Friday, December 7, 2012


Commenting on the Gujarat special court’s judgment on the Naroda Patiya killings of 2002, the daily Inquilab, in its editorial on September 8 writes: “So far, in response to the discussions about Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s machinations, Modi and his party members tried to dismiss the matter by saying that whatever happened had nothing to do with the Modi government. In this context the theory of ‘action’ and ‘reaction’ was cited. former state minister Maya Kodnani’s conviction is significant from the political perspective. This is the first time that the Modi government’s direct and incontrovertible involvement in the Gujarat riots has not only been proved, but firmly established.”
Rashtriya Sahara in its editorial on September 1 writes: “The Naroda Patiya judgment is a step towards forcing Narendra Modi to accept the responsibility of the genocide of Muslims in 2002. The special investigation team’s (SIT) report stated that there was no clear indication of Modi’s direct involvement, despite affidavits and statements of some police officers. The Supreme Court relieved him of responsibility on this basis. But now it seems this may be temporary. The convictions of Maya Kodnani and Babu Bajrangi have created considerable doubts. This judgment has almost ended the possibility of his becoming PM.” Editor of Delhi-based daily Jadeed Khabar, Masoom Moradabadi, writes that “Modi made arrangements to suppress the reality of Naroda Patiya but the Supreme Court did well to hand over the responsibility of investigation to the SIT, which exposed the criminals.”
Taking a cautious approach to “progress” in Indo-Pak relations, the daily Hamara Samaj writes in its editorial (September 10): “For the time being the result of the meeting between External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar seem positive. The new agreement for liberalised visa facilities between the two countries indicates that Krishna’s visit to Pakistan was successful. Although we have been desirous of friendship with Pakistan, somehow or other Pakistan’s posturing causes relations to sour. However, after this visit, we pray that the new beginning between India and Pakistan is strengthened in the days to come.”
Inquilab views Krishna’s visit in a positive light. Its editor, Shakeel Shamsi, writes: “Following the visit of External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna to Pakistan, there is a wave of delight among people on both sides of the border. The agreements signed by the two countries can be described as a beautiful phase in their history, so far full of strife.”
Shamsi says that those who migrated from India are aware of what India is really like, but those whose forefathers lived in Sindh, Balochistan, the frontier or Punjab have little knowledge about India. They only know the India of the movies. With the new visa facilities, the people of the two countries have the opportunity to get to know each other, he says.
Commenting on the deliberations of the Non-Aligned Movement summit at Tehran, the daily Siasat writes: “The US tried to make the NAM summit unsuccessful, but the leaders of 120 countries and representatives, including the PM, saved Iran from western conspiracies. On Syria, important speakers from NAM countries criticised external forces. India, in particular, argued for zero tolerance of outside interference in Syria and for an effective role for important organisations, including the UN, there”.
On India’s diplomatic efforts, the paper writes: “Manmohan Singh, by meeting
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, indicated that India has great interest in promoting trade relations with Iran. Hosting the NAM conference has enhanced the importance of Iran. India too has the opportunity to strengthen its relations with other NAM countries.”
Compiled by Seema Chishti