Namo the next PM - Page 7

aamir khan can say goodbye to bollywood if NaMo becomes PM

Originally posted by: AllBlacks1

Why ?

there is long history

watch peepli live or rang de basanto u will understand
and google aamir khan + narmada + farmers + modi

Oh I know aamir khan supported that campaign "Narmada bachao" or something during one of his film promotion .. I think Fanaah .. but its in the past. I dont think PM can influence BW let alone Aamir. But Aamir ko bada mazaa aayega SMJ show ke agle season me if Modi is PM.

1. Just like modi do hawa mai baat u r also not arguing with facts . It is meaningless to argue on hawa pai. In simple term i will say just like muslim fanatics on the other side hindu fanatics groups involved in riots in organised manner . Pick out any riot incident and you will find their involvement. Infact the previous 2 documentaries are visual evidence. What makes other govt. at helm and modi is there is explicit collusion of govt. machinary , administration and rioters .This is the difference and still the same ideology pursued by BJP. Just few hundred meter from CM modi's home nearly 100 people murdered , but our cm says he have no clue.

2. Regarding the logic of why anyone move from there , the logic is flawed any citizen have their own roots , have own family , live there since generation. Anyone live their life with struggle and facing problem , one will not relocate another place just because he face some problem anywhere. Regarding all those prosperity etc. they are just hawa mai baat, if we dig facts the end result is same suger coated and nothing else. on an average gujarat always better in economic indicator since inception. By the way of along with all these facts even facts are exist of minority ghettos , discrimination etc. By the way weather muslims are well economically or not it does not matter with riot cases. As i already said :

Is it not strange that - the same NRI wish to enjoy a liberal society in US but want to propagate right wing religious inclined political group back home . Imagine obama play with the gallery of his fans and call other with subtle minority name , or his legislature will say those who oppose their leader lord should go to other country, or like RSS pal propagate ghettos for minority group in US .

May be will support a leader under whose watchful eye large number of people murdered in communal violence, that too with in 2 days a 2000 , or say Obama have a legislature as a minister like Maya kodani who was prime accused in the death of near about 100 people , now think how that obama will for you , how about obama, like terrorists say action reaction theory for its own citizen. Will u support that kind of obama ? Indeed it is strange.

What investment we are speaking, india already have on an average 7% GDP growth last 10 years. All these things investment development are only sugar coat , Just say u support Namo , thats it.

Just consider the above example , suppose u r a permanent resident of NZ . A right wing say racist group religiously inclined christian political group say started their campaign having the same ideology of BJP / RSS/ VHP etc. They start their campaign against minority group interms of race, religion , region,migrants etc. will u support the same political party. That is the question , You might have some apprehension so clearing from my side i am not Muslim , so also a large section in india who oppose ideology of BJP.

In Indian history of judicial system never a big fish convicted in any riot cases , glaring example is Bal thakrey , Advani ( who proved exact opposite of allegation ) or say Modi . Regarding Modi acquittal i rest my case with an verdict by supreme court , it itself says how judgement , proof , collusion of state admin, etc. speaks itself :

Modi modern-day Nero: SC

NEW DELHI: Calling the Gujarat government modern-day Neros looking elsewhere when innocent children and helpless women were burning, the Supreme Court on Monday issued an unprecedented order quashing the acquittal of all 21 accused in the infamous Best Bakery case and directed its retrial in a Maharashtra court.

Allowing appeals filed by key witness Zahira Sheikh and the Gujarat government, a Bench comprising Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Justice Arijit Pasayat gave this landmark order. It's the first time an order for retrial and reinvestigation has been passed even though both the trial court and the high court acquitted the accused.

When Gujarat was engulfed with communal riots in the aftermath of the burning of Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002, a mob set fire to Best Bakery at Vadodara on March 1, resulting in the death of 14 people. Zahira, an eye-witness to the incident, lost her family in the incident.

Lambasting the Gujarat government for its laxity in bringing the guilty to book, the apex court said, "The modern day Neros were looking elsewhere when Best Bakery and innocent children and helpless women were burning, and were probably deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be protected."

The court, while directing the Gujarat government to appoint a new public prosecutor, directed the Director General of Police to oversee further probe and ordered the trial be conducted on a day-to-day basis.

The Bench directed the governments of Gujarat and Maharashtra to give adequate protection to witnesses and victims "so that they can depose freely without any apprehension of threat or coercion from any person".

The court again set a precedent by asking the Gujarat government to consult victims and witnesses before appointing a public prosecutor.

"Though witnesses or victims do not have any choice in the normal course to have a say in the matter of appointment of a public prosecutor, in view of the unusual factors noticed in this case, to accord such liberties to the complainants party would be appropriate," Justice Pasayat said. The Bench directed the governments of Gujarat and Maharashtra to give adequate protection to witnesses and victims "so that they can depose freely without any apprehension of threat or coercion from any person".

The court again set a precedent by asking the Gujarat government to consult victims and witnesses before appointing a public prosecutor.

"Though witnesses or victims do not have any choice in the normal course to have a say in the matter of appointment of a public prosecutor, in view of the unusual factors noticed in this case, to accord such liberties to the complainants party would be appropriate," Justice Pasayat said.

Holding that free and fair trial of the case was still not possible in Gujarat, the Bench said: "Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case and the ample evidence on record, glaringly demonstrating subversion of justice delivery system with no congenial and conducive atmosphere still prevailing, we direct that retrial shall be done by a court under the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court."

The court also criticised the Gujarat high court for making "irresponsible" remarks against activists, including Teesta Setalvad, and even against the National Human Rights Commission.

Expunging the "irresponsible" remarks passed by the high court, Justice Pasayat said, "The high court appears to have miserably failed to maintain required judicial balance and sobriety in making unwarranted references to personalities and their legitimate move before competent courts -- the highest court of the nation, despite knowing fully well that it could not deal with such aspects or matters."

Taking the entire chronology of events right from the date of incident to the judgement of the trial court and that of the high court, the apex court said, "If one cursorily glances through the records of the case, one gets a feeling that the justice delivery system was being taken for a ride and literally allowed to be abused, misused and mutilated by subterfuge.

"The investigation appears to be perfunctory and anything but impartial without any definite object of finding out the truth and bringing to book those who were responsible for the crime," it said.

In a stinging criticism of the public prosecutor, the court said he acted more as a "defence counsel" and added "the trial court in turn appeared to be a silent spectator, mute to the manipulations and preferred to be indifferent to sacrilege being committed to justice."

The court felt there was no seriousness on the part of the state government to pursue its appeal before the high court challenging the acquittal of all 21 accused.

"This is clearly indicated by the fact that the first memorandum of appeal filed was an apology for the grounds. A second amendment was done, that too after this court expressed its unhappiness over the perfunctory manner in which the appeal was presented and challenge made," it said.

Justice Pasayat said all these sadly reflected on the quality of determination exhibited by the state and the nature of seriousness shown to pursue the appeal.

"Criminal trials should not be reduced to be the mock trial or shadow boxing or fixed trials," he said and added: "Judicial criminal administration system must be kept clean and beyond the reach of whimsical political wills or agendas and properly insulated from discriminatory standards or yardsticks of the type prohibited by the mandate of the Constitution."

The court refused to be drawn into the plea to stop media from writing about the case on the ground that they were holding trial through their articles.

"This is sensitive and complex issue, which we do not think it proper to deal in detail in these appeals. The same may be left open for an appropriate case where the media is duly and effectively represented," Justice Pasayat said.

Sometimes the debate has to stop an agree to disagree.