Terrorist and killer Narendra Modi on TIME 2012 list is a shame

[Joe Shearer]

still you can not blame Modi for what happened, it happened because Muslims burnt a train full of people, and before doing that they should have thought about what will happen next.
even if MODI has done what you have suggested, what will happen. A few days later the Congress will accuse him of not protecting the 56 karsavaks and not telling about the incident for the public immediatly. and based on what Congress says HINDUS would have gone against him and the resulting 10 years of development that resulted in a lot of lifes saved by good governance would have gone to oblivion and Congress will be looting the nation.

You can take that chain a long way back, dear boy. Muslims burnt 58 people in one bogey of a train full of people. They did that because of the numbers of Muslims that had been killed earlier, in riots in Bombay and elsewhere, when the Babri Masjid was destroyed. Is it then the fault of Advani, because he wanted to gain publicity and started the Rath Yatra, or of Kalyan Singh, the CM of UP when the incident occurred, or of any of that large number of people from the BJP and the VHP who were involved?

Finally, to kill hundreds of people to ensure good governance is not good governance.

even i m not one of them who are excited for modi & who want him to be P.M of india in future but does in matter??? there are lots of ppl out there who admire modi & that's what matter.

Which is why there are ordinary citizens of India who are pursuing the man, and are bringing him closer and closer to justice. Which is why there are people who have investigated the matter, established the facts after speaking to both victims and perpetrators, and written about it in well-established authoritative books, of the kind and authenticity that have influenced the US to ban Modi.Which is why there is broad consensus that Modi should not be allowed to campaign in Bihar or in UP, because his name is hated in those states.

Fortunately, those who admire Modi also admire the BJP, and their numbers and electoral influence is shrinking. Even in Gujarat.

Sir,

A wrong is Wrong. No matter how you *want* to see it.

In any other nation, such serious accusations against the chief ruling authority would have made him/her resign. But thats not happening in our nation .... we have people who are willing to look the other way till Mr.Modi gives us the so called prosperity and as long as it's not our family which got hacked in the communal riot, we are OK to not blame this politician.

To me, to my wife, to my daughter, that is morally repugnant, and we have made our stand against it. We are not OK to let someone go scotfree after committing these wrongs.

 

[Bhairava]

You can take that chain a long way back, dear boy. Muslims burnt 58 people in one bogey of a train full of people. They did that because of the numbers of Muslims that had been killed earlier, in riots in Bombay and elsewhere, when the Babri Masjid was destroyed. Is it then the fault of Advani, because he wanted to gain publicity and started the Rath Yatra, or of Kalyan Singh, the CM of UP when the incident occurred, or of any of that large number of people from the BJP and the VHP who were involved?.

So what happened to the maxim "Two wrongs dont make one right". Or is that applicable to hindus only ?

Also then that chain can be easily taken to Kashmir where hundreds of thousands of Hindu Pandits were killed and many raped by terrorists professing and fighting for an Islamic cause.

If events in Bombay 10 years before justify killing 57 people in Gujarat, then those killing in Bombay were only justified by the killing of expulsion and killing of Hindu Pandits in Kashmir. Not to mention 54 Hindu devotees killed by terrorists in Akshardham.

And going further down the history, better not said. In that train of logic, Hindus have a very long list of incidents for which they can hold the other community accountable for.

 

[Joe Shearer]

and in what way do you think Modi is responsible and not the Mulism idiot borthers who burnt the train.

Because of the following reasons:

• The testimony of the then Gujarat Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) minister Haren Pandya (since murdered), who testified about an evening meeting convened by Narendra Modi the evening of the Godhra train burning (27th February). At this meeting, officials were instructed not to obstruct the Hindu rage following the incident;
  
• The report also highlighted a second meeting, held in Lunawada village of Panchmahal district, attended by state ministers Ashok Bhatt, and Prabhatsinh Chauhan, and other BJP and RSS leaders, where "detailed plans were made on the use of kerosene and petrol for arson and other methods of killing;
• RB Sreekumar, who served as Gujarat's intelligence chief during the riots, alleged that the state government issued "unconstitutional directives", with officials asking him to kill Muslims involved in rioting or disrupting a Hindu religious event;
• Attacks by large Hindu mobs began in the districts of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Saberkantha and, for the first time in its history, Gandhinagar on 28 February. Violence spread to the largely rural districts of Panchmahals, Mehsana, Kheda, Junagadh, Banaskantha, Patan, Anand and Narmada the next day. Over the next two days, Bharuch and Rajkot and later Surat were hit;
• The New York Times' Celia Dugger reported that witnesses were "dismayed by the lack of intervention from local police", who often "watched the events taking place and took no action against the attacks on Muslims and their property";
• Human Rights Watch reported that in some cases members of the state police force led rioting mobs, "aiming and firing at every Muslim who got in the way", or instead of offering assistance "led the victims directly into the hands of their killers;"
• Calls for assistance to the police, fire brigades, and even ambulance services generally proved futile;
• The violence raged largely between 28 February and 3 March, and after a drop, restarted on 15 March, continuing till mid June;
• The Gujarat government transferred several senior police officers who had taken active measures to contain and investigate violent attacks to administrative positions;
• The Gujarat state government was reprimanded immediately for failing to prevent the riots, but then increasingly for actively fomenting and participating in it, which was a far more serious charge. Critiques came repeatedly from the Supreme Court, and the upper house of the Indian parliament unanimously passed a resolution calling for federal intervention in Gujarat; a similar censure motion in the lower house was defeated by about 100 votes;
• The Indian Supreme Court has been strongly critical of the state government's investigation and prosecution of those accused of violence during the riots, directing police to review about 2,000 of the 4,000 riot related cases that had been closed citing lack of evidence or leads.

So what happened to the maxim "Two wrongs make one right". Or is that applicable to hindus only ?

Also then that chain can be easily taken to Kashmir where hundreds of thousands of Hindu Pandits were killed and many raped by terrorists professing and fighting for an Islamic cause.

If events in Bombay 10 years before justify killing 57 people in Gujarat, then those killing in Bombay were only justified by the killing of expulsion and killing of Hindu Pandits in Kashmir. Not to mention 54 Hindu devotees killed by terrorists in Akshardham.

And going further down the history, better not said. In that train of logic, Hindus have a very long list of incidents for which they can hold the other community accountable for.

That is precisely the point that I am making, that two wrongs do not make a right. That the deaths in Godhra do not justify planning, organising, and executing riots to kill the innocent in other parts of Gujarat. That if they did, then the chain would stretch back, a long way back.

 

[utraash]

Damn it.
Joe Shearer is a Congressi.

I m not sure of his congressi tag.... Either he is not aware of ground realities or trying to neglect the fact.. but one thing is sure that he has view similar to our pseudo secularist Thekedaar..

 

[Stumper]

I m not sure of his congressi tag.... Either he is not aware of ground realities or trying to neglect the fact.. but one thing is sure that he has view similar to our pseudo secularist Thekedaar..

To start with, maybe you can add me in that list as well.

Second, you contradict your self when you club secularism and Mr.Modi .. Oh Pls, don't be a hypocrite. Atleast we stand up for what we believe is moral and Just, unlike some here , who would rather bask in the "Shining India" glory, then stand up for the fallen.

 

[Bhairava]

That is precisely the point that I am making, that two wrongs do not make a right. That the deaths in Godhra do not justify planning, organising, and executing riots to kill the innocent in other parts of Gujarat. That if they did, then the chain would stretch back, a long way back.

But do you realize that there is a difference in saying Godhra carnage happened due to the Bombay riots 10 years back and the post-Godhra riots were an immediate, spontaneous backlash for an incident that happened hours before ?

While one can be classifed as cold,calculated, pre-meditated conspiracy to kill someone for something that happened 10 years back, another could be classified as a spontaneous venting out of emotions. There was no planning or executing involved in that.

Not that the latter is justified..not by a long way. But then we are not living in Scandinavia either. We are living in India where a pigs carcass near a mosque or a cow's head near a temple could start riots. No one is asking any one to condone anything, but a bit of awareness about ground realities and past relations between two communites, especially in states like Gujarat could go a long way in understanding the way, people react the way they react.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I m not sure of his congressi tag.... Either he is not aware of ground realities or trying to neglect the fact.. but one thing is sure that he has view similar to our pseudo secularist Thekedaar..

The ground realities? Meaning that you are aware of them? How? When all of India has turned away from the Sangh Parivar, you still go chasing after it, and then you talk about others not knowing the ground realities?

The difference between me and the Congress guys is simple: I am not corrupt, they are; I do not pander to any one religion, but consider all to be equally irrelevant in public life, they make special gestures and overtures to the Muslims; I do not support one family, they have perfected their support of one family.

 

[Joe Shearer]

But do you realize that there is a difference in saying Godhra carnage happened due to the Bombay riots 10 years back and the post-Godhra riots were an immediate, spontaneous backlash for an incident that happened hours before ?

While one can be classifed as cold,calculated, pre-meditated conspiracy to kill someone for something that happened 10 years back, another could be classified as a spontaneous venting out of emotions. There was no planning or executing involved in that.

Not that the latter is justified..not by a long way. But then we are not living in Scandinavia either. We are living in India where a pigs carcass near a mosque or a cow's head near a temple could start riots. No one is asking any one to condone anything, but a bit of awareness about ground realities and past relations between two communites, especially in states like Gujarat could go a long way in understanding the way, people react the way they react.

There is enough evidence that Modi deliberately paraded the dead bodies of the Godhra victims through Ahmedabad to arouse emotions, that he ordered the police to hold back during the riots he was organising, and that he and his party planned and executed the riots. It was anything but an immediate, spontaneous backlash.

With a bit of awareness about ground realities and past relations between two communities, especially in states like Gujarat, an apologist for the criminal can explain crime.

With a bit of awareness about ground realities and past relations between two communities, especially in states like Gujarat, an honest Chief Minister would ensure that the situation did not go out of hand.

 

[utraash]

@Joe Shearer
I dont know what secular section you are talking about?

The sections that don't want the bellicose posturing of the Sangh Parivar and want to lead peaceful lives without the injection of religion into politics. The ones who have voted for non-communal agendas, based on development, rather than on divisive issues related to religion.

Did I ever mention sangh parivar anywhere in my post ... now tell me which party or a political figure is true secular in real terms ?

None. You forget, or you don't pay much attention: my reference was to sections of society, not political parties. There are sections of people - all those who have risen up in revolt against the nauseating corruption of ALL political parties, for example - outside political parties who have these correctly held views.

Originally Posted by utraash
Pro muslim or pro minority is the only criteria of these secular section ....

You are entitled to your opinion. That is all that it is, your personal opinion. I might happen to define it as those who want nothing to do with religion in public life.
Originally Posted by utraash
Again we are dividing ourself on the line of minority majority which is basically nothing but relegion wise.. Is religion matter so much to us that its above the Law or constitution of India ? i think no.

It is you and your fellows of the Sangh Parivar who are dividing India on the lines of minority or majority. Your turning the situation around is ironic. If religion was not so much to you that it was above the law or the Constitution of India, neither would the leaders of the BJP, the VHP and other front organisations have agitated for the destruction of the Babri Masjid, and, contrary to their commitments, demolished it, nor would Narendra Modi have violated his oath of loyalty to the constitution and egged on majority community hoodlums to assault the minority.

Again you are counting name of sangh parivar nhp bjp .... i never mentioned those in my previous post but I think you also follow the trend of indian secularism where until you dont crticize the sangh vhp bjp you will not hold secular status..... As per my view I am dead against any violence or any loss which is precisely done on the line of religion, cast, race...etc... when you raise issue of Babri masjid or you miserably failed to highlight the issues of Kashmiri pandits where hindu are in minority.... So I would say sir, every issues has to be seen from same eye...... though both the act are shameful for our democracy which failed to protect indians not minority or majorrity ....
Modi role in Gujraat is also being investigated under Supreme court directions so you dont need to jump on conclusion & you cannot define laws or constitution better than supreme court.

For starters, there was a direct link to the Babri Masjid incident and the incidents in Gujarat. The people who were killed in the train fire were kar sevaks who had gone to the Babri Masjid site to participate in commemorative rituals, members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Killing them was a crime. The point here is that it is part of a series of reciprocal crimes started by the original crime of destruction of a protected building under litigation.

I have always condemned the expulsion under threat and intimidation of the Kashmiri Pandits. I have condemned the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza as well; should I have brought that in here? Was that relevant, any more than the treatment of Kashmiri Pandits is relevant to a discussion on Modi's performance as Chief Minister and the events of 2002?

Your bringing in the Kashmiri Pandits is a typical and familiar Sangh Parivar manoeuvre, known among debaters and logicians as the 'tu quoque' argument. In case you don't know what that is, it is the argument of saying that even if you have committed a crime, or the person you are defending has committed a crime, some other person has also committed a crime, so somehow that makes it all right for the first crime to have been committed. If there were crimes in Gujarat, there were also crimes in Kashmir, so that's all right, the crimes in Gujarat are excused somehow.

Crimes against the minority are always crimes against the minority, and are in themselves no way worse than, for that matter, crimes against the majority. What is to the point is that I have protested crimes against the majority also, for instance, the crimes committed in Kolkata by the Muslim community in driving out unpopular or uncooperative journalists because they wrote articles that the Muslim clergy found offensive.

Originally Posted by utraash
True meaning of secular will be no division on basis race cast relegion or etc.......

True. That you know it and you don't practise it points to your outstanding hypocrisy.

same thing is also applied for your hollow secularism sir?

How? Just by your repeating the words I have used? You keep referring to your not meaning to differentiate between religious communities, but every word, every example is taken from the vocabulary of the Sangh Parivar. They compare the destruction of the Babri Masjid to the expulsion of the Pandits; so do you. They assume that all secularists are Congress supporters; so do you.

Why is your knowing the technical definition of secularism and not practising it comparable to my actions? And why is it that you call it hollow? Is that a justification? My secularism says that Muslims should not be killed because they are Muslim, in fact, my adherence to the rule of law and to the freedom of speech say that people should not be killed in riots, and that they should not be killed for something that they have said.

How is this stand hypocritical? How is it equivalent to yours?
Originally Posted by utraash
But those So called Secular people are only creating division.

Are you making sense? Those who talk about teaching the minority a lesson so that they will never make the same mistake again, those who hold public rallies inciting violence and hatred, those who doctor textbooks in states ruled by them, exactly as Pakistan does, rather than acknowledge that these are the villains, you actually say 'secular' people are creating divisions?

When secularism means opposition to any expression of religion in public life, how is this possible?


We never heard those secular people since we live out of this world.... secularism would have never in our dictionary if division were not made.....

Would you like to explain the meaning of this incoherent statement?

Have you never heard or read about people who refer to teaching the minority - Muslims, to be blunt - a lesson, so that they will never make the same mistake again? Would you like me to cite samples from this very thread, or the parallel thread?

And what is the logic of saying that secularism would never have been in your dictionary is division were not made? Secularism is in our dictionaries precisely because divisions exist, and it is a concept that wars against divisive thinking.
Originally Posted by utraash
if at all I have to say on minority, muslim are not in minority anymore the real minorities are sikhs bhuddhist, christians, jain & many other ...

How are Muslims not a minority? Are they more than 50% of the population?Do you even understand what you are writing?
if 15-20 crores people are in minority then who will not be in minority .....?

Do you understand what is a minority? Let me refer you to a dictionary:

A minority is a sociological category within a demographic. Rather than a relational "social group", as the term would indicate, the term refers to a category that is differentiated and defined by the social majority, that is, those who hold the majority of positions of social power in a society. The differentiation can be based on one or more observable human characteristics, including, for example, ethnicity, race, gender, wealth or sexual orientation. .... <omitted> In the social sciences, the term "minority" is used to refer to categories of persons who hold few positions of social power.

Originally Posted by utraash
So did you ever check that as per your Secular sections has anything to say about real minority issues or issues of majority?

Can you define real minority issues, or issues of majority?

surely i cant because you are in elite group of taking care of minority sir...

And what does that mean? You make a reference to 'real minority issues', and 'issues of majority'; I ask you what you mean, and the only lame answer you can come out with is that you don't know, because I am doing something or the other wholly fictitious?

Originally Posted by utraash
This has become a trend in this country If anyone says anything against muslim then he will be declared anti minority

Is that not literally true?

In what way is this a trend? I have spoken against Muslim activities in Bengal, and in Kashmir. Nobody even dreamt of calling me anti-minority!

okay if i say absurd things to other religion there wont be much shouting but if i say small thing about muslim I wll be tagged anti minority as you are trying to hint......I am not against Muslim even in my own family my sis in law is from same religion..
I am not a man of any religion either but I hate pseudo secularist almost like enemy of my country & country is first to me not my religion .....

Please can you not come out with that usual justification of bigotry,"Some of my best friends are Jews!" (or Negroes, or, in your case, Muslims). That is really pathetic.

You may or may not hate pseudo-secularist (another Sangh Parivar term; for someone who has carefully not used BJP, VHP, RSS or Sangh Parivar in his writing, you seem to use a lot of their favourite terms, and your vocabulary seems to be wholly borrowed from theirs); that is not relevant here, when we are discussing Narendra Modi. If by pseudo-secularist, you are referring to the charge that the Congress Party tries to attract Muslim votes by preaching secularism but pandering to them, let me remind you that I oppose, and have opposed the Congress for longer than you have lived. Let me also explain that I am opposed to Gandhi for the precise reason that he brought religion into politics, an act that he was warned against by a much wiser and far more secular man, and that this religion-tinctured secularism is what the Congress practises, whereas secularism is to me the expulsion of religion from public affairs.



With due respect, thnx for your responses. now i m unable to argue with u sir. ur big lines does not make any difference as you put a glass of religion(minority) or I may be too weak to understand ur views .......

May be we dont have vast exp. as you have but people of ur views are in majority and we shold be forgiven to have our views in minority...................................

 

[Joe Shearer]

I dont know what secular section you are talking about?

The sections that don't want the bellicose posturing of the Sangh Parivar and want to lead peaceful lives without the injection of religion into politics. The ones who have voted for non-communal agendas, based on development, rather than on divisive issues related to religion.

Did I ever ...an act that he was warned against by a much wiser and far more secular man, and that this religion-tinctured secularism is what the Congress practises, whereas secularism is to me the expulsion of religion from public affairs.

With due respect, thnx for your responses. now i m unable to argue with u sir. ur big lines does not make any difference as you put a glass of religion(minority) or I may be too weak to understand ur views .......

.
May be we dont have vast exp. as you have but people of ur views are in majority and we shold be forgiven to have our views in minority...................................

You don't understand at all, do you?

I oppose your views and your actions as a thinking, rational human being, not for any emotional reason, but because these views and actions are wrong in the light of reason and logic. I oppose them as a patriot, because these views and activities divide our country into majority and minority, and weaken the country. I oppose them as a citizen, because these views and activities are against the law.

Whether these views and actions are in the majority or in the minority, they should be faced, challenged and removed.

 

[utraash]

The ground realities? Meaning that you are aware of them? How? When all of India has turned away from the Sangh Parivar, you still go chasing after it, and then you talk about others not knowing the ground realities?

The difference between me and the Congress guys is simple: I am not corrupt, they are; I do not pander to any one religion, but consider all to be equally irrelevant in public life, they make special gestures and overtures to the Muslims; I do not support one family, they have perfected their support of one family.

Again sir, I want to tell i hardly knows RSS .... this is exactly what our Secular Thekadaar do if some one raises their put their views which is contrary to secular mindset like you they will you label us RSS followers..... I never followed RSS ever in my life...

 

[Bhairava]

----------------

 

[Bhairava]

There is enough evidence that Modi deliberately paraded the dead bodies of the Godhra victims through Ahmedabad to arouse emotions, that he ordered the police to hold back during the riots he was organising, and that he and his party planned and executed the riots. It was anything but an immediate, spontaneous backlash.

Again you are not aware of the facts and letting prejudice getting better of that. It is funny that you think it was the bodies that aroused the emotions and not the horrific crime of torching 57 devotees (many of them women and children) alive in Godhra itself.

Coming to your point, first of all the bodies were brought to the Sola civil hospital which was in western outskirts of Ahd , an area with little population and not to the main civil hospital in eastern Ahd from where the most killed Karsevaks hailed , and that too in the dead of the night, as a precautionary measure not to incite passions.

And both the Govt and the officials wanted the bodies to be cremated nearby so that passions will not be aroused..but the relatives of the fallen who hailed from the other side of Ahd would have none of it and took the bodies to their place and the procession gained number as it crossed the Ahd city. Modi had little or nothing to do with it.

Significantly, Modi tried to ensure that the bodies of the victims were cremated near the hospital where they were brought for post-mortem at 3.30 a.m. on February 28 from Godhra. The Sola Civil Hospital is on the western outskirts of Ahmedabad where the Muslim population is negligible. Cremating the bodies there, Modi thought, would have helped contain the anger.

Some VHP leaders present at the spot were also under instructions to convince the relatives of the victims to agree to the proposal. But the moment the proposal was floated, the kin of the dead flared up and accused the BJP "of acting in a manner worse than the Congress".

http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20020318/cover2.shtml

And the SIT also has given a clean chit to the Govt's decision to shift the bodies to Ahd.

Decision oof bringing bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad was right because Godhra was tense. Most karsevaks from Ahmedabad and nearby area. Ahmedabad was the best place for identification of bodies. Sola civil hospital was on outskirts of Ahmedabad and the bodies were broght in only at night. Cold storage and DNA testing facilities were not available in Godhra. So bringing bodies to Ahmedabad was justified.

Seven major points of SIT report revealed by Times Now | DeshGujarat.Com

With a bit of awareness about ground realities and past relations between two communities, especially in states like Gujarat, an apologist for the criminal can explain crime.

With a bit of awareness about ground realities and past relations between two communities, especially in states like Gujarat, an honest Chief Minister would ensure that the situation did not go out of hand.

I'm not an apologist but a realist who is aware of the past history/bad blood between the two communities, limitations of India, the woeful state our LEAs are in and how much little it takes to ignite a spark between them, while you sir, are an idealist living in an utopian world where two actions do not have connection with each other and can be treated in isolation. No it cannot. Newton's law plays a very important part here.

 

[utraash]

You don't understand at all, do you?

I oppose your views and your actions as a thinking, rational human being, not for any emotional reason, but because these views and actions are wrong in the light of reason and logic. I oppose them as a patriot, because these views and activities divide our country into majority and minority, and weaken the country. I oppose them as a citizen, because these views and activities are against the law.

Whether these views and actions are in the majority or in the minority, they should be faced, challenged and removed.

Sir, I too oppose a mindset which speaks for a particular society & I strongly oppose when you bring religion into it.... every citizen of this country is indian first & its a bound duty of our gov to protect every citizen irrespective of their religion caste race or anything that divides us....

 

[Bhairava]

• The testimony of the then Gujarat Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) minister Haren Pandya (since murdered), who testified about an evening meeting convened by Narendra Modi the evening of the Godhra train burning (27th February). At this meeting, officials were instructed not to obstruct the Hindu rage following the incident;

• 
  
  Haren Pandya, the disgruntled former Home Minister who was demoted to Revenue Minister, a close confidante of ousted Keshubhai Patel and a person who was NOT even present in the alleged meeting is first of all, not a credible source. He held a personal grudge against Modi for that and even refused to vacate the Ellisbridge MLA seat for Modi to contest and win. Modi had to contest from the Rajkot seat then.
  
  Now coming to Mr.Pandya's testimony ; HP has himself denied that he testified anything to any tribunal and only Outlook claims that he did in its article June 3 2002.
  
  It also goes on to claim the following in the same article :
  
  &#8220;The minister told Outlook that in his deposition, he revealed that on the night of February 27, Modi summoned DGP K. Chakravarthy, commissioner of police, Ahmedabad, P.C. Pande, chief secretary G. Subarao, home secretary Ashok Narayan, secretary to the home department K. Nityanand (a serving police officer of IG rank on deputation) and DGP (IB) G.S. Raigar. Also present were officers from the CM&#8217;s office: P.K. Mishra, Anil Mukhim and A.K. Sharma. The minister also told Outlook that the meeting was held at the CM&#8217;s bungalow.
  
  Now the funny part is that day Subarao was on leave and instead it was acting chief secretary S K Varma who participated in that meeting. Now assuming Haren Pandya first of all gave an interview to Outlook, what credibility does his claims have regarding what Modi told them, when he could not even get who attended that meeting right ?
  
  
  

  [*]The report also highlighted a second meeting, held in Lunawada village of Panchmahal district, attended by state ministers Ashok Bhatt, and Prabhatsinh Chauhan, and other BJP and RSS leaders, where "detailed plans were made on the use of kerosene and petrol for arson and other methods of killing

  
  I've not heard about this. Is it another Haren Pandya claim ?
  
  

  [*]RB Sreekumar, who served as Gujarat's intelligence chief during the riots, alleged that the state government issued "unconstitutional directives", with officials asking him to kill Muslims involved in rioting or disrupting a Hindu religious event;

  
  Again, Mr.Shreekumar was not present in the meeting and he bases his allegations on the ground that the then Director General of Police VK Chakrabvarty, who participated in that crucial February 27 meeting, told him that the CM had directed officers to go slow against Hindu rioters and allow them to give vent to their feelings against the Muslims.
  
  But the sad part, VK.Chakraborty has denied it strongly in his affidavit filed before the SIT and reiterates that Modi only asked them to control the riots at the earliest and not the mumbo jumbo Skreekumar accused him of.
  
  Also it would be worthwhile to note that Shreekumar did not make these claims in the first two affidavits he filed with Nanavati Commission and his position only changed after he was denied promotion by the Modi Govt.