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012, which clearly states that the estimate is more than 1200 deaths, not the 1100 claimed by Barad
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
Santosh Helekar writes: I have no obligation to accept what U. G. Barad claims to be the official estimate. There are many official estimates, each one different from the other and from Barad's official estimate. I FOR ONE IS USING THE ESTIMATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH given in the following quote from 2012. As I was trying to get the data verified I was stunned to read that Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been criticized very heavily by: 1) National governments, 2) Other NGOs, 3) Its founder and former Chairman Robert L. Bernstein, and 4) The media. HRW is also accused of following accusations: 1) Allegations of poor research and inaccuracy; 2) Allegations of selection bias; 3) Allegations of ideological bias; 4) Criticism of fund-raising policies; 5) Accusations of bias for or against particular nations; 6) Allegations of bias concerning Latin America; 6) Allegations of bias concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict; 7) Criticism of fund raising in Saudi Arabia; 8) Allegations of anti-Israel bias; 9) Allegations of bias concerning Africa; and above all is 10) Criticism from founder and former chairman, Robert Bernstein. Members of Goanet can read more on HRW at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch Under such criticisms and heavy accusations how can anyone ever believe the authenticity of facts and figures reported by HRW? Having written what I have written above, I do not wish to thrust my opinion about authenticity of HRW on any one. Simultaneously, I presume that Santosh and likeminded does not wish to thrust the opinions and authenticity of facts and figures reported by Human Rights Watch on anyone. Best regards, U. G. Barad
Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
On Jun 26, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com QUOTE: Authorities in India’s Gujarat state are subverting justice, protecting perpetrators, and intimidating those promoting accountability 10 years after the anti-Muslim riots that killed nearly 2,000 people, Human Rights Watch said today. The state government has resisted Supreme Court orders to prosecute those responsible for the carnage and has failed to provide most survivors with compensation. COMMENT: My two kawdi worth. 1: the number of folks killed may vary according to who is counting but the fact remains that many people were killed and Gorrment machinery was used to frustrate a proper investigation of the crime. 2: the stated 'warning': BJP will bring up the 1984 anti-Sikh riot deaths if the Congress proceeds with making an issue of Godhra, is sad. 3: the above to points do NOT dilute my position that Shekhar Gupta was quite (and irritatingly so) unprofessional as a journalist. 4: Mr. Gupta, the country watches what goes on on TV. Respect the office of the CM of Goa, whether you respect his political views or not. 5: The uncouth behaviour on TV becomes a pointer to many people that One can come to Goa and behave badly in Goa, where 'Men are drunk and Women are loose'. They are good for being Cooks and Butlers anyway. 6: And why don't we just Squat anywhere, Grab a Dabolim here or there and do as 'we' please? ps: in what I see as a sad Commentary of Goa, we had the spectacle of reading Chandrakant Keni advocating the expulsion from Goa of anyone who applies/obtains Portuguese nationality and hearing Bal Thackray preaching in Marathi that Goans should throw out all non-Goans from Goa. Wonder what he was doing there (Azad Maidan) anyway? jc
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
Dr Barad: I've no other choice than to say, 'the law presumes all innocent of crime(s) until proven guilty!' Response: 1.Going by your response, anyone not found guilty by the Courts is deemed 'innocent'. Technically this is the correct legal position. However we live in a world which is governed not merely by legal technicalities but also by moral, ethical, social and cultural values. If one were to go by your view, then a vsst majority of politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen,and others who are corrupt or have committed crimes, cheated, looted etc but have not been convicted by a Court are all 'innocent'. If you feel this way then the members of the erstwhile Congress government in Goa can be deemed to be innocent.Do you agree? 2. regarding the subversion of justice in Gujarat, are you aware that over 10 cases including the famous Best Bakery and Bilkis Bano case were shifted out of Gujarat by the SC because of the derailment of justice by the Gujarat govt. Are you aware that senior police and IAS officials who did not toe Modi's line have been hounded, superceded and victimised for carrying out their responsibilities? Are you aware that the SC has time and again passed severe strictures against the Gujarat govt for trying to derail justice? Are you aware that a senior member of Modi's cabinet has been sentenced to Life imprisonment for her role in the violence? Are you aware that Haren Pandhya, the Home Minister in Modi's government who testified before a Citizens Tribunal, Modi's role in the violence was shot dead and that his widow and father hold Modi responsible? Are you aware that a number of senior IPS Police officials have been arrested and are being prosecuted for extra-judicial kllings under the watch of Amit Shah and Modi? Here are some extracts from the media on Modi's role: Quote: The Supreme Court's amicus curiae in the Zakia Jafri case concluded that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi can be proceeded against for various offences during the 2002 riots, including promoting enmity among different groups. The amicus was of the view that in itself Mr. Modi's alleged statement was an offence under the law and he could be prosecuted under various Sections of the IPC: “In my opinion, the offences which can be made out against Shri Modi, at this prima facie stage, are offences, inter alia, under Sections 153 A (1) (a) (b) (statements promoting enmity between communities), 153B(1) (c) (imputations and assertions prejudicial to national interest), 166 (public servant disobeying a direction of the law with intent to cause injury) and 505 (2) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/proceed-against-modi-for-gujarat-riots-amicus/article3393808.ece In a scathing indictment of the Modi Government, the Gujarat High Court had on February 8 termed the 2002 riots as “negligence of the State” and censured it for “inaction”, holding that it had resulted in an “anarchic” situation. The court passed strictures against the Government while ordering it to pay for the restoration of 500 odd religious structures destroyed during the riots on a petition by Islamic Relief Committee of Gujarat. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/government-and-policy/gujarat-hc-issues-contempt-notice-to-modi-govt-in-2002-riots-case/article2895933.ece In a major blow to the Narendra Modi government, the Gujarat High Court today censured it for inaction and negligence during the 2002 post-Godhra riots, holding that this had resulted in an anarchic situation. Passing strictures against the state government, the court said, Gujarat Government's inadequate response and inaction (to contain the riots) resulted in an anarchic situation which continued unabated for days on. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1647366/report-gujarat-riots-modi-s-inaction-resulted-in-anarchic-situation-says-hc *Muslims are repeating history. Their main aim is not to destroy maximum possible Hindu Temples, but to destroy Hindu Religion and Hindu culture and to rape Hindu ladies ... If Hindus won't awake with these incidents, Hindu religion and Hindu culture would be finished ... Hindu Youth, now it is time to test your courage and strength. Prepare bombs, Dharias, Sticks, prepare bows to throw burning missiles. Leave defensive policy and attack now. Arise to avenge insult to our temples and ladies, and rush to Muslim areas with weapons and finish them.* THOSE FAMILIAR with the highly charged communal rhetoric of the *Sangh Parivar* will find nothing startling or new in the above quote. The reason for its recall is to illustrate that its genesis shares little with Godhra 2002 and its bloody aftermath, though the sentiment evoked is very much part of the *jihadi* Hindutva prescribed by the *Sangh Parivar* and its affiliates. These lines, in fact, are taken from a leaflet titled Awake Hindus — Awake Youths, distributed by the Hindu Sangram Samiti during and after the communal riots in Gujarat
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
I dont understand what Santosh Santosh Helekar get by quoting false figure of 2000 being killed in the post-Godhra riot! The number of persons being killed as reported officially by the government in court of law is: around 1100, of which about 20 - 25 % Hindus and that many Hindus died in police firing! Santosh could also read articles on SIT report which has written that there is no evidence that the government of Narendra Modi was involved in the riots, except to try and control it, as is mandated of any government. The SIT also found that the government took adequate actions as it could to control the riots! Let me conclude this brief explanation by saying, I agree to disagree with the DEDUCTIVE LOGIC arrived at by Santosh in his P.S.BTW! Best regards, U. G. Barad On Mon, 24 Jun Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com wrote: I could not find an answer to my question in Kishwar's multi-part article, regarding Modi's culpability in the killing of 2000 innocent people by acts of commission and/or omission. I only found the usual political justifications and post-hoc rationalizations by Kishwar. Cheers, Santosh. P.S. BTW, I have absolutely no problem believing that U. G. Barad is sincere in his condemnation of killing of innocent people. Questioning whether he condones it, and by doing so implying that he does, is one of the most disgusting political tactics that I have seen being repeatedly employed in this forum against people who just happen to have a different opinion.
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
Santosh Helekar: I have absolutely no problem believing that U. G. Barad is sincere in his condemnation of killing of innocent people. Response: Can one condemn the killing of innocent people but not the perpetrator of such crimes? Regards, Marshall
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
Marshall Mendonza writes: Going by your response, anyone not found guilty by the Courts is deemed 'innocent'. Technically this is the correct legal position. However we live in a world which is governed not merely by legal technicalities but also by moral, ethical, social and cultural values. Now can we apply these criteria in case of the anti-Sikh riots of 1984? Best regards, U. G. Barad.
Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
I have no obligation to accept what U. G. Barad claims to be the official estimate. There are many official estimates, each one different from the other and from Barad's official estimate. I for one is using the estimate of Human Rights Watch given in the following quote from 2012: QUOTE Authorities in India’s Gujarat state are subverting justice, protecting perpetrators, and intimidating those promoting accountability 10 years after the anti-Muslim riots that killed nearly 2,000 people, Human Rights Watch said today. The state government has resisted Supreme Court orders to prosecute those responsible for the carnage and has failed to provide most survivors with compensation. UNQUOTE Please see: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india-decade-gujarat-justice-incomplete I have read articles on the SIT report. The SIT report provides plenty of evidence that Modi is culpable in the killing of 2000 innocent human beings by acts of commission and/or omission. Here are some quotes from the SIT report that indicate this fact. QUOTE As many as 32 allegations were probed into during this preliminary inquiry. These related to several acts of omission and commission by the state government and its functionaries, including the chief minister. A few of these alone were in fact substantiated. UNQOTE .SIT Report, Concluding statements QUOTE In spite of the fact that ghastly and violent attacks had taken place on Muslims at Gulberg Society and elsewhere, the reaction of the government was not the type that would have been expected by anyone. The chief minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. UNQUOTE .SIT Report, page 69 QUOTE The Gujarat government has reportedly destroyed the police wireless communication of the period pertaining to the riotsNo records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept. UNQUOTE ..SIT Report, page 13 of Chairman's comments QUOTE It appears that the political affiliation of the advocates did weigh with the government for the appointment of public prosecutors.” (Page 77) The SIT chairman further comments that “it has been found that a few of the past appointees were in fact politically connected, either to the ruling party or organisations sympathetic to it.” UNQOTE .SIT Report, Page 10 of Chairman’s comments Among the 9 versions of a crucial episode that the SIT report has in it, here is one: QUOTE Pandya appeared and deposed before the tribunal on 13 May 2002, on condition of anonymity, that he had attended a meeting on 27 February 2002 night at the residence of Modi in which the latter had made it clear that there should be a backlash from the Hindus on the next day and the police should not come in their way. UNQUOTE ..SIT Report, Page 18 Cheers, Santosh From: U. G. Barad dr.udayba...@gmail.com I don’t understand what ‘Santosh’ Santosh Helekar get by quoting false figure of 2000 being killed in the post-Godhra riot! The number of persons being killed as reported officially by the government in court of law is: around 1100, of which about 20 - 25 % Hindus and that many Hindus died in police firing! Santosh could also read articles on SIT report which has written that there is no evidence that the government of Narendra Modi was involved in the riots, except to try and control it, as is mandated of any government. The SIT also found that the government took adequate actions as it could to control the riots! Let me conclude this brief explanation by saying, ‘I agree to disagree with the DEDUCTIVE LOGIC arrived at by Santosh in his P.S.BTW!’ Best regards, U. G. Barad
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
Marshall Mendonca has laid out a superb case covering all salient points concerning Mr. Modi's involvement in the Gujarat Riots and his inaction in dealing with them in a states manly and amicable way. Marshall has detailed every relevant point exposing Mr. Modi's inactions and cover-ups in speedily dealing with efforts to stop the riots or his unwillingness to rise to the occasion which can only be perceived as his condoning these barbaric acts. Had the riots spilled out to other states, then India would have a National disaster on its hands. It is therefore with the feeling of true Nationalism that Goa and Goans should ensure that Mr. Modi and any such leaders who harbour Hindutav sentiments not be proposed or nominated or supported in any way to become a National leader. Such persons will only bring death and destruction to India and plunge it into chaos from which it may never recover. Religion has its place in human society but not when dealing with affairs of state, the rights of all the people of India are to be held sacred and be protected so that every Indian feels that his Government is for him or her and has his/her interest in mind being fair and just irrespective of Cast Creed, social status, or any other division which impedes the proper representation of everyone. Marshall please keep up the good work in educating us so that we are not hoodwinked by our state representatives who may use the opportunity to possibly catapult themselves into the limelight on the coattails of others. Manuel ( Eddie) Tavares.
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
Santosh Helekar writes: I have no obligation to accept what U. G. Barad claims to be the official estimate. There are many official estimates, each one different from the other and from Barad's official estimate. I for one is using the estimate of Human Rights Watch given in the following quote from 2012. I do not wish to thrust the estimates made by the Government of India and Government of Gujarat on anyone. Simultaneously I presume that Santosh does not wish to thrust the estimates of the Human Rights Watch on anyone. But let us first look only to figures! The victims of the riots have been given financial assistance to try and reduce the impact on their families. The government figures are based on the number of people to whom this assistance has been given. If we are to accept the HRW figures, then obviously a large number (around 800) of families of the victims have not received the assistance. Should not organizations like HRW devote their boundless energies of taking up their cases with the government and ensure that at least some justice is done to them? I find the behavior of organizations like HRW to be very strange! Regarding Narendra Modis culpability. Perhaps Santosh would like to read these two articles: http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1685ptype=pgno=1 http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1688ptype= Best regards, U. G. Barad
Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
I could not find an answer to my question in Kishwar's multi-part article, regarding Modi's culpability in the killing of 2000 innocent people by acts of commission and/or omission. I only found the usual political justifications and post-hoc rationalizations by Kishwar. Cheers, Santosh P.S. BTW, I have absolutely no problem believing that U. G. Barad is sincere in his condemnation of killing of innocent people. Questioning whether he condones it, and by doing so implying that he does, is one of the most disgusting political tactics that I have seen being repeatedly employed in this forum against people who just happen to have a different opinion. - Original Message - U. G. Barad dr.udayba...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps Shekar Gupta has read the Kishwar articles, which does provide they answers to the questions that Santosh wanted to ask, and so he did not ask them. ... As usual tactic, Marshall introduced new topic in this conversation on the unprofessionalism (or otherwise) of Shekar Gupta! His second question to me is: “Does he condone the violence and subsequent hijacking of justice?” Can any sane person condone the unnecessary death of even one person anywhere in the world? Re the ‘hijacking of justice’, this is a loaded statement, and is actually a sort of condemnation of the Supreme Court which has appointed its own investigation team, etc.
Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
Having watched Shekar Gupta's earlier interviews, I tend to agree with JC that Gupta interrupt too often. At one moment, Manohar Parrikar told me, let me complete. At least twice, Gupta completed the sentence for Parrikar, which is odd. Gupta may not sound as a professional bully but he fell short of class. I disagree with Barad that Parrikar wasn't articulate well in English. Parrikar semed to have conveyed his message well. Gupta's unnecessary intejections shouldn't be interpreted as his attempt to put words in Parrikar's mouth. I didn't find the interview soft but rather moderate. The format of the show doesn't allow for the interview to be made hard. It's different in a sit-down interview, as Karan Thapar showed with Narendra Modi on his show. Modi could feel the heat and was ill-at-ease and he showed his temparament and, maybe, even arrogance by walking off the set. However, uncomfortable the subject is answering questions he or she can always find the escapist route by saying, no comment or, at least, dodging it. In contrast, Parrikar played along well. Gupta allowed him enough elbow room to express his way of governance. He may have spoken from his heart when he said the Modi's action in not dealing forthright with the 2002 riots was an administrative failure and shouldn't be taken as a bold statement. Parrikar obviously found it hard to defend Modi on this issue and if he had done so he could come out as a 'non-secular' person. In the interview Parrikar, though admitting he's a true Hindu, remarked that his politics is based on secularism. I may invite harsh reactions whether dressing habits matter or if one should look at his or her political ability when I say that he would have made Parrikar look better if he had tucked the shirt it. As best I could see, Parrikar was wearing had a curved bottom cut. To the best of my understanding, such a shirt is normally tucked in unlike a bottom square cut shirt which is worn out but can be tucked in too. In this context, let me give an example of a recent uproar in the Australian media regarding the dress habit of PM Julia Gillard. On a panel discussion on political sexism on radio, one of the panellists, Grace Gillier, also a columnist and industrial consultant, remarked that it's inappropriate for the PM to be showing her cleavage in parliament. This sparked a media storm, some attacking Gillier as a rightist, since the PM belongs to the Labour party, and some said that it doesn't what how the PM dresses as long as she does her job well. I think Gillier made a point. In the same context, the Premier of Ontario Kathleenn Wynne's fashion sense and wardrobe has also come into focus. As someone who was seen often in pantsuits, Wynne is said to have turn from geek-to-cheek. The columnist, Christina Blizzard, of the Toronto Sun, said Wynne slowly emerging from a pantsuit chrysalis. Bliazzard, said, Now, as premier, keen-eyed observers have noted she’s shown up in short skirts, sleeveless tops and softer colours. The issue of Wynne's dressing came up because of a memo sent out to Wynne's staffers. The dress code, among other things, says, -- Casual dresses and skirts with appropriate hemlines are acceptable. --Dresses that are sleeveless but do not leave the shoulders bare are acceptable. ---Miniskirts/dresses and dresses with spaghetti straps are not permitted. I have mention both Gillard and Wynne to illustrate my point regarding what I said about Parrikar who, I have said on other forums, dresses casually, with his regular chappals, even for formal functions. Eugene Correia
Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:02 AM, Eugene Correia eugene.corr...@gmail.com wrote: I tend to agree with JC COMMENT: What exactly is happening? When is that 'biggesht' moon likely to reappear? Say what? jc agreeing with Barad and Eugene Correia with JC .while Santosh Helekar playing on the same side as Marshall Mendonza? Engine Room, Where is my Chai? jc
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
FN: Is there a Part II to this? Response: That is what it appears from the title to the video upload http://www.ndtv.com/search?q=walk+the+talk Regards, Marshall
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
On above subject line, four Goanet members namely Marshall Mendonza, Jose Colaco, Santosh Helekar and Augusto Pinto expressed their own views. I thought of answering all those responses in one message. My comments on the interview were relating to the link that I had sent, and not the full interview. And the link is sent from the NDTV website, and it is the only part of the interview that they have posted as a separate video. Thus, I presume NDTV thinks that it is probably the most important part! Marshall Mendoza has an opinion of Shekar Gupta which is different from mine. We will agree to disagree! J Colaco has given a response to Marhsall, with which I substantially agree! As usual tactic, Marshall introduced new topic in this conversation on the unprofessionalism (or otherwise) of Shekar Gupta! His second question to me is: Does he condone the violence and subsequent hijacking of justice? Can any sane person condone the unnecessary death of even one person anywhere in the world? Re the hijacking of justice, this is a loaded statement, and is actually a sort of condemnation of the Supreme Court which has appointed its own investigation team, etc. Re: What is Dr Barad's view on the Gujarat 2002 pogrom. Does he accept that Narendra Modi is innocent? I trust Marhsall is aware of the recent articles of Madhu Kishwar on her visits to Gujarat to make her own study on the subject of the post-Godhra riots and the situation of the Muslims in Gujarat since 2002. These are available at: http://www.manushi.in/articleList.php Marshall must be aware that in 2005 Narendra Modi was honored for leading the best-governed state in India by the Congress Party-connected Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. The foundations trustees include the current Congress Party president Sonia Gandhi, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister P. Chidambaram. As far as the cases stand today, it is clear that Narendra Modis only fault can be termed as that the riots happened in his term as chief minister! Santosh Helekar has pitched in with this comment: My own impression of this interview is that Mr. Gupta was not tough enough on Mr. Parrikar. The question should have been whether Modi was culpable in the killing of 2000 innocent human beings or not, by an act of commission or omission? That is the only question that matters in respect of Modi, in my opinion. The answer in my opinion is yes. My guess is that Parrikar would have refused to answer that question? Augusto Pinto expressed: Personally, I think that Gupta has done an excellent job. For instance while I would agree with Santosh that he was not too persistent, Gupta's style is quite relaxed and un-aggressive. If he were to suddenly change it he may have offended his subject, who has come prepared for this style of an interview. If it was a Karan Thapar for instance then Parrikar could have been expected to be put into a spot and he may not have agreed to an interview in the first place. However in a skillful way, Gupta allowed Parrikar to come out with many frank and controversial admissions. This is why I think he was quite successful. Perhaps Shekar Gupta has read the Kishwar articles, which does provide the answers to the questions that Santosh wanted to ask, and so he did not ask them. As far as the killing of 2000 innocent people is concerned, the official government figure is around 1100, of which a quarter of them were Hindus. And of the Hindus, a large number were killed in police firing. This too is mentioned by Kishwar in one of her articles. Of course, as I had said earlier, the killing of even one innocent person has to be condemned, which I do. And I am sure everyone on this list does too. Best regards, U. G. Barad
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
In his partial agreement with my comment, Jose Colaco said: Mr Shekar Gupta, when you ask a question of a person, please allow the person to respond. It was a pain to listen to you interrupt Mr. Parrikar in mid-sentence. Dr. Barad is right. You came across in this interview as an arrogant and unprofessional bully. You are fortunate that our CM did not walk out on you. The unprofessionalism of Shekar Gupta can be further seen in the editorial that he wrote on the interview. The editorial is enclosed. Clearly, Shekar seems to be desperate to find out someone who he thinks supports his view so as to put Narendra Modi on the mat. It does not matter to him whether his views are right or wrong. Best regards, U. G. Barad. Yes, 2002 Editorial, The Indian Express, June 20, 2013 Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/yes-2002/1132225/0 Parrikar's willingness to revisit Gujarat 2002 could be the beginning of a much delayed conversation Manohar Parikar's remarks on Narendra Modi's role in Gujarat 2002 must be seen in the context of a very long silence. While Gujarat 2002 has been one of the most shameful and most publicised events in recent political history, all through the last 11 years, Modi has steadfastly refused to talk about or answer questions on the alleged complicity of his government in the communal violence. Now the Goa chief minister's willingness to engage with the questions of 2002, in howsoever limited a manner, in the course of an interview on NDTV's Walk the Talk programme, reported in this paper, is significant. Parrikar is not just a BJP leader. In a party deeply divided over Modi's rise, the chief minister, who courted and won an inclusive mandate in his own state, has firmly cast himself in the role of a Modi supporter. It was Parrikar who, at the BJP's national executive in Goa, visibly lobbied for Modi's promotion as chief of the election campaign committee. When he says, therefore, that the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat were a clear-cut case of administrative failure and a bad example of governance, it could even be decoded as a sign that Modi's silence on 2002 may no longer be as unyielding as it has been. Of course, Parrikar's comments on 2002 were not open-ended. They can be read as a defence of Modi. In the same interview, he went on to say that Modi may not have had that kind of grip on the administration (then) as he has now. It is also significant that even this limited engagement with 2002, after all these years, comes from a Modi supporter not from Modi. And that, with general elections round the corner, its timing is politically canny. Yet, with all its incompleteness and holding back, Parrikar's intervention could mark the broaching of a long delayed conversation. In the countdown to 2014, Gujarat 2002 has returned as a political faultline. Nitish Kumar's walkout from the NDA, pointing to Modi's promotion in the BJP, has placed the issue centrestage. For all of Modi's own determination to change the subject, and to promote himself as a man of development, as the party's national campaign chief he may find it more difficult to evade the questions he has turned his back on as chief minister of Gujarat. Parrikar's comments may only be a tactical acknowledgement of that reality. But for the BJP and for Modi, they also offer an opening for a fuller, more honest confrontation with a past that will not go away.
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
U. G. Barad.: In his partial agreement with my comment, Jose Colaco said: ?Mr Shekar Gupta, when you ask a question of? a person, please allow the person to respond. It was a pain to listen to you interrupt Mr. Parrikar in mid-sentence. Dr. Barad is right. You came across in this interview as an arrogant and unprofessional bully. You are fortunate that our CM did not walk out on you.? The unprofessionalism of Shekar Gupta can be further seen in the editorial that he wrote on the interview.? The editorial is enclosed.? Clearly, Shekar seems to be desperate to find out someone who he thinks supports his view so as to put Narendra Modi on the mat.? It does not matter to him whether his views are right or wrong. Response: 1. One needs to view the entire interview instead of just a 2-3 minutes clipping before jumping to any hasty conclusions.Here is the entire interview: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/walk-the-talk/walk-the-talk-with-manohar-parrikar-part-i/280253 2. Shekhar Gupta is one of the most balanced, fair, and incisive journalist in India and widely respected for his views. 3. Shekhar Gupta conducted a fairly good interview where he tried to pin down Parrikar who tried to run with the hares while hunting with the hounds by calling the Gujarat pogrom an administrative failure while trying to give Narendra Modi a clean chit. 4. What is Dr Barad's view on the Gujarat 2002 pogrom. Does he accept that Narendra Modi is innocent? Does he condone the violence and subsequent hijacking of justice? Regards, Marshall
Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
On 23 June 2013 08:22, Marshall Mendonza (MM) wrote (My comments as JC): MM1: One needs to view the entire interview instead of just a 2-3 minutes clipping before jumping to any hasty conclusions. JC1: Not very sure how MM deciphered (there) what someone else watched (here). Is he (also) watching what someone else is watching ? --- MM 2. Shekhar Gupta is one of the most balanced, fair, and incisive journalist in India and widely respected for his views. JC 2: That may or may not be true as far as the majority of viewers are concerned (I don't know what the majority believes) but it certainly is MM's point of view. That having been noted, he came across as being Boorish and Arrogant -- MM 3. Shekhar Gupta conducted a fairly good interview where he tried to pin down Parrikar who tried to run with the hares while hunting with the hounds by calling the Gujarat pogrom an administrative failure while trying to give Narendra Modi a clean chit. JC 3: MM says that Parrikar was trying to give Modi a clean chit, the Newslady at NDTV is saying just the opposite. I believe MM because he too is fair and balanced ! In that interview, I believe Shekhar Gupta behaved like many Indians behave (even abroad). They just interrupt and do not allow the other person to complete the sentence. It is disgusting to say the least. I do not remember this as being the norm in Goa. With libation and 'librashun', I suppose, this is the new Normal. Baba Shekhar Gupta, IF you already know all the answers, why bother with the pretense of an interview? Just put on your prosecutorial robes and try 'pin' the accused, na! You don't need this as an excuse to some and have some Caju Feni in Goa, do you? jc Wondering if Parrikar will pull a 'Sardinha' on Modi. That is what I might consider to be 'fair and balanced'.
Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
On 23 June 2013 17:52, Marshall Mendonza mmendonz...@gmail.com wrote: One needs to view the entire interview instead of just a 2-3 minutes clipping before jumping to any hasty conclusions.Here is the entire interview: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/walk-the-talk/walk-the-talk-with-manohar-parrikar-part-i/280253 Is there a Part II to this? FN FN +91-832-2409490 or +91-9822122436 f...@goa-india.org
Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
My own impression of this interview is that Mr. Gupta was not tough enough on Mr. Parrikar. The question should have been whether Modi was culpable in the killing of 2000 innocent human beings or not, by an act of commission or omission? That is the only question that matters in respect of Modi, in my opinion. The answer in my opinion is yes. My guess is that Parrikar would have refused to answer that question. Cheers, Santosh - Original Message - From: J. Colaco jc cola...@gmail.com . Baba Shekhar Gupta, IF you already know all the answers, why bother with the pretense of an interview? Just put on your prosecutorial robes and try 'pin' the accused, na! You don't need this as an excuse to some and have some Caju Feni in Goa, do you? jc Wondering if Parrikar will pull a 'Sardinha' on Modi. That is what I might consider to be 'fair and balanced'.
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
In reply to Marshall's 4th response, should I say, 'If the Congress leadership were to dig into the BJP's role in fomenting the 2002 Gujarat pogrom, there is no doubt the BJP would retaliate by clamoring for an inquiry into the Congress Party's own culpability in the 1984 anti-Sikh massacre.' Under such situations, I've no other choice than to say, 'the law presumes all innocent of crime(s) until proven guilty!' This I'm forced to say because in cases: 1984 anti-Sikh massacre and 2002 Gujarat pogrom, Indian judiciary has not reached to final conclusion!! If above lines don't answer your 'Ifs Buts', let me say, 'the two principal parties in the world's most populous democracy that is India might have a secret understanding to bury each other's foul communal crimes!' And their presumed understandings have left us (me and you included!) play a funny game called: oppose/support; criticize/commend; accuse/counter accuse; and other such time-pass games.' Lastly Marshal, I think, your responses 1 to 3 are answered by Jose Colaco, because, the first Para (I used in my message) was a quote from Jose Colaco's response to me! Best regards, U. G. Barad On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 Marshall Mendonza mmendonz...@gmail.com wrote: U. G. Barad.: In his partial agreement with my comment, Jose Colaco said: 'Mr Shekar Gupta, when you ask a question of a person, please allow the person to respond. It was a pain to listen to you interrupt Mr. Parrikar in mid-sentence. Dr. Barad is right. You came across in this interview as an arrogant and unprofessional bully. You are fortunate that our CM did not walk out on you. The unprofessionalism of Shekar Gupta can be further seen in the editorial that he wrote on the interview. The editorial is enclosed. Clearly, Shekar seems to be desperate to find out someone who he thinks supports his view so as to put Narendra Modi on the mat. It does not matter to him whether his views are right or wrong. Response: 1. One needs to view the entire interview instead of just a 2-3 minutes clipping before jumping to any hasty conclusions. Here is the entire interview: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/walk-the-talk/walk-the-talk-with-manohar-pa rrikar-part-i/280253 2. Shekhar Gupta is one of the most balanced, fair, and incisive journalist in India and widely respected for his views. 3. Shekhar Gupta conducted a fairly good interview where he tried to pin down Parrikar who tried to run with the hares while hunting with the hounds by calling the Gujarat pogrom an administrative failure while trying to give Narendra Modi a clean chit. 4. What is Dr Barad's view on the Gujarat 2002 pogrom. Does he accept that Narendra Modi is innocent? Does he condone the violence and subsequent hijacking of justice? Regards, Marshall
[Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
This is with reference to this video: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/bjp-chief-minister-takes-on-modi-over- gujarat-riots/279956?pfrom=home-lateststories 2mins 30secs It is titled BJP chief minister takes on Modi over Gujarat riots. The title clearly gives the channels summary of what was said by Manohar Parikar, the BJP chief minister of Goa. My reactions on the video. Unfortunately, Manohar Parikar could not articulate well in English and so got sort of trapped. At the same time, the intent of what Manohar Parikar wanted to convey is clear, when he said: But not defending it does not mean you put the blame on a particular person. The very sad part of the whole thing is the attempt made by Shekar Gupta to put words in Parikar,s mouth, and take advantage of the poor articulation by Manohar Parikar. This was very unprofessional on part of Shekar Gupta. Some six-seven years ago, I have read Shekar Gupta write that the use, for political purposes, of the failure of the NDA government to properly deal with the hijacking of the plane from Nepal had already gone past the use-by date. For him, of course, the political use of the post-Godhra riots will always be eternal. The only way the secular, mainstream, English media can demonize the whole Hindutva movement is to indulge in falsehoods, and that too knowingly. In a very recent article titled, Why Modi is a test case for the Indian medias objectivity, Rajdeep Sardesai writes: Journalism in its purest form must remain the pursuit of truth shorn of ideological agendas. Clearly, Shekar Gupta has failed this test. And the way the interview has been projected in the media, so has the rest of the media. But then they have always failed the test. So, in that case, they are at least being consistent.
Re: [Goanet] Parikar and an unprofessional Shekar Gupta
I do not agree with UG Barad that Manohar Parrikar 'could not articulate well in English ' and that he 'got sort of trapped'. Two other comments: (1): Mr Parrikar did NOT slam Mr. Modi as the female news person stated. (2): Mr Shekar Gupta, when you ask a question of a person, please allow the person to respond. It was a pain to listen to you interrupt Mr. Parrikar in mid-sentence. Dr. Barad is right. You came across in this interview as an arrogant and unprofessional bully. You are fortunate that our CM did not walk out on you. Request: Please do not return to Goa unless you fix your manners. NUTS!! jc On Jun 22, 2013, at 8:10 AM, U. G. Barad dr.udayba...@gmail.com wrote: This is with reference to this video: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/bjp-chief-minister-takes-on-modi-over- gujarat-riots/279956?pfrom=home-lateststories 2mins 30secs It is titled “BJP chief minister takes on Modi over Gujarat riots”. The title clearly gives the channel’s summary of what was said by Manohar Parikar, the BJP chief minister of Goa. My reactions on the video. Unfortunately, Manohar Parikar could not articulate well in English and so got sort of trapped. At the same time, the intent of what Manohar Parikar wanted to convey is clear, when he said: “But not defending it does not mean you put the blame on a particular person.” The very sad part of the whole thing is the attempt made by Shekar Gupta to put words in Parikar,s mouth, and take advantage of the poor articulation by Manohar Parikar. This was very unprofessional on part of Shekar Gupta. Some six-seven years ago, I have read Shekar Gupta write that the use, for political purposes, of the failure of the NDA government to properly deal with the hijacking of the plane from Nepal had already gone past the use-by date. For him, of course, the political use of the post-Godhra riots will always be eternal. The only way the secular, mainstream, English media can demonize the whole Hindutva movement is to indulge in falsehoods, and that too knowingly. In a very recent article titled, “Why Modi is a test case for the Indian media’s objectivity”, Rajdeep Sardesai writes: “Journalism in its purest form must remain the pursuit of truth shorn of ideological agendas.” Clearly, Shekar Gupta has failed this test. And the way the interview has been projected in the media, so has the rest of the media. But then they have always failed the test. So, in that case, they are at least being consistent.
