Tag: Ashutosh

Watch | New IT Rules: How The Modi Government Is Working To Censor Digital Media

The Wire’s Arfa Khanum Sherwani discussed the issue of censorship on digital platforms with Hard News editor Sanjay Kapoor, Satya Hindi editor Ashutosh and senior journalist Anuradha Bhasin.

Google has delivered its first monthly transparency report under new IT regulations, saying it received complaints about alleged violations of local laws or individual rights, resulting in the removal of 59,350 content from the platform. The Wire‘s Arfa Khanum Sherwani discussed the issue of censorship on digital platforms with Hard News editor Sanjay Kapoor, Satya Hindi editor Ashutosh and senior journalist Anuradha Bhasin.

Watch | Why Is the Bogey of ‘Love Jihad’ Making Headlines Now?

In this episode of ‘Media Bol’, Urmilesh discusses the media’s coverage of the issue with senior journalist Ashutosh.

Amidst so many socio-economic difficulties and a pandemic, why do words like ‘love jihad’ – coined by media, politicians and right-wing groups – become national and breaking news? Recently, why and how did fake news of an ‘airstrike’ run on news channels for a long time? Urmilesh analyses and discusses these issues in this episode of Media Bol with senior journalist Ashutosh.

After Rumours He Quit AAP, Ashish Khetan Says Not Involved in ‘Active Politics’

Khetan, who did not deny the resignation, said he was not involved in “active politics at the moment” and was not interested in rumours.

New Delhi: Aam Aadmi Party leader Ashish Khetan has quit the party, AAP sources said today, a week after another leader, Ashutosh, announced his resignation.

Khetan, who did not deny the resignation, said he was not involved in “active politics at the moment” and was not interested in rumours.

According to sources in the party, Khetan had sent his resignation to AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal on August 15.

It was the day Ashutosh had announced his resignation from the party.

Both resignations are yet to be accepted by Kejriwal, party insiders said.

“I had resigned from DDC in April, to join the legal profession. That is all. Not interested in rumours,” Khaitan tweeted, referring to the Delhi Dialogue and Development Commission, an advisory body of the Delhi government.

“I am completely focussed on my legal practice and not involved in active politics at the moment. Rest is all extrapolation,” he said in another tweet.

Khetan had resigned as DDC vice chairman citing “frustration” due to the tussle between the Centre and the AAP-led government.

AAP sources claimed Khetan wanted to contest the 2019 Lok Sabha elections from the New Delhi parliamentary seat that he had lost to BJP’s Meenakshi Lekhi in 2014. But his demand was not being accepted by the leadership and he had been upset for a while.

Both Ashutosh and Ashish Khetan were seen as being close to Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal.

Some have said that the party’s Rajya Sabha nominations are the reason behind a number of senior leaders quitting the party in the recent past.  On January 3 this year, AAP had nominated Sushil Gupta and Narayan Das Gupta over senior party leaders for Rajya Sabha seats. At that time, several people had questioned the party’s decision. Anti-corruption activist Anjali Damania had then cautioned about an impending “mass exodus” from the party.

(With PTI inputs)

AAP Leader Ashutosh Resigns from Party, Kejriwal Says Won’t Accept

Ashutosh was among senior leaders in the running for Rajya Sabha seats which ultimately went to two people from outside the party in January this year.

New Delhi: In January 2014, when Ashutosh quit his high-paying job as managing editor of IBN7 and announced his decision to join the Aam Aadmi Party, he had surprised many. Four and a half years later, when he declared today that he has “resigned from the party”, the decision did not surprise even a fraction of that number. Since January this year, when the party decided to overlook the candidature of several of its senior leaders for the Rajya Sabha, there has been a steady but silent exodus.

Ashutosh had over the last few months gradually distanced himself from the active political scene. Busy writing the occasional column, travelling or spending time with his pets, he appeared to be bringing himself around to this decision.

And on Independence Day, he made the announcement.

A short crisp tweet was what he issued. “Every journey has an end. My association with AAP which was beautiful/revolutionary has also an end. I have resigned from the PARTY/requested PAC (political affairs committee) to accept the same. It is purely from a very very personal reason. Thanks to party/all of them who supported me Throughout. Thanks,” it read.

Party supremo and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, though, was quick to react by refusing to accept the resignation. “How can we ever accept your resignation. No not in this lifetime,” he said in a tweet.

He also tweeted, “Ashutosh, we all love you a lot”.

It remains to be seen if Ashutosh will stick to his decision or not. Within the party, he was seen as someone very close to Kejriwal. In fact, he was one of the biggest spokespersons for the party for a long time. He was seen besides Kejriwal when the party celebrated following its victories after the 2015 Delhi assembly, elections in which it bagged an overwhelming 67 out of the 70 seats.

Over the years, Ashutosh remained an integral part of the core team. But the Rajya Sabha elections ended that dream run.

On January 3 this year, AAP had nominated Sushil Gupta and Narayan Das Gupta over senior party leaders for Rajya Sabha seats.

At that time, several people had questioned the party’s decision. Anti-corruption activist Anjali Damania had then cautioned about an impending “mass exodus” from the party.

While Kumar Vishwas was subsequently removed as Rajasthan in-charge of the party in April this year, Ashish Khetan stepped down barely a week later on April 18, as vice-chairman of the Delhi Dialogue and Development Commission (DDC) citing an “immense sense of frustration” with the Delhi government due to its running battle with the Centre. He also noted that he would be “joining the legal profession”.

Thereafter, all eyes were on Ashutosh, whose Twitter handle was the biggest giveaway. As he gradually stopped tweeting about regular events and developments concerning the party and retweeted people’s articles and comments on greater ideological issues more, it was becoming clearer that Ashutosh was drifting away from the party.

Some saw a reflection of this “I couldn’t care less” approach when Ashutosh did not respond or issue any tweet or message on Kejriwal and his three ministers – Manish Sisodia, Gopal Rai and Satyendar Jain – launching their sit-in protest at the Lieutenant Governor’s residence on June 11 to protest against his not accepting their demands for ending the undeclared ‘strike’ by civil servants in Delhi.

On June 14, three days after the protest by Kejriwal and his ministers began, Ashutosh, who was holidaying in Europe and had not spoken a word on the protest till then, tweeted: “Reporters are sending messages if I am unhappy with AAP dharna ? Absolutely not. More than 100% support for Dharna. People might gossip but reporters should stick to verifiable facts.”

He also wrote:

“If some MORON has written something about me and my absence, can’t help it. I am on a private visit to Europe since 27th May. Enjoying my holidays with my family. I will appreciate if I am allowed to have my private space.”

Clearly, he was peeved at his own journalistic community for having read a bit too much into his silence. But then, speculations were bound to arise. For a man who would speak about every little thing that had to do with the party had now suddenly decided not to say a word when four big party leaders were protesting against the BJP-ruled Centre’s transgressions through the LG. Ashutosh’s insistence that he was on a holiday and was entitled to privacy did not cut much ice, for it takes only a couple of minutes to issue a small tweet in solidarity with one’s party leaders.

Solidarity he did show in his own inimitable style two days later on June 16, while retweeting an opinion piece by Yashwant Sinha on “Kejriwal (still) being punished for defeating Modi”, he had tweeted: “Not meeting Arvind and his ministers is LG’s blunder which will cost heavily (sic) to Modi”.

While the party thereafter was engaged in several other important issues, Ashutosh by and large stayed away from commenting. A number of tweets centred around private matters including his pets and their health.

In between, he had also retweeted former AAP leader Yogendra Yadav’s tweet about an article of his on how a political science book of Class 12 had carried a chapter on Emergency even during the Congress rule. This showed that Ashutosh was not curtailed by any restrictions of speech on commenting about former party leaders, who left AAP under bitter circumstances.

Through his tweets and columns, Ashutosh all this while also kept sending out the message that he still remained fond of Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh. On a couple of occasions, he tweeted about Singh’s political activities. On July 8, he greeted Singh on ending his foot march from Benares to Ballia. There were also his occasional comments on other individual party leaders. On July 10, he had lauded party leader Jarnail Singh for chasing and stopping a car which was fleeing with a policeman on the bonnet. But overall, Ashutosh refrained from commenting on routine party matters.

How he felt about Kejriwal was revealed in an opinion piece which appeared in The Print on July 28. Writing about how Arvind Kejriwal was different from Imran Khan, he had commented that the Pakistani leader has “become the establishment” and at one point in time his “proximity to the Taliban was so pronounced that he was once called Taliban Khan”.

“But, nobody in their wildest dreams can claim to control Arvind Kejriwal. Since winning the elections, he, his government and his party have been subjected to all kinds of threats, intimidation, coercion, humiliation, insult, arrests, allegation, misinformation and propaganda. But Kejriwal and his team have refused to bow down. In fact, the establishment does not know how to handle him. He is branded an anarchist and a Naxalite. But he will always be a rebel.”

He also pointed out that “Kejriwal has always opposed communal, obscurantist and extremist forces.” From the article, he gave the impression that he remained impressed by the party chief now as he was nearly five years ago.

Ashutosh has not spelt out what he intends to do next. The former journalist, who has been writing columns, has also asked those in the media to “respect my privacy. I won’t be giving any bite of any kind. Please cooperate.”

Delhi Police Questions Kejriwal on Assault Case, AAP Calls It a ‘Witch Hunt’

The questions pertain to why the meeting was called late in the night, the circumstances leading to the assault on the Delhi chief secretary police and the CCTV camera footage.

New Delhi: A six-member team of Delhi police today questioned Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the alleged assault of Delhi chief secretary Anshu Prakash which had taken place at a late night meeting at his residence on February 19, 2018. Following the incident, the Delhi police had also “raided” the CM’s residence on February 23 and recovered the CCTV footage.

Kejriwal was questioned at length by the team members who comprised deputy commissioner (North district) Harendra Singh, who had been made in-charge of the case by a city court, and the assistant commissioner of police and station house officer of Civil Lines police station. These officers were accompanied by three inspector rank officers who videographed the entire questioning and visit.

Meanwhile, the party tweeted saying the questioning was nothing but a “witch hunt”.

It has been learnt that the police questioning centred around the sequence of events which unfolded during the late night meeting called by the CM at his residence and culminated with the alleged assault on the senior Indian Administrative Service officer.

The police personnel asked why the meeting was scheduled close to midnight and who all were present in it. They also sought to know the entire sequence of events which took place at the meeting.

The CM was also asked if the alleged assault on the civil servant took place before him and what his deputy Manish Sisodia was doing at the time. He was also questioned as to why Prakash was seated between Aam Aadmi Party MLAs Amanatullah Khan and Prakash Jarwal, who were accused of physically assaulting him.

The police also asked questions pertaining to the CCTV cameras installed at the premises and why seven of the 21 cameras were not working.

Incidentally, the number of personnel who visited Kejriwal today was far less than the nearly 150 who had gone to Kejriwal’s residence on February 23 to recover the CCTV footage. Following that raid, Kejriwal had stated that he was happy that the raids were conducted for investigating “two slaps” but asked if the police would have shown similar courage and raided Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Amit Shah in connection with the Judge Loya case.

AAP leader Ashutosh had claimed that the raid was an affront to the CM and was carried out to humiliate him.

During that raid, the police had obtained footage from 14 of the 21 cameras installed at the bungalow. Later, the officers had stated that the raid was necessitated because the Public Works Department (PWD) officials had not provided it with the footage which constituted “technical evidence” in the case and there was apprehension that it may be tampered with. From the footage, the police wanted to establish “Prakash’s condition after he came out from the meeting.”

Additional DCP Singh had then also claimed that while there was no camera in the room where the incident took place, the CCTV cameras were found running behind time by 40 minutes and 42 seconds. The recordings recovered were of approximately a month’s duration.

Following the incident, Prakash had complained that he had been called at midnight and was escorted to a room for the meeting where he was assaulted. AAP had later claimed that the assault had taken place around 11:30 pm and that Prakash was not even there till midnight. But the police claimed that the clock was running 40 minutes late that it was indeed a midnight meeting.

Following the incident, an FIR was lodged on Prakash’s complaint and Khan and Jarwal were arrested and sent to jail.

The police are now trying to establish the complicity of the others, if any, in the crime.

Opposition Seeks Probe into Jay Shah’s Firm After The Wire’s Report

Congress held a press conference to ask whether Modi, who had earlier said he would neither take bribes nor allow it, would order a probe into Jay Shah’s firm.

Congress held a press conference to ask whether Modi would order a probe into Jay Shah’s firm while Piyush Goyal said that Jay Shah would soon file a case against The Wire.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with BJP president Amit Shah. Credit: PTI

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with BJP president Amit Shah. Credit: PTI

New Delhi: Hours after The Wire published a story about the financial growth of a company owned by BJP president Amit Shah’s son, Jay Amit Shah, immediately after the BJP came to power in 2014, the Congress and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) launched a scathing attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The BJP on its part has defended its party president’s son by terming the story as “absolutely false, baseless, malicious, derogatory, defamatory, and hollow article with absolutely no substance whatsoever.”

The main opposition party, Congress, held a press conference to ask whether Modi, in keeping with his image of a leader who had promised na khaoonga, na khaane doonga (Neither will I take bribes nor will I allow it), will order investigative agencies for a probe.

Addressing the media, senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal said:

“It appears that with change of power, the fortunes of people associated with the ruling party also changes. Just like an arid land turns green in monsoons, Jay Amitbhai Shah’s fortunes have changed with the BJP coming to power. Some journalists have told me that some media houses have been instructed to stay away from telecasting and publishing what the Congress is addressing today. Since media is one of the strongest pillars of democracy, it is the duty of journalists to raise such issues of what appears to be a classic case of crony capitalism.”

He added that Jay’s company Temple Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., which was making losses until 2014, saw an increase of 16,000 times in turnover after the Modi government came to power. Similarly, he asked why a stock trading company, Kusum Finserve, a limited liability partnership in which Jay holds 60% stake, was given big loans by a public sector enterprise, Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA) and the Kalupur Commercial Cooperative Bank on a collateral of properties worth only Rs 7 crore.

“The most astonishing aspect of the allegation is that how a stock trading company got permission to set up a windmill project in Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh… It appears that the government was interested in spiking up the revenues of the company because it gave Rs 10.35 crore as a loan amount to a company which had no prior experience in the energy sector,” Sibal said, adding that the party is not alleging any criminality in the case but is merely stating facts from the story which indicate the possibility of crony capitalistic practices by the government.

“We urge the government to start a probe into Jay Shah’s firm,” said Sibal.

Also read: The Golden Touch of Jay Amit Shah

In an indirect reference to the BJP’s opposition campaign against Congress president’s son-in-law Robert Vadra alleged illegal land deals a few years ago, Sibal took a dig at the prime minister. “One may remember only on the basis of an allegation of an improper deal of Rs 10 lakh, the government has initiated ED, CBI enquiries against a private citizen. (The Congress leader and currently the chief minister of poll-bound Himachal Pradesh) Virbhadra Singh is also being hounded by CBI merely on the allegation of an illegal exchange of Rs 10 crore.”

Similarly, AAP re-iterated the facts presented in The Wire story and targeted the union government on the issue. AAP leader Ashutosh, in a press conference, went a step ahead and accused BJP president’s son of money-laundering.

“Out of the Rs 80 crore revenue that his firm declared in 2015-16, Rs 51 crore has come from foreign investments. The most shocking aspect is that such a good profit-making company stopped its business the next year. Why would a person shut such a great business? It is surprising that soon after the company got a loan, this company shut its shop. Is there a possibility that Jay Shah indulged in money laundering?”

He expressed his surprise over the fact that a small company like Temple Enterprises got such easy loans from state-funded institutions which are overseen by either people close to Amit Shah or are from the BJP. The party demanded an immediate enforcement directorate probe into Jay’s financial dealings. “Narendra Modi has been claiming that his government has not spared black marketers. If it is true, then he should order an independent and transparent probe into Amit Shah’s company. Otherwise, people will be forced to think otherwise.”

Alleging nepotism in handing out the windmill project’s contract to Jay’s Kusum Finserve, Ashutosh asked:

“How is it possible that a stock trading company got a government tender to establish a power generation company. Is it not necessary for a company to have prior technical experience and skills to receive such contracts? The allotment of the contract points out the nepotistic practices in the Modi government as it directly relates to the influence Amit Shah wields in the party.”

The BJP fielded former power minister Piyush Goyal – under whom the power-ministry controlled IREDA gave away a loan of Rs 10.35 crore to Kusum Finserve to set up a windmill project controlled by the power ministry, to do the firefighting.

In a terse statement, Goyal said, “We reject any allegations or imputations sought to be made against Mr. Jay Shah or any of our leaders. The article shows absolutely no impropriety whatsoever but imputes through malicious imputations. It is trying to damage the reputation of our leader Shri Amit Shah ji.”

He also took this opportunity to communicate what Jay’s future response would be. “Mr. Jay Shah has decided to file criminal defamation suit against the author, against the editors, and the owners of the news website, The Wire. They shall be prosecuted for criminal defamation, and they shall be sued for an amount of Rs 100 crore for defamation. Both these actions will be filed at Ahmedabad where Jay stays and carries on his business and where the cause of action has arisen. Mr. Jay Shah carries out fully legitimate and lawful business on commercial lines. It is all reflected in accounts books, through income tax returns and all transactions are through banks. All the loans have been taken strictly in accordance with law. Security have been provided. The loans taken have been fully paid after taking interest after deducting tax at source.”

However, he did not make it clear why a stock trading company was given a loan amount by the power ministry to set up a windmill project. While choosing to defend Jay, he also did not delve into the reasons as to why the Kalupur Commercial Cooperative Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs 25 crore to Kusum Finserve against a collateral worth only Rs 7 crore.

Meanwhile, political leaders have used Twitter to express their views on the issue.

The Rashtriya Janata Dal spokesperson, Manoj Jha, sent out this tweet.

Similarly, Rahul Gandhi also used the opportunity to hit out at demonetisation.

As BJP Explains Amit Shah’s Asset Increase, Questions on Deleted News Reports Remain

In a statement, the party has clarified that the sudden increase in Amit Shah’s assets is due to the properties he inherited after his mother’s death in 2013.

In a statement, the party has clarified that the sudden increase in Amit Shah’s assets is due to property he inherited after his mother’s death in 2013.

Amit Shah. Credit: PTI

Amit Shah. Credit: PTI

New Delhi: Caught in a controversy over the ‘300% increase’ in party president Amit Shah’s assets, the BJP on Monday issued a statement saying Shah was being wrongly targeted by political opponents and that the growth in his wealth was due to the movable properties he inherited after his mother’s death in 2013.

While filing his nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections in Gujarat on July 28, Shah declared movable assets worth Rs 19.01 crore and immovable properties worth Rs 15.30 crore – a total of Rs 34.31 crore. This was a hefty jump from his 2012 affidavit, which he had filed as an MLA candidate. In his previous affidavit five years ago, he had declared movable assets worth Rs 1.90 crore and immovable properties worth Rs 6.63 crore.

The Wire had earlier reported that leading English dailies Times of India and DNA had removed reports from their web editions that gave details on Shah’s and Union minister Smriti Irani’s affidavits within hours of being published on Saturday. Irani is also in the fray for a Rajya Sabha seat from Gujarat.

The deletion of these stories precipitated a discussion as political opponents speculated that the two media houses had pulled the reports under the influence of the saffron party. The Aam Aadmi Party had a field day on Monday after the newspapers removed the articles, alleging that the media houses were “forced” to take down the articles.

However, in its statement, the BJP said that the matter was blown out of proportion. It said, “In the 2012 affidavit, Amit Shah and his wife Sonal Ben had declared immovable assets worth Rs 10.99 crore. After the demise of his mother Kusum Shah, Amit Shah inherited his parental properties, both movable and immovable worth Rs 18.85 crore, through a court order on 28.02-2013.”

It added that because of this, the value of Shah’s assets had become Rs 29.84 crore in 2013, which had increased further to Rs 34.31 crore. It also clarified that the increase in Shah’s wealth was not because he acquired additional properties, but the growth in the value of assets that he already owned.

The BJP’s explanation has put the matter to rest for the time being, as it becomes clear that Shah acquired his wealth over a period of five years in a legitimate way.

However, the controversy would never even have arisen if TOI and DNA had not both removed the story about the 300% increase in the first place.

“There’s no problem with someone’s assets increasing as it can be in a legitimate way. But when media is forced to take down reports on the increase in assets, it raises many questions like whether it was amassed in a wrong way. Is it black money? Are they disproportionate assets?” AAP leader Ashutosh said in a Facebook post.

The question, therefore, is who asked the newspapers to remove the stories.

To date, TOI and DNA have still not clarified why they decided to remove the articles from their websites and whether there was some external “influence” that led to such a decision. Questions to the editors and publishers of the two dailies from The Wire and readers on social media remain unanswered at the time of publication.

In the past few months, several instances of this kind of self-censorship of reports, which cast a shadow on the BJP, have cropped up. This, in turn, has led to speculation by political opponents that the ruling party may be influencing or even leaning on media houses to tone down negative coverage.

Arun Jaitley Has A Tough Day At Court in Kejriwal Defamation Case

Cross-examining Jaitley was former law minister Ram Jethmalani who asked at least 50 direct questions to Jaitley.

Cross-examining Jaitley was former law minister Ram Jethmalani who asked at least 50 direct questions to Jaitley.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley was cross-examined in his case against Arvind Kejriwal today. Credit: Reuters/Files

Finance minister Arun Jaitley was cross-examined in his case against Arvind Kejriwal today. Credit: Reuters/Files

The face-off between union finance minister Arun Jaitley and former law minister Ram Jethmalani had all the trappings of a great legal encounter and it lived up to its expectations. Jaitley was being cross-examined at the Delhi high court in the defamation case filed by him against Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal.

By the time the cross-examination began on March 6, it was packed with lawyers, journalists and court staff. Jethmalani, who had earlier appeared on behalf of the accused in the Supreme Court in November, had clearly stated his reasons for taking up the case against Jaitley in an interview. He felt that the finance minister was responsible for his ouster as law minister from the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government. A few years ago though he had also blamed his dismissal on then attorney general Soli Sorabjee.

At court, the drama was high voltage with a battery of lawyers which turned out to support both sides.

Jethmalani began his questioning by posing nearly 50 direct questions to Jaitley. The examination lasted several hours, spread over two sessions. Jethmalani asked Jaitley why he believed the damage to his reputation was “irreparable and unquantifiable” and wondered aloud if it had more to to do with his “personal feelings of greatness”. “There is no objective rational reason, besides the value that you put on yourself?” the senior advocate further quipped.

Jaitley had filed the defamation case against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders – namely Kumar Vishwas, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh, Raghav Chadha and Deepak Bajpai – aftey they had accused him of financial mismanagement during his 13-year-long stint as the president of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA). Apart from filing a criminal complaint, Jaitley had also filed a civil defamation case in which he had sought Rs 10 crore in damages.

In his defence, Jaitley replied, “The value I placed towards loss of my reputation was only a small part of the enormous damage done.”

Jethmalani countered saying Jaitley had not suffered any monetary damage. The BJP replied saying the loss of his reputation could be partly quantified in terms of money. “Loss of reputation causes mental distress to the person defamed, which it did in my case,” he said, adding, “considering my stature, background and reputation, the loss caused to me and my reputation was so enormous that it was considered unquantifiable.”

This drew a strong response from Jethmalani who said this meant that it was Jaitley’s “personal feeling” about his greatness that made him file the case and so the damage could not be “estimated in terms of fiscal measure”. Jaitley replied his views were based around those of his “friends, well-wishers and others, both privately and in the media, who had expressed an opinion on the subject.”

“I don’t object to political statements but this was the first time a statement was made questioning my integrity,” he told the court.

Jethmalani then pointed out that the raid on Kejriwal’s former principal secretary Rajendra Kumar was conducted by the CBI as it expected to recover some documents pertaining to the DDCA. The Aam Aadmi Party has maintained all along that the probe against the DDCA could have been explosive and that is why the CBI was sent to scuttle it and take away the files.

Jaitley for his part submitted that the defamatory statements made against him by Kejriwal were primarily meant to defect focus from the raid which was conducted in his aide’s office in December 2015. “It appears that defendants (Kejriwal and others) made defamatory statements against me immediately after this raid. Their effort was to deflect the attention from this raid and somehow link me to the controversy with which I have no connection,” he said.

Jethmalani also quizzed Jaitley on whether he was aware that the Delhi government was appointing a commission to inquire into the controversy. To this, Jaitley answered that he had left the DDCA in 2013 and thereafter had lost touch with the functioning of the association. “I was not aware of any such inquiry.”

Then when Jethmalani asked him whether he had been shown the Delhi government’s probe report into the functioning of DDCA, Jaitley replied in the affirmative. But when asked if the report had been shown to him by Chetan Sanghi, the panel head, Jaitley said he did not remember that.

Incidentally, Sanghi, who was principal secretary in the vigilance department of the Delhi government, had told the Centre that he was under “pressure” from various “stakeholders” for naming some individuals, including a “certain VIP”, in his report on the affairs of DDCA.

During the course of the hearing, there were also some moments which went beyond mere law point.

On one such occasion, Jethmalani asked Jaitley if he knew the difference between “reputation” and “goodwill” and when Jaitley replied with an explanation, the latter disagreed and pulled out a copy of the Webster’s dictionary and submitted it, much to everyone’s amusement.

The hearing will resume at 11.30 am on March 7.

Fictional Book on JNU Refused Discussion at Book Fair

The National Book Trust has refused to allow a discussion on Avijit Ghosh’s book, Up Campus Down Campus, at the New Delhi World Book Fair, raising suspicions of the government acting preemptively to prevent dissent.

The National Book Trust has refused to allow a discussion on Avijit Ghosh’s book, Up Campus Down Campus, at the New Delhi World Book Fair, raising suspicions of the government acting preemptively to prevent dissent.

Students in JNU protest about the recent unrest at the academic council meeting. Credit: Twitter

Students in JNU protest about the recent unrest at the academic council meeting. Credit: Twitter

Writer-journalist Avijit Ghosh’s book, Up Campus Down Campus, set in JNU in the 1980s and an entirely fictional narrative, has been refused discussion at the New Delhi World Book Fair organised by the National Book Trust (NBT), the government publisher. The Indian Express reported that Ghosh wasn’t allowed to read at the last moment.

According to the Telegraph, NBT had asked for a copy of the book prior to the proposed discussion by Speaking Tiger, Ghosh’s publisher, and had described the denial of permission as “routine” and “unintentional”. Ravi Singh from Speaking Tiger told the Telegraph that the publishing house had applied for three slots for discussions but was permitted only two. “But they wanted a copy of the book on JNU. We submitted it last week, but they denied permission for a discussion of that book. They did not give any reasons,” he said.

Ghosh told The Wire, “The National Book Trust, who are the organisers of the World Book Fair, did not offer any reason to the book’s publisher, Speaking Tiger, for refusing to give a platform for a discussion on my novel, Up Campus Down Campus. I can, therefore, only speculate in the form of questions. Is it because the novel is about JNU, which has traditionally been the bugbear of the ideological Right, especially in recent months? Or, is it because AAP leader Ashutosh was the event’s proposed host. Probably it is a case of being guilty by suspicion, a pre-emptive micro-management of possible dissent.”

His hostel mate, Ashutosh of the AAP, had been invited for the discussion, which was to be on life on campus in the 1980s. But apparently, the very mention of JNU threatens the administration.

Ashutosh told the Telegraph, “The book is about a student’s experience at JNU, but the NBT chairman is so paranoid about JNU that he did not allow a discussion.”

However, Baldeo Bhai Sharma, chairperson of the NBT, has denied that it had anything to do with JNU. He told the Indian Express that no publisher had been allowed more than two slot and that, “It’s all programme-based and has nothing to do with what it is about, not even if it has something to do with JNU.” 

Sharma has headed the NBT since 2015 and was the editor of the Sangh Parivar’s mouthpiece, Panchjanya, in 2008. The NBT comes directly under the purview of the Ministry of Human Resource Development.

Controversy Erupts Over NCW Summons to AAP Leader For Article Defending Ex-Minister

The NCW chief described his article as “objectionable and obnoxious”, while the opposition has demanded his dismissal from the party.

The NCW chief described Ashutosh’s article as “objectionable and obnoxious”, while the opposition has demanded his dismissal from the party.

Ashutosh, national spokesperson of the Aam Aadmi Party. Credit: PTI

Ashutosh, national spokesperson of the Aam Aadmi Party. Credit: PTI

The attacks on former journalist and Aam Aadmi Party leader Ashutosh for an article he wrote in a news website in defence of former minister Sandeep Kumar – removed last week and expelled from the party after a CD showing him having a sexual encounter with two women surfaced – are showing no signs of abating.

After being targeted by the opposition BJP and Congress in Delhi, Ashutosh was served a notice on Monday by the National Commission for Women (NCW) and a police complaint was also filed against him at a police station in North East Delhi.

In a hurry to name and shame Ashutosh, what everyone is forgetting is that his article was written before one of the women who appeared with Kumar in the video had lodged a complaint of “rape” against him for having forced her into sex by offering to get her ration card made.

She has also alleged that the video was made without her knowledge after the minister had offered her a drink that was spiked with some drug.

A day after Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal sacked Kumar over the objectionable video, Ashutosh wrote an article for NDTV that appeared with the title: “The Sex Was Consensual, Private Act. Why AAP Punished Its Man”.

In the post, Ashutosh had assumed that Kumar and the woman who was with him were “consenting adults” and questioned if physical contact between them was therefore a crime. With the woman complainant not having approached the police by then, Ashutosh had further asked if it was right to proceed against Kumar.

“The woman seen in the video is not coerced by any stretch of imagination. She has not even complained after the act to anyone. She has not gone public complaining of any wrongdoing. She has not registered any complaint either to the police or to the court. She has not even approached the family of the man. Neither has the wife of the man expressed any divergent view on the conduct of the man. He has not blackmailed the woman. He is not seeking any sexual favour for any obligation. He has not pressured her to get in the act. It’s not rape. It’s a case of two adults with their consent indulging in sex,” he wrote.

His article also drew a parallel with the lives of other prominent leaders in the past, once again in the belief that there was no coercion involved. “With all its social infirmities, India in its larger consciousness has never questioned its leaders about what they do or have done in their private moments.” He added, “Indian history is full of examples of our leaders and heroes who had lived with their desires beyond social boundaries.”

It was his naming of several prominent leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Ram Manohar Lohia, George Fernandes, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and even Chinese leader Mao Zedong, which got the opposition in Delhi all charged up.

While the Delhi Congress president Ajay Maken said Ashutosh’s comments were “in bad taste, not even worth reacting,” he also observed that after Kejriwal had removed the minister and the latter had said “he was sacked for being a Dalit”, Ashutosh had compared him with Nehru and Gandhi. On Monday, party leaders also organised a silent protest at the site of Mahatma Gandhi’s samadhi at Raj Ghat to protest Ashutosh’s comments.

The BJP, which held a similar protest at Raj Ghat on Saturday, also demanded Ashutosh’s ouster from the party. Satish Upadhyaya, president of BJP’s Delhi unit, said that Ashutosh had defamed and insulted Mahatma Gandhi, while party leader in the Delhi assembly Vijender Gupta termed the write-up an affront to all women and urged Kejriwal to get a police complaint registered against Ashutosh.

Neither of the two parties, however, spoke about the points raised by Ashutosh against the prominent national figures.

But then came NCW’s notice to Ashutosh, in which its chairperson, Lalitha Kumaramangalam,  described his article as “very objectionable and obnoxious”. She charged that in the article he had “almost given a clean chit to the alleged accused of a rape case”. She also mentioned that in the article, Ashutosh had “referred to great leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Gandhiji, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, etc.”

Noting that the victim has filed a rape case, the NCW notice said that the commission was “therefore extremely upset with such irresponsible, misogynist, disparaging views by persons holding responsible positions.” She therefore sought an “explanation” from him for “issuing such statements that compromise the status and dignity of women” and called for his appearance at NCW on September 8.

Commenting on the notice, Ashutosh questioned if there was any freedom of expression left in the country and if India was turning into a fascist state. He also charged that Kumaramangalam was a BJP national executive member and wondered if such summons were being sent to all those writing about consensual sex.

The summons also drew a strong response from the media with some, like senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, slamming the NCW’s decision.