W’end Reading: Truth about Gujarat, Contacting Voters & an Unusual Call-Centre
1. DGP and BJP MP B P Singhal examines “The sting and the truth about Gujarat” including this Aaj Tak faux pas:
It was therefore truly shocking that on 25.8.2007, Aaj Tak harped on the same old refrain that “Modi did not call the army until three days had passed“. Even more outrageous was their insistance on this point. When Aaj Tak contacted me on phone to get my response, I told the anchor that the Godhra carnage took place on February 27, 2002, that the Hindu backlash commenced on February 28th and the Army was doing flag march on the forenoon of March 1st …………
He cut me short by saying that “this is exactly what we had said, no action was taken by Modi on 29th, 30th and 31st thus giving three clear days to the murderers ……..”
I had to cut him short by reminding him that the date 28th was 28th of February, 2002 and there was no 29th, 30th or 31st in that month.
2. A post from Ideas of Civilisation which questions whether politicians should have to contact voters…
3. …and a heart-warming and inspiring story about a cell centre being run by the blind in India.. The young men and women working here are truly a source of inspiration…
Brief excerpts from all the articles below.
*** Excerpts from “The sting and the truth about Gujarat”
…”IT was a well planned ‘genocide’”, “it was a ‘pogrom’”, “it was state sponsored ‘terrorism’”, is what they had said in screaming headlines day-after-day in 2002 in Delhi based ‘secular’ English dailies and the ‘secular’ electronic media. So complete was the Goebbelsian propaganda and so effective was the concealment of truth, that even the Supreme Court lost its judicial balance and without verifying what steps the Government of Gujarat had taken, it went on to write on page 72 of its judgement in the Best Bakery Case that, “The modern day Neros were looking elsewhere when Best Bakery and innocent children and helpless women were burning ………..”.
It was media power at its worst that caused this unwarranted outburst from the Supreme Court. All the Gujarat language dailies were giving truthful accounts which were at complete variance with the Delhi based media.
…For the present, however, it is imperative that certain facts are stated to prevent perpetuation of the lies propagated in 2002.
Fact 1: That ‘shoot at sight orders’ had been given by the Government on 28th itself. Being a former DGP and also a Member of Parliament at that time, I was personally in touch with the office of DGP Gujarat and the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. I was keen to tell them, (a) to call in the Army at once and (b) to issue ‘shoot at sight’ orders, to all officers of the rank of Sub-Inspectors and above. It was very comforting to learn that the Government of Gujarat had already taken both those steps by 2.30 P.M. on 28th February itself.
Fact 2: On the 28th February itself 10 Hindus had been shot dead and 16 had been wounded by police bullets.
Fact 3: On the next day i.e., 1st March an additional 24 Hindus were shot dead and 40 Hindus wounded by police bullets.
Fact 4: In the entire period of riots total Hindu casualties were 80 shot dead and 207 wounded by police bullets alone. (But no Delhi-based media showed any interest in giving coverage to these casualties.)
Fact 5: The Muslim counter attack, which commenced from March 1, 2002 was no less ferocious. In the first three days alone, out of a total 611 deaths, 101 were caused by police firing. Of these, 61 were Hindus and 40 were Muslims.
Fact 6: As on 5th of March, as many as 40,000 Hindus had to be given shelter in Relief Camps. (There was plenty of media coverage given to the plight of Muslims in relief camps but no Delhi-based media covered any Hindu relief camp.)
Fact 7: In answer to the Parliament questions, the present Union Government gave the figures of casualties during Post Godhra riots in 2002. There were Muslims killed 790, Hindus killed 254, wounded 2500, in all missing 223. Thus this shows that based on Godhra riots one Hindu was killed for every three Muslims killed as such it was a riot and not a genocide or any pogrom.
Such heavy casualties in riot control are unprecedented in the entire history of Indian Police. The figures of casualties caused by Police firing in the first three days alone indicate the ferocity of Police action…
With the Muslim counter attack commencing from 1st March onwards till the riots were quelled altogether, what took place in Gujarat was a full-fledged Hindu-Muslim riot. It was no genocide, or pogrom, or state terrorism against the Muslims of Gujarat.
…to say that Police was restrained as a measure of Government policy is completely belied by the sheer immensity of casualties caused by Police firings.
The insane ferocity and brutality with which Ram bhaktas including “innocent children and helpless women” were roasted alive at Godhra set the benchmark for the equally insane ferocity of the Hindu backlash and the ferocity of the Hindu backlash was followed by an equally insanely ferocious counter attack by the Muslims.
The Delhi-based media made out as though the whole of Gujarat was in flames. It concealed the fact that out of 18,600 villages, 240 municipal towns and 25 districts, the number of locations that were affected by riots was just 60. Not a single man-day was lost in the 200 odd industrial townships by any industry in Gujarat because of the riots. The examinations in schools, colleges and universities were conducted as per schedule during the period of riots.
***
*** Excerpts from the Ideas of Civilisation ***
…However I have been thinking since about why it is we expect politicians to do all the running. Essentially should it really be up to the parties to make contact or is there a need for the electorate to take more responsibility for making their views known?
The most obvious answer to give - and certainly the comment any politician who was ever put on the spot about this would make - is that councillors and parliamentarians should go out and engage with local people. Politicians are the elected representatives of a given area and so they need to be sure that the issues they back are supported by the people that choose them.
Except this isn’t entirely true - politicians stand on a manifesto which outlines the general position they will take. Beyond this they will usually side with their party, unless it is a hugely contentious issue that arouses a lot of anger in their constituency. And even then they might still vote with their party against local people’s wishes.
…
A parliamentarian will have at least 50,000 people in their constituency (depending on where the seat is and whether or not they are a member of Westminster or Holyrood) and in the case of list MSPs or MEPs the figure is much higher. Even so-called ‘local’ councillors will now represent at least 15,000 people because of the multi-member ward system.
Therefore take the situation that constituency MSPs are in, for example. If they represent 50,000 people this might equate to 30,000 households, often with more than one adult. That is a lot of potential opinions to represent and it’s unlikely there will be uniform agreement across the area on many issues. Furthermore for them to visit each of their constituents’ households they would have to go to twenty houses every single day from the day they were elected until the following election. And that’s every single day, without any time off.
Maybe this doesn’t seem like a lot. Perhaps they could even do 40 each day and have weekends off. Except that going around and speaking to people isn’t why they are elected - their job is to articulate and represent the views of local people in Parliament. As part of this they will sit on committees, attend debates and a range of other meetings.
…Therefore the idea that any politician could ever genuinely engage with all voters is simply nonsense, which is obviously why parties spend a lot of resources contacting people through other means e.g. telephone calls, emails, door-to-door volunteers but even then it’s a massive task and one never likely to reach 100% of the electorate.
And because of this good politicians (and even some of the bad ones) will do other things to speak to people and to allow themselves to be accessible. They will attend community meetings and events, many have websites with email addresses and of course there are surgery meetings where members of the public can attend and have their say on any matter.
…Perhaps the next time anyone complains that they haven’t heard from their local representative they should do something about it and pick up the phone or go online. They might not always get the response they’re looking for but at least they can’t complain about not having their say.
***
*** Excerpts from “Run by the blind, call centre is big success story” ***
…Mumbai: The telephones never stop jangling and the waves go on crashing on the promenade outside. Unperturbed, 20 visually challenged men and women occasionally sniff the salty sea breeze even as their nimble fingers dial telephone numbers. They murmur softly into the phones.
…The pilot project, initiated by NAB exactly one year ago, has been extremely successful.
“The Drashti Project was aimed at training the visually challenged in a way so as to make them tax payers and not tax consumers,” says Clarence Gomes, NAB executive director.
Gomes says for “a visually challenged person there is no such thing as day and night. We started this project to empower them and make them employable. And the call centre is doing that”.
…The pilot project overcame teething troubles in a short time and now every day “they troop in chattering at 10 a.m. and diligently work till 5 p.m. with a lunch break in between. Their commitment is something to be admired,” Chadha said.
“They listen to the details and simultaneously talk to the person without any mistakes. It’s remarkable.”
***
Related Posts:
Of Godhra and Gujarat - Part II
Do we deserve the politicians we get?
Checkout the website http://www.gujaratriots.com for more explosive investigation of the events!
Maybe you can link to it from your website.
Comment by Gujarat Riots | September 26, 2008
From a recent article by Uday Mahurkar in India Today:
Godhra carnage a conspiracy: Nanavati report
*** Excerpts ***
…What is the truth? One close look at the evidence with an open mind would indicate that the truth seems closer to what the Commission has said than what is being claimed by its critics.
…The investigation into the case was led by DIG Rakesh Asthana, now IG and Vadodara Police Commissioner, and conducted by Dy SP Noel Parmar, a Christian officer known for his efficiency.
In fact when Parmar was appointed as investigation officer of the case, many in the Sangh Parivar complained to the government saying that he was a Christian and could play mischief under pressure of the minority lobby. However, the government didn’t change him inspite of such towering pressure.
Both Asthana and Parmar are known as upright and efficient officers and unlikely to toe a purely political line. That’s perhaps the reason why the Nanavati Commission has relied heavily on Parmar’s investigation in concluding that the Godhra case was a conspiracy.
The report says that the conspiracy was hatched by Salim Panwala, Razak Kurkur and around half a dozen others including Maulvi Husssein Umarj who was the main conspirator. The motive was to take revenge on the demolishers of Babri Masjid.
A night before the incident, they held a meeting in Aman Guest House opposite the station owned by an accused Razak Kurkur. Then they brought 140 litres petrol from the petrol pump closeby in seven plastic cans. The petrol was brought in a green tempo by Imran Sheru, Hasan Charkha, Jabir Behra and Mehmood Khalid and few more persons who kept it in the room of guest house.
According to the report, their plan went haywire when they learnt that the Sabarmati Express was several hours late and would arrive only after dawn instead of midnight.
Since the train got late they changed the strategy. When the train was about to leave the station at around 8 next morning they spread the false alarm that a Muslim girl had been abducted into the train by the Ramsevaks.
As a result, hundreds of irate Muslims gathered to attack the train. The report says that the conspirators wanted this melee to camouflage their designs and therefore they spread the false alarm.
…The report concluded that the story of a Muslim girl’s abduction was falsely spread on that morning of the unfortunate incident.
This rumour was part of a conspiracy in order to collect a crowd to attack the train.
The 168 page report says that in the melee Sjaukat Laloo and Mohammed Latika cut open the rear vestibule of S-6 and entered the train from there and the opened the closed door to allow the other conspirators to move into the compartment with the petrol.
Hasan Lalu then threw a burning rag to start the blaze even as the mob continued to pelt stones to prevent the passengers from moving out of the burning train coach. This is by and large what Noel Parmar has said in his investigation.
***
Comment by B Shantanu | October 1, 2008