Friday, December 27, 2013

Let's the truth be revealed

The detention of Indian consular employee Devyani Khobragade in New York making hue and cry in India. Devyani Khobragade alleged that she hired Sangeeta Richard, 42 an Indian national from the state of Kerala, in November 2012 as a nanny and domestic servant, and arranged for a US visa to bring Richard to New York. She worked in U.S. holding A-3 Visa, which is a non-immigrant Visa and permits the holder to work anywhere in U.S.
 It has been reported that the mother-in-law of Sangeeta Richard was employed with a senior US diplomat, who was posted in India between 2002-2007. It is also reported that the father-in-law of Richard is still working in the US embassy in India. Sangeetha Richards is reportedly missing in U.S. since June 21, 2013 and her passport is revoked since then. On a complaint lodged by Devayani, a Delhi Court issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against Sangeetha Richards on November 19, 2013, which was forwarded to US embassy for her immediate arrest.
 Philip Richards along with two children went to U.S. on December 10, 2013, two days before Devayani's arrest, after obtaining T-Visa from U.S. which permits victims of human trafficking and their close relatives to stay back in U.S. with a condition to help the law enforcement agencies to catch hold the perpetrators
India Media claimed that the cost of air tickets for Philip Richards, and two children Jennifer and Jatin, was born by U.S.Embassy.
Based on the charges filed by a special agent with the US Department of StateBureau of Diplomatic Security Khobragade was arrested by US Department of State'Diplomatic Security Service on December 12, 2013 around 9:30 a.m. after dropping off her daughters at school on West 97th Street in Manhattan.[
On December 18, 2013, she was transferred by the Government of India to the U.N. mission in New York, subject to clearance from the United States Department of State, which entitled her full diplomatic immunity while her former post only entitled her to consular immunity.
Few points that is worth noticable:
Ø  Devayani owns more than 30 acres of agricultural lands in Maharastra, and a flat in the controversial Adarsh Housing Society, Mumbai.

Ø  The charges against Khoborde allege that she committed visa fraud willfully and under penalty of perjury under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746. It further alleges that Khobragade submitted an employment contract to the U.S. Department of State, in support of a visa application filed by Khobragade for another individual, which she knew to contain materially false and fraudulent statements. The visa fraud charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and the false statements charge carries a maximum sentence of five years.
Ø  The complaint alleges that Khobragade and Sangeeta Richard verbally agreed in India to a starting salary of 25,000 rupees per month, plus an additional 5,000 rupees for overtime. At that time 30,000 rupees is equivalent to $573.07 U.S. dollars or about $3.31 an hour assuming a 40 hour work week. Khobragade signed a written contract with Richard which stipulated her hourly salary in the U.S. would be $9.75 and that the normal working hours per week shall be 40. This contract was submitted to the U.S. government as part of the visa application where Khobragade stated Richard would be making "around $4,500 per month". The complaint claims that Khobragade instructed Richard not to say anything to the embassy interviewer about being paid 30,000 rupees per month, but to say she would be paid $9.75 and hour and work 40 hours a week.

Ø  The complaint then alleges that Khobragade asked Richard to sign another employment contract shortly before leaving India, which was not to be revealed to the U.S. government. This second contract allegedly says she was to be paid an expected salary of Rs. 30,000 per month with no mention of sick days or vacation time.

Ø  On his part, the diplomat's father Uttam Khobragade had told this correspondent very early on in the fracas that there was no way his daughter could have promised the housekeeper $4500 a month when that was approximately her own salary. The agreed amount was $9.75 per hour for a 40-hour work week (amounting to $1560 for four weeks) of which Rs 30,000 was paid in Indian rupees to her family in India and the rest to the housekeeper in New York as living expenses.

This statement is utter nonsense. A daughter of IAS would leave for U.S just because she will earn $4500 a month when she owns a flat and 30 acre land in  India?

Ø  Ms Richard's lawyer, meanwhile, welcomed the action against the diplomat. Speaking to NDTV, Dana Sussman also said that "India tried to silence and intimidate my client and her family." 
Where is Ms. Sangeeta Richard ?
Indian media sources claimed that after her arrest, she was handcuffed, strip searched, DNA swabbed and subjected to a cavity search.
However Preet BhararaU.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, claimed that after her arrest, Khobragade was not handcuffed or her phone seized
For about two hours after her arrest, she was allowed to make numerous phone calls from inside the arresting officers' car because it was cold outside. The arresting officers even brought her coffee and offered to get her food. After arranging for child care for her children, Khobragade was taken to the federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan around noon where she was taken into the custody of U.S. Marshals Service and strip searched by a female Deputy Marshal in a private setting.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Marshals Service, stated that Khobragade was strip searched but not subjected to a cavity search. Per agency regulations, a strip search can include a "visual inspection" of body cavities. Credic-Barrett also stated that anyone taken to holding cells of the New York federal courthouse is automatically subjected to a strip search if they are placed among other prisoners.
At the federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan, Khobragade was presented before a U.S. magistrate judge and released at 4 p.m. the same day on a $250,000 bond after pleading not guilty and surrendering her passport.

India’s reaction :
On December 17, 2013, Delhi Police removed security barricades on the road outside the US Embassy in New Delhi, citing need for improvement of traffic flow in that area.
India has demanded an unconditional apology from the US government and asked the details of the salaries of all domestic help, gardeners and other staff employed by US consulates in India to check for inconsistency or frauds.
 Bahujan Samaj Party leader Mayawati complained that the Indian government was not reacting strongly enough, asserting that it was insufficiently supportive to Khobragade because she belonged to a Dalit caste.
That is again very laughable. So Miss Mayawati always search a chance to see a Dailt every where? And how childish is her statement.
What Vienna Convention says:
The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations outlines the rules of diplomatic law, ratified by Canada in 1966 and implemented by the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. Rules for the appointment of foreign representatives;
  • the inviolability of mission premises;
  • protection for the diplomat and his or her family from any form of arrest or detention;
  • protection of all forms of diplomatic communication;
  • the basic principle of exemption from taxation;
  • immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction, with limited exceptions; and
  • that diplomats must respect the laws of the host state.
Did not she break the law ?
Devyani did not submit a single document or made any statement to the US authorities for the visa of Ms Sangeeta Richard though here father IAS Uttam Khobragade said in an email to this correspondent soon after the controversy erupted. "The said agreement/employment contract which is being referred to, is not a statement under oath. It is a proper contract signed between two Indian citizens in Delhi, between two parties, and any violation thereof is in domain of civil law and no criminality is involved. Moreover it is an accepted principle of the law that person who submits the document is responsible."

If the case goes to trial — and it might never come to that — then the housekeeper Sangeeta Richard herself could be under the lens for misrepresenting and claiming a $4500 per month salary, which is way beyond the $9.75 per hour for 40 weeks she contracted with the diplomat. There could also be questions about how she was paid Rs 30,000 per month in India through her family, although such arrangement is said to be common among domestic staff attached to diplomats so that they bankroll their families in India and also avoid taxes, wire transfer fees etc.

Mr Bharara also said in his statement, "One wonders why there is so much outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian national accused of perpetrating these acts, but precious little outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian victim and her spouse?" He was referring to Sangeeta Richard, the domestic help that Ms Khobragade is accused by the US of exploiting.
They expect that whoever comes in their country they must follow the rules there. And when laws are equal for rich and poor though we here in India says same but how much true it is we can take practical examples in our daily lives. I do not think US did any thing wrong morally and legally, they want that whoever comes in their country should not be ill-treated. So did they took the case of Sangeeta Richard.
I appreciate their laws. Take an example of our Indian rules. We stand in a queue for so long and a rich politicians or any powerful man over take us , cast their vote before us and we have no issues.
Every Indian knows how domestic servants are treated in India but tell me how many of them go to police and police investigate the case as US does?
Here common man handcuffed, police do our visual inspection. That is good for security reasons but is not is also true that we easily let the rich go with out any inspection because they are businessmen, actors, actress and politicians. I appreciate in US laws are equal.
We makes hue and cry when our politicians are inspected on US Airports. Should we do? May be yes or may be no! But then why we remain so liberal when US politicians and leaders enter in our land we do not investigate them. Why we do not do like Brazil?
Now diplomat has two charges against her: Visa fraud and Low Wages Payment. If she is actually guilty, the episode would turn out to be more shameful for India than US. If mistreatment happened then Indian could ask for apologizes. Why we are saying that drop out all charges against her? US does not have two stories of same version, two laws for rich and poor, common man and politician. If they stand in a queue their leaders also stand in a queue not like ours when Sonia and Sheila madam came late and cast her vote before.
Let us wait and watch how much reality the case holds from both side ( In Ms. Devyani Khobragade and Sangeeta Richard’s case). Are not both looking for protection? Why being partial then? Let us come the truth without any bias and let the case investigate.

There are few points in Sangeeta's case too eg : Why U.S paid for her air tickets? Is she really a CIA agent ? Is it really a untold spy story ? 

Well let’s truth reveals for both one is a maid and another one is a powerful diplomat.

Friday, September 6, 2013

How has the West responded to ‘gassing’ in West Asia?

President Obama recently speaking from the White House said that Syria’s actions represented a “challenge to the world” as also to American national security. He added that he had not made a final decision and was considering only a “limited, narrow act.” Obama emphasized: “We’re not considering any open ended commitment. We’re not considering any boots on the ground approach.” He added, however, that the US has an obligation “as a leader in the world” to hold countries accountable if they violate “international norms.”
At the State Department, the Secretary of State, John Kerry, argued in even more passionate language that the Syrian regime had committed a “crime against humanity” that could not go unpunished. Kerry further added “history will judge us extraordinarily harshly if we turn a blind eye,” adding that there were 426 children among the dead. And finally the punch-line: “This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.”
What Kerry said was enough to warm the hearts of every human rights campaigner. But like most self-righteous politicians there seems to be a convenient gloss over history; even though military action does appear imminent.
Actually the first to use chemical weapons [gas] in the Middle-East were the British. Soon after the First World War when the British created the state of Iraq consisting of the three former Turkish Vilayats [provinces] of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul; the southern Kurds much to their dislike had been added to the new state of Iraq and in protest broke out in open rebellion. Faced with the prospects of a prolonged conflict, with added financial costs and loss of British life; the British decided that the ‘best method’ for putting down the revolt was to use gas. As the then Colonial Secretary, Sir Winston Churchill had remarked, “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.” The then RAF Chief Sir Hugh Trenchard in a report to the British Cabinet admitted that this was a “cheaper form of control.” Even the redoubtable Lawrence of Arabia wrote to the London Observer that “it is odd we do not use poison gas on these occasions.” The poor Kurds were the first to receive the ‘gas’ treatment and as history would prove not the last time!
Let us move ahead in time and come to Saddam Hussein. Iranian official history records that Iraq first used chemical weapons against its soldiers on January 13, 1981. It is reported that between December 28, 1980 and March 20, 1984 Iranians list 63 separate gas attacks by the Iraqis. There is no doubt that the US was acutely aware of what was going on. In a Memorandum on November 1, 1983, officials of the State Department warned the then Secretary of State George Shultz that they had information that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons on an ‘almost daily’ basis. Equally blunt was the warning that Iraq had acquired chemical weapons capability from Western firms, including possibly from a US subsidiary. The US was also aware that chemical weapons were being used against ‘Kurdish insurgents’. At the same time the US, according to a media report, continued to provide Iraq with critical battle planning assistance and satellite data on Iranian military movements, knowing very well that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran as also Kurdish insurgents.
No concrete action was taken. Saddam was a friend fighting to ‘weaken the ambitions of Iran’ and, therefore, President Reagan’s Special Representative the redoubtable Donald Rumsfeld, who was to gain much fame later in 2003 as Saddam’s nemesis, turned up in Baghdad [20 December 1983] with a letter from the President which the State Department later was to describe as ‘a milestone’ in US-Iraqi relations. To be fair, however, on March 6, 1984 the State Department announced that, based on available evidence, it ‘concluded’ that Iraq had used lethal chemical weapons in the fighting with Iran [emphasis added].
However the Iranians were one step ahead, for by then Iran had even produced photographs, in every gory detail, of the casualties caused by chemical weapons. By March 1984, Iran had sent about 50 soldiers suffering from chemical weapons attacks to hospitals in some Europeans countries in order to graphically display the results of Iraqi chemical weapons use and to arouse public opinion around the world. After Iran’s repeated request the UN sent an investigation team to the region beginning March 1984. In its report of March 26, 1984, the UN team confirmed the use of chemical weapons by Iraq. But the UN Security Council apart from routine admonitions took no action against Iraq.The then Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati could only bitterly complain, “…this irresponsible and indifferent attitude of the Security Council has indeed encouraged and emboldened Iraq….What is the effect of these crimes on the one hand and the silence of the UN on the other?”
In 1988 an awful massacre took place at Halabja [Kurdish Iraq] where thousands of innocent Kurds were ‘gassed’ by the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein during Operation Anfal. At that point in time Saddam Hussein was still a friend. The US knew what had happened but still no tangible action was taken against Iraq or Saddam Hussein. There were even reports that absolved him of the atrocity. But all that changed after Saddam invaded Kuwait. He was now a ‘rogue,’ a ‘bully’ and a ‘megalomaniac’ and one who gassed his own people!
In a celebrated aside to an aide, Kissinger while testifying before the Pike Commission in 1975 is reported to have admonished him “not to confuse foreign policy with missionary work.” Therefore, there is high probability that some ‘action’ will be taken by the US in conjunction with the ‘oldest ally’ [France; a reference to the US War of Independence in which France allied against Britain]. How galling this phrase, used by Kerry, is going to sound to British PM David Cameron! It is not so much because of the use of chemical weapons that will unleash US fire-power, but the fact that the Assad regime might be winning the civil war in conjunction with its Iranian and Hezbollah allies. A victory would be hard to swallow, particularly if Israel is considered as the next target. Therefore, the military strike may just be intended to show that victory for Assad and his Iranian allies is not as yet assured and that it may persuade them to come to the negotiating table. For the US that would be the most suitable outcome

R.K. Kalha 

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

A person who lays the foundation

I had enjoyed my student life immensely; whether people were against me, for me, indifferent, loved me, all those experiences were beautiful. All that helped me immensely when I myself became a teacher, because I could see the students' viewpoint simultaneously when I was presenting mine.
And my classes became debating clubs. Everybody was allowed to doubt, to argue. Once in a while somebody started worrying about what would happen to the course, because on each single point there was so much argument.
I said, "Don't be worried. All that is needed is a sharpening of your intelligence. The course is a small thing—you can read for it in one night. If you have a sharp mind, even without reading for it you can answer. But if you don't have a sharp mind, even the book can be provided to you and you will not be able to find where the answer is. In a five hundred page book the answer must be somewhere in one paragraph."…
So my classes were totally different. Everything had to be discussed, everything had to be looked into, and in the deepest possible way, from every corner, from every aspect— and accepted only if your intelligence felt satisfied. Otherwise, there was no need to accept it; we could continue the discussion the next day.
And I was amazed to know that when you discuss something and discover the logical pattern, the whole fabric, you need not remember it. It is your own discovery; it remains with you. You cannot forget it.
My students certainly loved me because nobody else would give them so much freedom, nobody else would give them so much respect, nobody else would give them so much love, and nobody else would help them to sharpen their intelligence.
Every teacher was concerned about his salary. I myself never went to collect the salary. I would just give my authority to a student and say, "Whenever the first day of the month comes, you collect the salary, and you can bring it to me. And if you need any part of it you can keep it."
All the years I was in the university somebody or other was bringing me my salary. The man who was distributing the salaries once came to see me just to say, "You never appear. I have been hoping that sometime you would come and I would see you. But seeing that perhaps you will never come to the office, I have come to your house just to see what kind of man you are—because there are professors who start early in the morning, on the first of each month, lining up for their salary. You are always missing. Any student might appear with your signature and authority, and I don't know whether the salary reaches you or not."
I said, "You need not be worried, it has always been reaching me." When you trust someone, it is very difficult for them to deceive.
All the years I was a teacher, not a single student to whom I had given the authority had taken any part of it, although I had told them, "It is up to you. If you feel like having it all, you can have it. If you want to keep a part of it you can keep it. And it is not lent to you so that you have to return it, because I don't want to be bothered by remembering who owes how much money to me. It is simply yours; it doesn't matter." But not a single student ever took any part of the salary.
All the teachers were interested only in the salary, in the competition of getting higher posts. I have seen nobody who was really interested in the students and their future and particularly in their spiritual growth.
Seeing that, I opened a small school of meditation. One of my friends offered his beautiful bungalow and garden, and he made a marble temple for me, for meditations, so at least fifty people could sit and meditate in the temple. Many students, many professors—even the vice-chancellors came to understand what meditation is. transm07

When I became a teacher in the university, the first thing I did—because as I entered the class I saw the girls sitting in this corner, four, five rows just empty in front of me, and the boys sitting in the other corner—I said, "Who am I going to teach—these tables and chairs? And what kind of nonsense is this? Who told you to sit like this? Just get mixed and be in front of me."
They hesitated. They had never heard a teacher tell them to get mixed. I said, "You get mixed immediately; otherwise I am going to report to the vice chancellor that something absolutely unnatural, unpsychological, is happening."
Slowly, hesitantly…. I said, "Don't hesitate! Just move and get mixed. And every day in my class you cannot sit separately. And I don't mind if you try to touch the girl or the girl tries to pull your shirt; whatever is natural is accepted by me. So I don't want you to sit there frozen, shrunken. That is not going to happen in my class. Enjoy being together. I know you have been throwing slips, stones, letters. There is no need. Just sit by her side, give the letter to the girl, or whatever you want to do—because in fact you are all sexually mature; you should do something. And you are just studying philosophy! You are absolutely insane. Is this the time to study philosophy? This is the time to go out and make love. Philosophy is for the old age when you cannot do anything else—you can study philosophy then."
They all were so much afraid. Slowly, slowly they got relaxed, but other classes started feeling jealous of them. Other professors started reporting to the vice chancellor that, "This man is dangerous. He is allowing boys and girls to do things which we have all been prohibiting. Rather than stopping them getting into each other's contact, he is helping them. He says, 'If you don't know how to write a love letter, come to me. I will teach you. Philosophy is secondary—it is not much. We will finish the two years' course in six months. The remaining one year and six months, enjoy, dance, sing. Don't be worried."'
The vice chancellor finally had to call me, and he said, "I have heard all these things. What do you say?"
I said, "You must have been a student in the university."
He said, "Yes. I have been. Otherwise, how I can be the vice chancellor?"
I said, "Then just go back a little and remember those days when girls were sitting far away and you were sitting far away. What was going on in your mind?"
He said, "You seem to be a strange fellow. I have asked you to come because I want to inquire about something."
I said, "That we'll take later on. First answer my question. And be sincere; otherwise I will give you an open challenge tomorrow before the whole university, all the professors, all the students. We can discuss the matter and let them vote."
He said, "Don't get excited. Perhaps you are right. I remember…I am now an old man—and I hope that you will not say this to anybody—I was thinking of the girls. I was not listening to the professor; nobody was listening to the professor. The girls were throwing chits, we were throwing chits, letters were being exchanged."
Then I said, "Can I go?"
He said, "Of course. You simply go and do whatsoever you want. I don't want a public encounter with you. I know you will win in it. You are right. But I am a poor fellow; I have to look after my post. If I start doing such a thing, the government will throw me out of this vice chancellorship."
I said, "I am not interested in your vice chancellorship. You remain vice chancellor, but remember: never call me again, because many complaints will come, but I make it clear to you right now that every time I will be right."
He said, "I have understood."
Then students—boys and girls who were not students of my subject—started asking me, "Can we also come?"
I said, "Philosophy has never been so juicy. Come! Anybody is welcome. I never take attendance. Every month, when the attendance register has to go back, I just fill it randomly—absent, present, absent, present. I just have to remember that everybody gets more than seventy-five percent present so they go to the examination. I don't bother. So you can come."
My classes were overpopulated. People were sitting in the windows. But they were really expected to be in some other class.
Then came complaints again, and the vice chancellor said, "Don't bring any complaint about that man. It is your problem if people are not coming to your class. What can I do? What can he do if they prefer him? And they are not students of philosophy, but they don't want to come to your history, your economics, your politics. What can I do? And that man has challenged me: "Never again call me in, otherwise you will have to face a public encounter."
But so many complaints came from every department that finally he had to come. He knew that it was better not to call me; he had to come to my class. He could not believe it.
In philosophy there are very few students, because philosophy is not a paying subject. But the class was overcrowded; there was not even space for him to enter. I saw him standing in the door behind the students. I told the students, "Let the vice chancellor come in. Let him also enjoy the whole scene that is happening here."
He came in. He could not believe his eyes that girls and boys were all sitting together and so joyously listening to me. Not a single disturbance, because I have prevented all disturbances from the very root. Now the boy is sitting by his girlfriend; there is no need to throw a stone, throw a letter. There is no need.
He said, "I cannot believe that it is such a crowded class and there is pin drop silence."
I said, "There is bound to be because there is no repression. I have told the students that when they want to go they need not ask my permission, they should simply go; when they want to come in they should simply come. They need not ask my permission. It is none of my business whether they are here or not. I enjoy teaching. I will go on teaching. If you want to sit here, sit; otherwise get lost. But nobody goes away."
The vice chancellor said, "This should happen to every class. But I am not a strong man like you; I cannot say to the government that this is the way it should be." last208

When I became a professor myself, I had to make a new arrangement. The arrangement was that in each forty-minute period, twenty minutes I would teach the syllabus as it is written in the books, and twenty minutes I would criticize it. My students said, "We will go mad."
I said, "That is your problem—but I cannot leave these statements without criticism. You can choose; when your examination comes you can choose to write whichever you want. If you want to fail, choose my part. If you want to pass, choose the first part. I am making it clear; I am not deceiving anybody—but I cannot go on deceiving you by teaching you something which I think is absolutely wrong."
The vice-chancellor finally had to call me, and he said to me, "This is a strange type of teaching. I have been receiving every day reports that half the time you teach the syllabus and half the time you have your arguments, which destroy the whole thing that you have taught them. So they come as empty as they had gone in…in fact in more of a mess!"
I said, "I'm not worried about anybody. What have they done with me all these years when I was a student? I was expelled from one college and then another. And you can come one day and listen to whether I am doing any injustice to the prescribed course. When I teach the prescribed course, I do it as totally as possible, to make it clear."
He came one day and he listened, and after twenty minutes he said, "That is really great. I had been also a student of philosophy, but nobody has ever told me this way."
I said, "This is only half the talk. You just wait, because now I am going to destroy it completely, step by step."
And when I destroyed it completely he said, "My God! Now I can understand what the poor students are reporting to me. You are not supposed to be a professor in this structure of education. I can understand that what you are doing is absolutely honest, but this system does not create people of intelligence; this system only creates people of good memory—and that's what is needed. We need clerks, we need stationmasters, we need postmasters—and these people don't need intelligence, they need a good memory."
I said, "In other words you need computers, not men. If this is your educational system, then sooner or later you are going to replace men with computers"—and that's what they are doing. Everywhere they are replacing important positions with computers, because computers are more reliable; they are just memory, no intelligence.
Man, however repressed, has certain intelligence.  

When I joined the university I was puzzled because the whole years course was not enough for more than two months; in two months it could be finished. I used to finish it in two months. My professors, senior professors, the head of the department, the dean, they all told me, "This is not the way. You simply finish in two months a course which has to be finished in ten months…that makes us all feel guilty."
I said, "That is your business. If you don't want to feel guilty, finish your course also in two months, or change the syllabus—make the syllabus in such a way that the course is really for ten months. This is lousy, absolute laziness, and I cannot be part of it."
It is because of this that I used to travel so much. My students were not at a loss at all. I would finish their course quickly and then would say, "Now unnecessarily you will be bothering and I will be bothering…what is the point? Once in a while, whenever I am here, I will come. If you have any questions you can ask them, otherwise I will see you when the examinations come round."
And my professors, my department, my head, they were not courageous enough to report me because they knew that if they reported me, then I was going to expose the whole thing: that these people were lousy. And my students would have been my witnesses that I had finished my course—now for what did they want me here too?
I was moving around the country. Everybody knew because the newspapers were publishing that I was in Calcutta addressing the university, I was in Benares…and they knew that I was supposed to be there in Jabalpur. My principal once asked me for dinner, and at his home he said, "Do at least one thing: Go wherever you want, but don't let it be published in the newspapers because then it becomes a problem. People start asking us, 'If he is in Madras…but we don't have any application for leave. He never informs us when he goes or when comes back.'"
I said, "I cannot do anything about that. How can I prevent the journalists reporting? What can I do? I don't know who is reporting; I simply speak and move on, and whatsoever they want to do, they do. But if you have any problems, if anybody reports to you, you can call me. I can put that man right, there and then."
For nine years I managed this way. The whole university was just in a state of shock. They could not believe that nobody raised any question against me. I got the whole salary, and I was rarely seen. But the reason was that my department was afraid to report me, for the simple reason that I had said that I would expose the whole thing.
The country has become lazy. I told the vice-chancellor, "All your courses are not enough for the whole year. What you teach in six years can be taught very easily in two years; four years you are wasting. In those four years you could teach so much that the degrees of no other country could be compared to your degrees. Right now no country even accepts your degrees."
He said, "Perhaps you are right, but no professor will agree because they are happy with the way things are going; they have always done it this way. So I don't want to take the responsibility on myself." ignor29

The superior person never judges. He feels compassion. If he sees something wrong in somebody, he feels compassion. He tries in his own way, without offending the person, to help him. But there is no judgment.
I was a professor in the university but I refused to examine people's answers in their examinations.
The vice-chancellor called me and asked, "What is the matter? First you refused to make up some examination papers, question papers, and now you are refusing to examine the answer."
I said, "That's right! I will not ask questions for the simple reason that in my idea, your whole educational system is utterly wrong. Five questions and you have judged the person's intelligence? It may be just accidental that he knows only those five answers and your judgment about his intelligence is wrong. It may also be possible that he does not know only those five questions and he knows everything else. Then too, your judgment is going to be wrong and inhuman. And I am not going to examine their answer copies, because whenever I see that somebody has not answered rightly, I feel great compassion for him. And because of my compassion, I give him higher marks than to those who have given the right answer, because they don't deserve any compassion."
He said, "What are you saying? The right answer gets less points and the wrong answer gets more?"
I said, "Yes! That's why I am keeping out of it, because then you will call me and ask. It is better—include me out. Don't put me in this game. There are many who are mad, who want to compose question papers because that brings money, who want to examine answer copies because that brings money. I am simply refusing money—anybody else will be happy to have it. Make somebody happy."
He looked at me and he said, "I have always thought that in your eccentricities, there is always something of truth. Yes, I agree. It hurts to give a zero to somebody, if you are not just mechanically judging but seeing the person behind the answer. With great hope he has given this answer—it may be wrong but his hope…what about his hope? His parents may be poor, he may be working in the night and studying in the day. He may not have the chance, the time, to rest which others have, and you are giving him a zero."
I said, "I simply refuse. And if you insist, then don't ask any question about what I do. I can compose question papers but you cannot ask, 'What kind of questions are these?' because I will be trying to figure out questions which don't depend on memory. I will cancel all those people who are depending on memory, because memory is not intelligence. I will compose questions which need intelligence—but intelligence is not found in the textbooks of the universities. Intelligence is not being taught. People are not being trained. Only memory is being filled, with more and more information.
"I will compose questions that will not ask information, they will be immediate questions. Whether the person has been reading or not, coming to the classes or not, if he has intelligence, he will find the answer. If he has no intelligence, then all his memory cannot help. Then don't tell me that I am disturbing the whole structure of the university. I can examine their papers, but I cannot be their judge. Everybody will pass first class, because as far as I am concerned, every human being is a first-class human being. What does it matter that he has not answered one question rightly? And what do you mean by not rightly—you mean that it is not the exact copy of the textbook! The student has not proved himself a parrot."
He said, "You simply forget all about it. From now on, you are free about question papers, answer copies…. " sermon25

In India clothing is divided: Mohammedans have certain dresses, Hindus have certain dresses, Punjabis have certain dresses, Bengalis have certain dresses, South Indians have certain dresses—and it is very difficult…. For example, in South India you can have a wraparound lungi; just a dhoti that you wrap around. And not only that, they pull it up and tuck it over so it is just up to the knees. Even in the universities, professors go to teach in that dress.
I loved the lungi because it is very simple, the simplest: no need of a seamstress, no need of any tailoring, nothing; just any piece of cloth can be turned into a lungi very easily. But I was not in South India, I was in central India where the lungi is used only by vagabonds, loafers, unsocial elements. It is a symbol that the person is uncaring about the society, that he does not bother what you think about him.
When I started going to the university in a lungi, when I entered the university everything stopped for a moment; students came out of their classes, professors came out of their classes. As I passed along the corridor everybody was standing, and I waved to everybody—a good reception!
The vice-chancellor came out: "What is the matter? The whole university is out. The classes have stopped in the middle, professors are out. and there is a silence." He saw me and I waved to him, and he had not even the guts to reply to my wave.
I said, "At least you should wave to me. All these people have come to see my lungi." I think they loved it because every day professors came with beautiful clothes, the costliest clothes. The vice-chancellor was very particular about his clothes, and very famous….
If you had gone into his house you would have been surprised: there was nothing but clothes all around the whole house—he and his servant and the clothes.
I said, "Even when you come, nobody comes out. You just see…a poor lungi—the poorest wear it—has brought them out. And I am going to come every day in this lungi."
He said, "A joke is okay, one day is okay, but don't carry it too far."
I said, "When I do something I do it to the very end."
He said, "What do you mean? You mean you are going to come every day in the lungi?"
I said, "Right now that's what I intend to do. If I am interfered with I can come even without a lungi. You can take my word for it. If I am interfered with in any way, if you try to bring up that this is not proper for a professor and this and that, I don't bother…. If you can keep quiet I will remain in the lungi; if you start doing anything against me—my transfer or anything, anything, then the lungi goes. I will come…and then you will see the real scene."
And it was such a hilarious scene because all the students started clapping when they heard this, and he felt so embarrassed, he simply went back into his room. He never said a single word about the lungi. I inquired many times, "What about my lungi? Is any action being taken against it or not?"
He said, "You just leave me alone—do whatsoever you want to do. And I don't want to say anything because anything said to you is dangerous, one never knows how you will take it. I was not saying, 'Drop the lungi,' I was saying 'come back to your old clothes.'"
I said, "Those are gone, and what is gone is gone—I never look back. Now I am going to be in a lungi."
So first I was going in a lungi, with a long robe. Then one day I dropped the robe and just started using a shawl. Again there was a great drama, but he kept his cool. Everybody came out but he didn't come out perhaps because he was afraid that I had dropped the lungi. He didn't come out of his room. I knocked on his door. He said, "Have you done it?"
I said, "Not yet. You can come out."
He opened the door and just looked out to see whether I was clothed or whether I had dropped everything. He said, "So you have changed now—the robe also?"
I said, "I have changed that too. Have you something to say?"
He said, "I don't want to say a single word. About you I don't even talk to others. Journalists are phoning and asking, 'How is it being allowed in the university?—because that will become a precedent and students may start coming, and other professors may start coming.'
"I tell them, 'Whatsoever happens, even if everybody starts coming in lungis, it is okay with me. I am not going to disturb him, because he threatens me that if I disturb him in any way he can come nude. And he says that nudity is an acceptable spiritual way of life in India. Mahavira was nude, the twenty-four tirthankaras of the Jainas were nude, thousands of monks are still nude, and if a tirthankara can be nude then why not a professor? Nudity in India cannot be in any way disrespected.' "
So he said, "I am telling people, 'If he wants to really create chaos…and he has followers also in the university; there are many students ready to do anything he tells them to. So it is better to leave him alone."'
I have found throughout my life that if you are just a little ready to sacrifice respectability, you can have your way very easily. The society has played a game with you. It has put respectability on too high a pedestal in your mind, and opposite it, all those things that it wants you not to do. So if you do them, you lose respectability. Once you are ready to say, "I don't care about respectability," then the society is absolutely impotent to do anything against your will. misery26

Dr. Radhakrishnan was one of the presidents of India. Before he became a president he was a vice-chancellor, and before he became a vice-chancellor he was a professor. Because a professor, a teacher, had become the president, his birthday was celebrated all over India, particularly in religious institutions—schools, colleges, universities—as a teachers' day.
In my university also, a great celebration was made. The vice-chancellor spoke in golden words about Dr. Radhakrishnan, that it is a glory to every teacher, a dignity to every teacher, that a teacher has become the president of the country, and many other prominent professors spoke. I could not tolerate it any longer. I was not supposed to speak, for the simple reason they knew that I am not reliable; what I will say may disturb the whole thing. But I stood up and I said, "Without me speaking this celebration will not be complete." So the poor vice-chancellor, although his face became pale, invited me to speak. I said, "This is such an absurdity that has been told to you by so many people, from the vice-chancellor, from all the deans, from all the senior professors. Cannot you see a simple thing, that a teacher has become a politician? It is a degradation; it is not respect. A teacher does not find himself dignified as a teacher—he wants to become the president of the country. This is not a teachers' day. I will call the day `teachers' day' when a president resigns and joins a school and starts teaching there. That will be the teachers' day.
The logic is so simple—that he respects teaching, and loves teaching, more than being a president.
The vice-chancellor and the professors who were sitting on the stage were so shocked, because all the students, the whole crowd, clapped. They were agreeing with me. Just these few idiots were not clapping. I said, "You should start clapping. Can't you see, everybody is clapping, and you look so stupid not clapping." And you will be surprised—they started. What else to do? And when they started, then the students started dancing and clapping.
I said, "Now the celebration is complete; otherwise, what celebration was it? And you have been praising a man who was serving the British government—he never fought for India's freedom. He was a professor in Calcutta University, and he stole a student's thesis, the whole thesis. He was one of the examiners, and he went on delaying, saying, `I am going through it.' Meanwhile, he managed to have it published in England, in his name. And when it was published, then he returned the thesis to the university.
"The student was a poor student, but still he went to the high court. But he was such a poor man…. The case was in the high court for a few months, and Radhakrishnan had not a single word to say, because page after page, chapter after chapter, were verbatim exactly the same as the thesis.
"His whole strategy was that the book had been published before; but the university knew that the thesis has been given to him before the publication of his book. It was certain that he was going to be punished for it. It was such an ugly act. He gave ten thousand rupees to the student—and he was such a poor man, that he thought that it was better to withdraw the case. The case was withdrawn, but that does not make any difference.
"This man has used bribes to become the vice-chancellor; and the whole of India knew about the case, the whole of India knew about his bribery. And still they were praising him as if he was a sage."
When I raised these questions, all their faces fell, and the vice-chancellor uttered to the man sitting by his side, "I was afraid of this from the very beginning. That's why I had not invited him to speak. But I never thought that he should have been prevented from coming into the conference."
I said, "If you have any answer, you can give the answer. This man has not been a teacher, but a thief. And if he becomes a politician, it is not a credit to the profession of the teachers, it is a discredit. If he has still any sense, he should resign and become a teacher again."
But this is how things are. The vice-chancellor has to praise him. After the meeting he told me, "It is not good for you. They will take revenge." I said, "I am ready for every revenge, but I am not ready to say things which are absolute lies." He said, "But I cannot say it. He has appointed me as vice-chancellor of this university." This way, things go on. He has appointed him as vice-chancellor, so he has to praise him. The whole society lives in a subtle kind of hypocrisy, in a conspiracy. One has to be courageous enough to stand alone. And he was right, that I would be taken into all kinds of revengeful situations; they have happened, they are still continuing to happen. My whole life they will continue to take revenge just because I am not ready to compromise with the hypocrisy that society has decided to live with.
But it gives me immense joy that I am not part of a crowd, and I don't want my people to be part of a crowd. Even if you have to sacrifice your whole life, it is more joyful than to be a slave. It is better to be on the cross than to be a slave of unconscious, fast-asleep people. zara113

I was called to a seminar; many universities' vice-chancellors and chancellors had gathered there. They were much worried about the indiscipline in the schools, colleges and universities, and they were much worried about the new generation's disrespectful attitude towards the teachers.
I listened to their views and I told them, "I see that somewhere the very basis is missing. A teacher is one who is respected naturally, so a teacher cannot demand respect. If the teacher demands respect, he simply shows that he is not a teacher; he has chosen the wrong profession, that is not his vocation. The very definition of a teacher is one who is naturally respected; not that you have to respect him. If you have to respect him, what type of respect is this going to be? Just look: 'have to respect'—the whole beauty is lost, the respect is not alive. If it has to be done, then it is not there. When it is there, nobody is conscious about it, nobody is self-conscious about it. It simply flows. Whenever a teacher is there it simply flows."
So I asked the seminar: "Rather than asking students to respect the teachers, you please decide again—you must be choosing wrong teachers, who are not teachers at all."
Teachers are as much born as poets, it is a great art. Everybody cannot be a teacher, but because of universal education millions of teachers are required. Just think of a society that thinks that poetry is to be taught by poets and everybody is to be taught poetry. Then millions of poets will be required. Of course, then there will be poets' training colleges. Those poets will be bogus, and then they will ask: Applaud us!—because we are poets. Why are you not respecting us? This has happened with teachers.
In the past there were very few teachers. People used to travel thousands of miles to find a teacher, to be with him. There was tremendous respect, but the respect depended on the quality of the teacher. It was not an expectation from the disciple or from the student or the pupil. It simply happened. search02

I had to fight with the university continuously. They were not ready to include yoga or meditation in the university courses, but they go on bragging that this is the land of Gautam Buddha and Mahavira and Bodhidharma and Patanjali and Kabir and Nanak—they go on bragging, but they don't see what they are doing. Their journalism, their education, their politics, has no trace of Kabir, or Nanak, or Patanjali, or Buddha. They are under the impact of Western masters.  dawn19

I was lecturing in different universities in India—and India has almost one hundred universities. The students were the ones who got the point most. I was teaching in religious conferences. The people who gathered to listen got the point, but the organizers, the religious leaders, became my enemies.
So any conference, any gathering of religious people I have visited only once, I was not invited there again. Just in one visit I had disturbed their people so much, stirred so many doubts and questions in their minds. Because this is one of my basic standpoints: the way to truth is not belief, but doubt; not faith, but inquiry…. last113

Osho sums up his address to students at a meeting:*
You may have thought I would tell you some methods to pass examinations, to succeed, to get ahead of others, to reach higher positions. No, I will not do that. Enough has been told to you about these things. We are suffering tremendously because of that.
I pray you do not succeed, but that you be real human beings. Success is not a JUSTIFY">I pray you do not succeed, but that you be real human beings. Success is not a value. I pray you do not reach any positions of power, but that you reach your inner being, where there is something worthwhile. I pray you do not compete with anyone, but awaken the potential of loving your own individuality. I pray that you too can become a brick in the creation of a new culture—this is what I wish for you.
I am very grateful to you for having listened to me so silently, with such love. I offer my salutations to that new man that is residing within us all. Please accept my salutations to that god. educa03 
*Note:Stories of Osho's early life are later recollections by him. Some of the first available transcripts of his lectures are those given at universities throughout India.

Osho addresses teachers at Podder College, Bombay:
But what education of love, what initiation in love have we given? What certificates of love have we conferred? And then if in three thousand years man has become completely loveless, murderous and violent, who is responsible for it? None other than our education can be held responsible for it.
But the teachers need not feel offended by this, because putting this responsibility on education means I am giving lots of honor to education; I am saying education is the center of life. Hence the teacher should be ready to bear the main responsibility; tomorrow the main honor too can be his. Tomorrow, if life is transformed, it is education which will receive the honor. And today if life has become polluted and poisoned, then the educationist should be prepared to accept the main charge and responsibility also. This is indicative of education being central. What I am saying is very respectful—that education is central. Neither the politicians nor the religious leaders are as responsible as the teacher is.
But the coming world will also only bestow honor on the teacher if he is able to lay down some basis for changing life. If you are not able to change it, tomorrow, children themselves will start changing it. educa07

Osho addresses a meeting at Birla Krida Kendra, Bombay:
Sa Vidya Ya Vimuktaye. Knowledge is that which liberates.
This morning I would like to say a few things to you on this subject. This is a marvellous saying. It is the most original definition of knowledge. This is the definition of knowledge as well as its criterion. But perhaps you may not know the other side of the situation. We are not liberated. Whatsoever we have learned cannot have been right knowledge, it must be false knowledge. Our life has not known what liberation is, so the schools in which we have studied must not have been schools but anti-schools, because the very test and definition of knowledge is that it helps us in our life to attain the bliss of liberation.

May be this system will create the people of good memory. This is the fact that this is the need in today’s time. We want clerks, professionals, managers, business man/women etc and they will always need a good memory. But still the prime focus of education should be sharpening the intelligence of students. Where every one is allowed to discuss, where minds are free, where we can create a real man with intelligence, where every aspect of the disciple had to look in the deepest possible way, where our curious minds are satisfied with the information and lectures. There should be discussions in the classrooms that discover the logic of our inner, the behavior patterns that can be changed in liberation and thoughtful process, where discovery of our real talent is respected and we are prepare to face the challenge with real life situations, where education is a thoughtful process not mere a parrot reading.
And believe me students will respect a teacher with depth of their hearts because they are allowed to argue, put their point of view and their intelligence are sharpen with the logic not mere with bookish knowledge. And when there is no repression of thoughts and ideas. In that environment every disciple will enjoy the reading and teachers will love to guide their students in all possible ways they can reach to them. 


Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Modi's interview to reuters

Narendra Modi is a polarizing figure, evoking visceral reactions across the political spectrum. Critics call him a dictator while supporters believe he could make India an Asian superpower. Ross Colvin and Sruthi Gottipati from Reuters spoke to Modi at his Gandhinagar home in a rare interview, the first since he was appointed head of the BJP's election campaign in June. Here are edited excerpts from the interview:

Is it frustrating that many people still define you by 2002?

People have a right to be critical. We are a democratic country. Everyone has their own view. I would feel guilty if I did something wrong. Frustration comes when you think "I got caught. I was stealing and I got caught." That's not my case.

Do you regret what happened?

I'll tell you. India's 
Supreme Court is considered a good court. It created a special investigative team and top-most, very bright officers who overlook the SIT. That report came. In that report, I was given a thoroughly clean chit, a thoroughly clean chit. Another thing, any person if we are driving a car, we are a driver, and someone else is driving a car and we're sitting behind, even then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not? Of course it is, if I'm a chief minister or not, I'm a human being. If something bad happens anywhere, it is natural to be sad.

Should your government have responded differently?

Up till now, we feel that we used our full strength to set out to do the right thing.

Did you do the right thing in 2002?

Absolutely! However much brainpower the Supreme Being has given us, however much experience I've got, and whatever I had available in that situation and this is what the 
SIT had investigated.

Should have a secular leader?

We do believe that ... But what is the definition of secularism? For me, my secularism is, India first. I say, the philosophy of my party is 'Justice to all. Appeasement to none.' This is our secularism.

Critics say you are an authoritarian, supporters say you are a decisive leader. Who is the real Modi?

If you call yourself a leader, then you have to be decisive. If you're decisive then you have the chance to be a leader. These are two sides to the same coin ... People want him to make decisions. Only then they accept the person as a leader. That is a quality, it's not a negative. The other thing is, if someone was an authoritarian then how would he be able to run a government for so many years? ... Without a team effort how can you get success? And that's why I say Gujarat's success is not Modi's success. This is the success of Team Gujarat.
What about the suggestion that you don't take criticism?

I always say the strength of 
democracy lies in criticism. If there is no criticism that means there is no democracy. And if you want to grow, you must invite criticism. And I want to grow, I want to invite criticism. But I'm against allegations. There is a vast difference between criticism and allegations. For criticism, you have to research, you'll have to compare things, you'll have to come with data, factual information, then you can criticize. Now no one is ready to do the hard work. So the simple way is to make allegations. In a democracy, allegations will never improve situations. So, I'm against allegations but I always welcome criticism.

Allies and people within the BJP say you are too polarizing a figure

If in America, if there's no polarization between Democrats and Republicans, then how would democracy work? It's bound (to happen). In a democracy, there will be a polarization between the two of them. This is democracy's basic nature. It's the basic quality of democracy. If everyone moved in one direction, would you call that a democracy?

Which leader would you like to emulate?

I never dream of becoming anything. I dream of doing something. So to be inspired by my role models, I don't need to become anything. If I want to learn something from Vajpayee, then I can just implement that in Gujarat. For that, I don't have to have dreams of (higher office in) Delhi. If I like something about 
Sardar Patel, then I can implement that in my state.

Reuters‘ scoop interview with Narendra Modi published yesterday by the news agency, but apparently given 17 days ago on June 25, has created headlines for the Gujarat chief minister’s continuing lack of contrition for what happened under his watch in 2002.
And for his faux pas of comparing the victims to “kutte ka bachcha” (puppies).
On Twitter, Sruthi Gottipati, one of the two Reuters‘ journalists who sat down for the powwow has complained of the manner in which the interview has played out on Indian TV and in the newspapers.
But those who have been fighting Modi on the courts of Gujarat and Delhi have bigger problems with Reuters‘ interview than the “kutte ke bachcha” gaffe. They say Reuters “failed to, conspicuously, persist with any accurate, difficult or pinching questions.”
Here, below, is the full text of the press release emailed by the Business India journalist turned activist Teesta Setalvad of Citizens for Justice and Peace.
PRESS RELEASE: Seven days before Reuters published its [Narendra Modi] exclusive, a privilege denied by the PM-aspirant to an Indian news agency or channel, we [Citizens for Justice and Peace] had been contacted persistently by a Reuter’s correspondent.
Not Ross Colvin or Sruthi Gottipati who now carry the journalistic honour of grabbing moments with a man who rarely likes to be questioned, especially if the questions are persistent like say those of Karan Thapar in 2007.
Thapar keen to get to the bottom of what Modi actually felt about 2002, did not  simply casually record – as Reuters has done – Modi’s response but asked, insistently, whether Modi actually regretted the mass reprisal killings that had taken place, post-Godhra, on his watch.
Modi simpered, dithered, glared and admonished…when none of that worked, and Thapar persisted, Modi did what he does best.
Not so with Reuters, that managed its exclusive but failed to, conspicuously, persist with any accurate, difficult or pinching questions.
The young man from Reuters who finally tracked me down in the Sahmat office at 29 Ferozeshah Road last week was clueless, he said, about Gujarat 2002. Apologetic about this ineptness, he kept saying that his bosses had asked him to track down the SIT report.
They had not bothered to contact us directly.
We insisted that he, read Reuters, do what fair journalism demands: look at the SIT clean chit in context; examine also the amicus curaie Raju Ramachandran’s report that conflicted seriously with the SIT closure and clean chit (opining that there was material to prosecute Narendra Modi on serious charges).
Both the SIT and the amicus were appointed by the same Supreme Court.
We insisted that Reuters examine the Supreme Court Order of 12.9.2011 that gave us the inalienable right to file a Protest Petition; we pointed out that Reuters must read the Protest Petition itself that we filed in pursuance of this order on 15.4.2013, peruse the arguments that we have been making before the Magistrate since June 25, 2013.
We tried, as best as we could, to communicate that Reuters should read the SIT clean chit in the context of these overall developments.
No, No, said Reuters that had possibly already bagged the interview by then.
Who says a politically important interview should address all developments and facts, in a nutshell, tell the whole and complete story?
Much better to perform a tokenism, throw in a few questions about 2002, not persist with questioning the man charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder and subvert criminal justice with the complexities and gravity of charges and legal procedures that he currently faces – and which are being argued in Open Court in Ahmedabad.
Easier to be glib, grab headlines in all national dailies including by the way the one in Telegraph which is the only newspaper to report that Modi used “kutte ke bacche” not puppy as an analogy for which creatures may inadvertently get crushed when a “road accident happens.”
Never mind that many have been convicted for criminal negligence when they drive and kill.
On business and development, too, while Reuters plugs the man themselves in the first paragraph of the interview, there are no real probing questions on foreign direct investment, the Gujarat government’s back out to solar power companies (reported two days ago in the Economic Times) and so on….
So, quite apart from the more than despicable “kutte ke bacche” comment that Modi reportedly made, quite apart from the fact that he chose Reuters for his debutante mutterings not a national agency or channel, what is truly tragic about the whole exercise is the compliant journalism that it reflects.
The Reuters interview is not a dispassionate or thorough exercise that attempts to genuinely probe opinions and views. It is a sensational tokenism

Salman Khurshid, Congress: Said Modi has a poor idea about the Indian people and that Hindu nationalist is an oxymoron for religion can't have a nation. Taunting Modi's 'puppy under the wheel' comment, Khurshid said one needs to raise some questions of his driver and take action but he didn't think that Modi has done it.
Kamal Farooqi, Samajwadi Party: Asking whether Modi was at all speaking about patriotism, he said a chief minister takes oath to protect its people. He said Modi was worried over a puppy but didn't feel bothered to apologies for the mass killings of 2002. Describing it to be sad, he asked whether Modi thought Muslims are worse than even puppies. Farooqi felt Modi should apologise to the entire nation.
Nirmala Sitharaman, BJP: Lashed out at Farooqi's comment, saying it was is despicable to say that Modi compared a community to dogs. She urged people to read the remarks made by Modi and their context before making any interpretation. She said a complete misinterpretation was causing a unnecessary controversy.
 Sanjay Raut, Shiv Sena: Welcomed Modi's remarks about Hindu nationalism. He said the Sena always believed in the opinion of Balasaheb Thackeray, its late leader, that the nation should be led by a Hundutva leader. He said Modi's stand will benefit the NDA.
Shivanand Tiwari, JD(U): Questioned Modi's reference to Hindu nationalism. He said such remark showed that Modi is a leader who doesn't believe in inclusive politics. He said the 'Hindutvawadi' people were destroying India's religious pluralism.
Arjun Modhwadia, Congress: Said Modi said what he had in his head and that he was taking such lines to get votes. He said Modi is known to be the leader of a particular community and the BJP can not move forward without him.
AB Bardhan, CPI: Felt Modi's words show that he was playing with the people. He said the BJP is a communal party and Modi a divisive element.

Devang Nanavati, Gujarat High Court advocate: Said the SIT had found nothing wrong and gave a clean chit to him. He said Modi did everything he could to prevent the riots. The army was called within 48 hours and over 70 companies of RAF were deployed.