The BJP prime ministerial candidate Shri Narendra Modi has, of late, given four media interviews in quick succession, explaining his party's policies. The first interview was by Mr Rajat Sharma, the chief editor-owner of India TV, for his "Aap Ki Adalat" programme, second to the ANI news agency, third to TV9 and the last to the CNBC-TV18. His views were sought on many questions that Modi-bashers in the media, politics and "Left-liberal-secular" class were propagating. The two issues that seeem to dominate the anti-Modi propaganda were: Modi's declining of skull cap from a Muslim visitor and unwillingness to apologise for the 2002 riots in Gujarat.
Having watched all the said interviews-Rajat Sharma's in full-I am convinced that Modi explained his attitude satisfactorily, without evasion or mincing words. Let us examine the skull cap issue: Does accepting or declining the cap determines one's secularism or its absence? In plain words, if some one does not accept a skull cap from an Indian Muslim and wear it, should he be condemned as communal and anti-Muslim? Is the skull cap a defining symbol of secularism? Why are the media and Modi's political rivals stuck on trivial matters of little significance? Concern for Muslim welfare and respect for their honourable place in the society is more important than accepting and wearing a skull cap? During Modi's 13 years of rule in Gujarat, can his critics cite anti-Muslim steps taken by his govt? Does not emphasise development for all without any discrimination?
The 2002 riots have to be dealt with separately in a proper sequence. 58 Gujarati pilgrims, men, women and children, returning from Ayodhya, were burnt alive in the Sabarmati Express train at Godhra station. There was an instantaneous reaction resulting in the tragic riot in which over 700 Muslims and 200-300 Hindus were killed. A large number of Hindus were killed in police firing. As a new comer to the office of the CM which he occupied in October 2001, four months before the bloody events, Modi was clearly overwhelmed by the suddenness of the tragedy. But, he quickly rallied and called the army within a day. The situation was brought under control within 2-3 days.
But, his political opponents whom he trounced in three successive elections from 2002 to 2012, and a section of the media have carried on a relentless campaign of calumny against him despite the fact that no court, even the apex one, has found any evidence against him. It does not matter to them that for the last 12 years there has been peace and communal harmony in the State. Even Muslim community in Gujarat has let it be known that they have prospered under Modi's development agenda. His critics want Modi to apologise. For argument sake, if Modi offers apology, will his arch enemies spare him? Will they not cite his apology as an admission of his guilt to be punished severely? He has publicly said in his interviews that if he was even slightly guilty, he should be hanged in a public square; an apology is not enough.
Having watched all the said interviews-Rajat Sharma's in full-I am convinced that Modi explained his attitude satisfactorily, without evasion or mincing words. Let us examine the skull cap issue: Does accepting or declining the cap determines one's secularism or its absence? In plain words, if some one does not accept a skull cap from an Indian Muslim and wear it, should he be condemned as communal and anti-Muslim? Is the skull cap a defining symbol of secularism? Why are the media and Modi's political rivals stuck on trivial matters of little significance? Concern for Muslim welfare and respect for their honourable place in the society is more important than accepting and wearing a skull cap? During Modi's 13 years of rule in Gujarat, can his critics cite anti-Muslim steps taken by his govt? Does not emphasise development for all without any discrimination?
The 2002 riots have to be dealt with separately in a proper sequence. 58 Gujarati pilgrims, men, women and children, returning from Ayodhya, were burnt alive in the Sabarmati Express train at Godhra station. There was an instantaneous reaction resulting in the tragic riot in which over 700 Muslims and 200-300 Hindus were killed. A large number of Hindus were killed in police firing. As a new comer to the office of the CM which he occupied in October 2001, four months before the bloody events, Modi was clearly overwhelmed by the suddenness of the tragedy. But, he quickly rallied and called the army within a day. The situation was brought under control within 2-3 days.
But, his political opponents whom he trounced in three successive elections from 2002 to 2012, and a section of the media have carried on a relentless campaign of calumny against him despite the fact that no court, even the apex one, has found any evidence against him. It does not matter to them that for the last 12 years there has been peace and communal harmony in the State. Even Muslim community in Gujarat has let it be known that they have prospered under Modi's development agenda. His critics want Modi to apologise. For argument sake, if Modi offers apology, will his arch enemies spare him? Will they not cite his apology as an admission of his guilt to be punished severely? He has publicly said in his interviews that if he was even slightly guilty, he should be hanged in a public square; an apology is not enough.
