Modi silence

Why is the ‘Strongest PM’ India Has Ever Had Silent on Adani, Brijbhushan, Manipur and China?

Karma for the ‘Maun’mohan Singh jab seems to have finally caught up with Narendra Modi.

During the 2014 election campaign, Narendra Modi took great pleasure in deriding incumbent prime minister Manmohan Singh as ‘weak’ and ‘voiceless’. At rallies, he was frequently taunted as ‘Maun’mohan Singh, playing on the Hindi word for silence. At a Shimla rally, Modi asked why ‘Maunmohan’ Singh and Sonia Gandhi kept a stony silence on issues like inflation and price rise under the UPA.

Each epithet Modi threw at Manmohan Singh is now rebounding on him with a vengeance. Some call it Modi’s own karma while others say it is Keshubhai Patel’s curse.

More than a decade ago, in 2012, Modi found himself isolated. Even the RSS organ Panchjanya had hit out at Modi’s ‘style of functioning’ as Gujarat’s chief minister. Pitted against Modi were an array of Gujarat seniors like former chief minister Suresh Mehta, Kashiram Rana, Gordhan Zadaphia, Nalin Bhat, Sidharth Parmar and Pravin Maniar.

Aging and ailing, Keshubhai Patel often cursed his old chela and called him a ‘rhino’. He asked people to guard against the antics of the lanpot sankh (a Gujarati term for braggart). He described Modi as a ‘demon’ favouring industrialists at the expense of the poor.

A decade later, Modi’s involvement with the industrialist that Keshubhai had in mind has seemingly left him speechless. He has not uttered a word about the damning revelations contained in the Hindenburg report about his friend Gautam Adani’s alleged stock market manipulations, accounting irregularities and undisclosed transactions. In the resultant stock market turmoil, the Adani Group’s net worth was halved.

The issue rocked parliament, with the opposition insisting on a joint parliament committee (JPC) inquiry into the scam and that the prime minister should come to the house to explain his relationship with the Adanis. While Modi himself maintained maun all along, his colleagues persistently stonewalled every demand for public scrutiny, made in and outside parliament. Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal went to the extent of alleging that the money involved ‘actually’ belonged to Modi. He said Adani was merely a front.

This is an extremely serious allegation levelled by a chief minister. He has challenged the very personal integrity of the country’s prime minister. Modi had in the past charged the UPA government with a series of scams. But no one had ever accused Manmohan Singh of personal involvement. In fact, no prime minister in India was ever accused of this kind of direct personal involvement in any such misdemeanours, not even Rajiv Gandhi, who was accused of enriching his friends but not himself. This renders Modi’s silence on the Adani imbroglio even more surprising.

Rahul Gandhi holds up a photo of Narendra Modi in a private jet with Gautam Adani in the Lok Sabha, February 7, 2023. Photo: Screengrab via Sansad TV

Blame it on the stars or karma, the dawn of 2023 found Modi totally tongue-tied on half a dozen pressing issues. For several months, India’s champion wrestlers were on the streets seeking action against the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president, Brijbhushan Sharan Singh – who is also a BJP MP. Women wrestlers, including minors, alleged repeated sexual misbehaviour by Singh, who had for years established a vice-like grip on the entire federation.

Crucial positions in the WFI are held by his kin and friends who controlled the entire outfit. As the agitation and dharna continued at Jantar Mantar, Modi and his ministers were busy breaking the morale of the protesters. While Singh was gaily rubbing shoulders with his party bosses at the inauguration of the new Parliament building, the police were manhandling the wrestlers at Jantar Mantar. They were detained and kept in the police station for hours before finally being charged with rioting.

At one stage, the wrestlers were so disheartened by Modi’s refusal to break his silence that they went to Hardwar to throw their medals into the Ganga. However, they were persuaded not to do so by leaders of the farmers’ unions. The wrestlers also got widespread support from the middle classes and youth. A C-Voter survey found that 68.4% of the people interviewed wanted the PM to take strong action against the accused BJP MP.

Khap panchayats extended full support to the wrestlers and organised their own protests. Women from the mahapanchayat rushed to Delhi to join the wrestlers’ dharna. None of this moved Modi who, as a diehard despot, went by his own cold calculations. Jat votes, which can influence 40 Lok Sabha seats spread over four states, are important for him. But ignoring the Brijbhushan factor in Uttar Pradesh could also be politically fatal.

It is this dilemma that forced India’s “strongest prime minister” into a long maunvrat on the issue. Yet behind the scenes, he tried to break the agitation. He deputed Anurag Thakur, who sought to wean away what the establishment thought was the most vulnerable section. Though the Supreme Court refused to monitor the investigation, its verdict forced the police to move.

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh at the parliament inauguration. Photo: Special arrangement

The reason for Modi’s stony silence on the Manipur violence, now ongoing for over two months, belongs to a third category. The ethnic clashes which began on May 3 have forced 37,000 people into relief camps, 12,000 people to flee and have killed at least 142. Over 36,000 central forces personnel have been deployed in the state. Caught in a cleft stick of its own creation, any solution the government suggests could bounce back on it.

Authoritarians the world over avoid such risks. They always seek to take credit for positive achievements and carefully avoid unpopular decisions. Hence, Modi deputed Amit Shah to Manipur – where the latter drew a blank. This explains his refusal even to meet an opposition delegation to discuss the situation in Manipur for 10 days. Finally, they left a memorandum at the PMO. Other delegations from Manipur also had similar experiences. Angry at Modi’s silence, the protesters refused to listen to his ‘Mann Ki Baat’ homilies.

The clashes have forced even the RSS to make a formal appeal for peace. But not India’s prime minister.

Consider how A.B. Vajpayee handled a similar situation in July 2001. He took an all-party delegation to Manipur and held two all-party meetings. This should be the practice in a democracy. Discussion at the National Integration Council was another tradition during the pre-Modi era.

Sidestepping uncomfortable truths

Silence as a device to sidestep uncomfortable truths has been spreading to new areas. The PM persistently avoids talking about the ingress of Chinese troops at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) ever since his 2020 faux pas. Modi had surprised everyone by claiming that “neither has anyone intruded into Indian territory nor has anyone captured any military posts”, which contradicted his government’s statements.

Similar silence prevails on price rise and the economic situation after his gaffe on inflation in February last year.

In one of his rare retorts, Manmohan Singh had way back in 2018 asked Modi why he was afraid of holding press conferences and thus avoiding media scrutiny. The former PM has a point. Unlike other PMs, Modi has never held a press conference. In the US, he attended a press conference after eight years but took only one question.

Even this misfired badly. Instead of the soft questions Modi is used to, the Wall Street Journal‘s correspondent asked a highly embarrassing question. This led to wild trolling of the journalist by the BJP’s social media soldiers. Things got so ghastly that the White House issued a formal statement condemning the ‘harassment’.

It is not for nothing that Maun-Modi sets great value by what is now his trademark silence.

P. Raman is a veteran journalist.

‘Deplorable’: Concerned Citizens Condemn Silence of Country’s Leadership on Wrestlers’ Complaints

Prominent civil society members, former IAS officers and economists recommended that the investigation into the wrestlers’ allegations against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh should be headed by a Supreme Court-appointed judge.

New Delhi: A group of prominent civil society members, including economists, lawyers and retired IAS officers, has issued a statement condemning the silence of the country’s senior leadership on the wrestlers’ protests.

Writing under the collective name ‘Concerned Citizens’, the group especially expressed its concern over the seemingly “compromised” nature of the Delhi police’s investigation into the wrestlers’ allegations, and the potential reasons behind the minor complainant retracting her complaint against Wrestling Federation of India chief and BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

It observes that the Delhi police’s delay in filing FIRs against the accused, despite being mandated to file them immediately in light of some allegations involving cognisable offences, shows that “the persons accused in this case are far too influential for the investigating agency to be able to act expeditiously”.

The group also notes that while the Delhi police delayed filing FIRs against the accused, the Delhi police were quick to file them against the wrestlers during their march towards parliament, and drop the POCSO case against Singh despite there being unresolved questions around the minor changing her statement.

The statement includes a timeline of events surrounding the wrestler’s protest, beginning with allegations some women wrestlers made in 2017 against a wrestling coach of sexual abuse.

Towards the end, it says, “As a nation, we are responsible for supporting the women wrestlers … We feel that this can be ensured only if the Delhi police is fully insulated from political interference … We feel that this will be possible only if the investigation is subject to monitoring by a sitting or a retired judge appointed by the apex court.”

Delhi police have not arrested Singh as the wrestlers have demanded but filed a chargesheet against him on June 15. He is accused of sexual harassment and molestation, and misuse of his authority.

The protesting wrestlers have also criticised the senior leadership’s silence on their widely publicised protest against sexual harassment. Commonwealth and Asian Games gold medallist Vinesh Phogat said that the prime minister’s studied silence was emotionally draining.

Here is the statement’s full text:

Silence of the Senior Leadership in the Country is Deplorable

Concerned Citizens’ Statement on Women Wrestlers’ Complaints

Date: July 3, 2023

We issued a statement earlier on June 10 expressing our deep anguish at the deplorable manner in which India’s medal-winning women wrestlers, who brought glory to the nation, were forced to come out into the open to complain about sexual harassment to which they were subjected by the head of the Wrestlers Federation of India (WFI) and other officials, how the entire government machinery, which is expected to safeguard women’s rights, should passively watch and remain silent, allowing investigations to proceed at a snail’s pace, at the cost of safeguarding the interests of the affected wrestlers.

The timeline of progress of the investigation in this case, as indicated below, suggests the urgent need to ensure that the concerns of the wrestlers are appreciated and addressed effectively:

1. There were allegations by some women wrestlers against the WFI officials as early as 2017 (https://cms.thewire.in/women/mahavir-bishnoi-wrestling-coach-brij-bhushan-sharan-singh-sexual-harassment).

The fact that such allegations failed to prompt either the Sports Ministry or the WFI to set up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as mandated under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 indicates not only the indifference and insensitivity on the part of the office bearers of WHI of towards women wrestlers but also their continuing impunity to violate the law of the land.

As a result, there was no formal institutional mechanism for the victimised women wrestlers to register their complaints and get them investigated during the last 5-6 years. It is possible that many such complaints were made in the past and went unregistered. The ICC as provided in the Act would comprise, among others, independent women’s rights activists, who could examine the complaints in an impartial manner.

Also Read: Wrestling Patriarchy: The Herculean Task of India’s Sportswomen

Apparently, neither the Sports Ministry nor the WFI thought it was their obligation to set up such a committee, despite some women wrestlers complaining in the past of sexual harassment by WFI’s senior functionaries.

2. Failing to get justice, the women wrestlers were forced to go out into the open in mid-January, 2023 to hold public protests. The Delhi police were fully aware of this but, for some inexplicable reason, did not consider their complaints and file FIRs as required under Section 154 of the CrPC.

Since some complaints made by the wrestlers point to cognisable offences, it was mandatory for the police to file FIRs immediately, without waiting to complete the investigation. The apex court, in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P [W.P. (Crl) No; 68/2008] observed that “the scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognisable offence”.

The fact that the Delhi police failed to comply with this showed that they were possibly influenced by extraneous considerations to delay filing FIRs and delay taking up investigation. It shows that the persons accused in this case are far too influential for the investigating agency to be able to act expeditiously

3. The Sports Ministry, instead of allowing the investigation to proceed independently, constituted an oversight committee to report on the wrestlers’ complaints. However, when that committee submitted a report, though belatedly, the Ministry chose not to place it in the public domain, which leads one to the inevitable inference that the report was not found to be in line with what it expected. In all fairness, copies of the report ought to have been made available to the complainants.

Also Read: Wrestlers’ Protest | Govt-Appointed Panel Was Biased Towards BJP MP Singh: Complainants

4. In the 3rd week of April, the wrestlers, including the minor, returned to resume their protest, demanded the police to register an FIR and demanded that the oversight committee’s report be released to the public. Failing to get any response either from the Delhi police or from the Sports Ministry, they were forced to approach the apex court for relief.

It was only on an intervention from the apex court that the Delhi police finally filed two FIRs, one under the POCSO Act against the head of the WFI and another under the relevant Sections of the IPC against both the head and the Secretary of the WFI. Based on the government’s response, the apex court took cognisance of the fact that the wrestlers faced threats and asked the police to provide them protection.

The developments that followed show that the apex court’s direction is yet to be complied with fully.

5. While the Delhi police did not arrest the accused any time, despite the offences alleged to have been committed by him being grave and despite the likelihood of the accused and his associates intimidating the complainants and the witnesses and tampering with the evidence, they showed no hesitation whatsoever to file FIRs against the wrestlers and detain them when they led a protest march to the Parliament.

Police stop protesting wrestlers from marching to new parliament building on May 28. Photo: Twitter/@SakshiMalik

6. It was after the wrestlers threatened to throw away their medals in River Ganga that the Sports Minister chose to meet them. The Minister assured them that the Delhi police would file a chargesheet in the case by June 15, 2023, and appealed that the wrestlers should call off their agitation. True to what he said, the Delhi police did file the chargesheet on June 15, 2023! Considering that an investigation such as this one is expected to be a quasi-judicial process not subject to any external pressure, this raised concerns about the objectivity and impartiality of the investigation in this case.

7. It was reported (https://theprint.in/india/wrestler-taken-to-wfi-office-adjacent-to-brij-bhushans-official-residence-for-scene-re-creation/1620722/) that the wrestlers were taken to the WFI office (which is located at Shri Brij Bhushan Singh’s official residence) in the name of “recreation of the crime scene”. If this report is factually correct, we feel that it amounted to the re-victimisation of the wrestlers, who have already been subject to considerable harassment.

8. As referred earlier, the Delhi police filed a chargesheet against the WFI chief under sections 354, 354A, and 354D of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with the offences of outraging a woman’s modesty, sexual harassment, and stalking respectively. [The] WFI Assistant Secretary has also been accused of abetting an offence and criminal intimidation under Sections 109 and 506, respectively, in addition to accusations of sexual harassment and outraging a woman’s modesty (https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/chargesheet-against-brij-bhushan-filed-what-charges-wfi-chief-8665000/).

In addition, on the ground that the minor wrestler had made a statement retracting her complaint against the WFI head, the Delhi police summarily dropped further action under the POCSO Act (https://news.abplive.com/news/india/wrestlers-protest-sakshi-malik-on-pocso-case-against-brij-bhushan-sharan-singh-wrestlers-to-decide-on-future-course-chargesheet-1609436).

Also Read: ‘Minor Wrestler Changed Statement Because Her Family Was Threatened’: Sakshi Malik

If what has been reported is factually correct, considering that the Delhi police would have already recorded the minor’s statement in the presence of a magistrate when the complaint was first received and keeping in view the fact of the wrestlers facing threat was raised before the apex court earlier, it raises questions on whether there was undue pressure on the minor and her family, forcing the minor to retract her statement. This is a matter that calls for an objective investigation.

Soon after the POCSO Act was enacted in 2012, the Ministry of Women & Child Development issued Model Guidelines in [September 2013] under Section 39 of the Act (https://wcd.nic.in/policies/model-guidelines-under-protection-children-sexual-offences-pocso-act2012) based on inputs of experts on child psychology and child development. Those guidelines explain why a minor may not disclose abuse. The reasons, which are illustrative, as indicated in the Guidelines are as follows:

“i) He/she is embarrassed

ii) He/ she does not know if what is happening to them is normal or not

iii) He/ she does not have the words to speak out

iv) The abuser is a known person and the child does not want to get them in trouble

v) The abuser told the child to keep it a secret

vi) The child is afraid that no one will believe him/ her

vii) The abuser bribes or threatens the child

viii) He/ she thinks you already know

Being aware of these signs would alert the counsellor to the possibility of sexual abuse.”

We are not sure whether the investigating agency is aware of these guidelines and acted in line with the same. Considering that the apex court, in the proceedings relating to the wrestlers’ complaints, took note of the existence of a threat to the wrestlers and directed the police to provide protection to them, the least that the Delhi police ought to have done was to ensure that none of the wrestlers including their families came under extraneous pressure to retract their complaints.

This is particularly important in the case of the minor. The political clout carried by the accused in this case could have influenced the police to be hesitant in extending the necessary protection to the complainants, especially, the minor, possibly resulting in the minor choosing to record a second statement afresh, which prompted the Delhi police to close the POCSO case against the head of the WFI. This is far too serious a matter to be ignored in this case.

Also Read: ‘If No Action Taken by June 15, We’ll Resume Protest’: Bajrang Punia After Meeting Anurag Thakur

The above-described timeline of investigation and the manner in which it has been conducted to date suggests that the investigation process has not done enough justice to the complainants.

We feel that in the specific case of the POCSO offences, the presumptive provisions of Section 29 of the POCSO Act “Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved” need to be kept in view.

If the investigation, in this case is allowed to be influenced by the political leadership, as seems to be the case at present, the interests of the women wrestlers are likely to get compromised.

As a nation, we are responsible for supporting the women wrestlers, who brought glory to our country, to enable them to pursue their profession with dignity and self-esteem. We feel that this can be ensured only if the Delhi police is fully insulated from political interference and ensures that the investigation proceeds strictly in compliance with the law of the land. We feel that this will be possible only if the investigation is subject to monitoring by a sitting or a retired judge appointed by the apex court.

In conclusion, we are constrained to express our dismay and distress at the inexplicable silence on the part of the senior leadership at the way the investigation has progressed till now and the distressing manner in which the women wrestlers who have brought glory to the nation have been forced to resort to public agitation seeking justice. We sincerely hope that the political leaders in power today ponder over what Mahatma Gandhi said, “Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.”

Signatories:

1. A Selvaraj, Retd IRS

2. Abha Bhaiya Co-ordinator, India One Billion Rising

3. Anil Sadagopal, Former Professor & Dean, Delhi University

4. Archana Prasad, Professor JNU

5. Arun Kumar, Economist

6. Aruna Roy, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan

7. Arundhati Dhura National Alliance of Peoples Movements

8. Asha Misha, General Secretary, All India Peoples’ Science Network

9. Ashok Choudhury – All India Union of Forest Working People

10. C. P. Chandrasekhar, Economist

11. Capt. S.Prabhala, Indian Navy Retd

12. Chirashree Dasgupta, Professor JNU

13. Dinesh Abrol, Scientist

14. Dunu Roy, Social scientist and political ecologist

15. E A S Sarma Former Secretary, GOI

16. F T R Colaso, Retd IPS

17. Fr. Cedric Prakash, Educationist

18. G Balagopal, Retd IAS

19. G K Pillai, Retd IAS

20. Gurjeet Singh Cheema, Retd IAS

21. H S Gujral, Retd IFS

22. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate

23. J. Johnsily, Mahalir Association for Literacy Awareness and Rights

24. Joe Athialy, Financial Accountability Network

25. Joy Oommen, Retd IAS

26. Justice. Hari Paranthman. Retd Judge, Madras High Court

27. K V Bahgrih, Retd IAS

28. Kavita Kabeer, AIPSN

29. M G Devasahayam, Former Secretary Govt of Haryana

30. M.C.Rajan, Human Rights Lawyer

31. Madhu Bhaduri

32. Mariam Dhawale, GS AIDWA

33. Nithyanand Jayaraman, Chennai Solidarity group

34. P.R. Dasgupta, Former Secretary GOI

35. Pamela Philipose, Journalist

36. Prabhat Patnaik, Professor Emeritus, Economist

37. Prabir Purkayastha

38. Pradeep E, Professor, Bangalore

39. Priya Dharshini, Delhi Forum

40. R Elangovan DREU

41. R Nagalswamy, Retd IAAS

42. R. Poornalingam former Sec. Govt of India

43. Radhika Ganesh National Co-convenor, Young People for Politics, Ek Potlee Ret Ki

44. Rani Sarma, Writer and Historian

45. Rudi Wajiri, Retd IFS

46. S P Ambrose, Retd IAS

47. S. Krishnasamy, Retd Professor, M K University

48. S. Mohana, Retd Professor, Dindigul

49. S.P. Shukla, Former Secretary, GOI

50. Sandeep Pandey, Socialist Party of India

51. Sebastian Morris, Professor, Goa Institute of Management

52. Sharad Behar, Retd IAS

53. Sreedhar Ramamurthi, Environics Trust

54. Subhash Kolhekar, Social Justice & Health Rights NAPM

55. Sundar Burra, Retd Civil Servant

56. Sushil Khanna, IIM, Kolkata

57. T. Ramachandra Bhatt, Former Banker, Former Director, Mangalore

58. Tara Murali, Chennai

59. Thomas Franco, People First, Former GS, AIBOC

60. Vasanthi Devi, former Vice Chancellor, M S University

61. Venkatesh Athreya, Economist

62. Vivek Monteiro, CITU Maharashtra

63. Vinaya Malati Hari, BGVS Maharashtra

‘PM Modi Has Turned His Back On Manipur But If Asked I Can Initiate Peace Process’: Ratan Thiyam

One of Manipur’s most highly regarded playwrights Ratan Thiyam says that he cannot understand PM Modi’s refusal to talk about Manipur in Sunday’s ‘Mann Ki Baat’, though he did find time to speak about the Emergency, which is 40 years old.

Manipur playwright and director Ratan Thiyam has said that if the Prime Minister or Union home minister ask him to initiate a truth and reconciliation process in Manipur he would be prepared to consider doing so.

Thiyam, who is one of the state’s most highly regarded theatre practitioners, said he is “heartbroken” by the tragedy unfolding in Manipur but cannot believe the anger between the Kuki and the Meitei communities has gone so far and deep that they cannot be reconciled.

In a 30-minute interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, Thiyam, who is a former chairperson and former director of the National School of Drama, said he cannot understand PM Modi’s silence and his refusal to talk about Manipur in Sunday’s ‘Mann Ki Baat’, though he did find time to speak about the cyclone in Gujarat and even the Emergency, which is 40 years old.

Thiyam said the prime minister seems to have turned his back on Manipur just when it needs him the most. “The PM either doesn’t understand the gravity of the crisis or doesn’t care.”

Thiyam said the people of Manipur are asking “Where should I go? What do I do?” These are, he agreed, existentialist questions. They suggest the people of Manipur feel the country – and perhaps the media in particular – has turned its back on them and forgotten about them. As an illustration of his point, he said television news, when it shows the weather, stops at Kolkata, as if there are no Indian states further to the east. This metaphor perfectly and poignantly illustrates how the rest of India views the Northeast.

Asked whether the time had come for Chief Minister Biren Singh to be dismissed, Thiyam said these are decisions the Union government has to take and the fact that it has not suggests they are happy with Biren Singh, despite the deteriorating situation in Manipur.

Asked if reconciliation is not possible or doesn’t happen and, therefore, trust cannot be restored between the Kuki and Meitei communities, would he accept that the time has come to concede the Kuki demand for a separate administration? To put it differently, if the two communities cannot live happily together, perhaps they might be able to live happily as neighbours? This is when Thiyam said that he cannot believe the anger and divide has gone so deep that it cannot be resolved.

Watch the full interview here.

‘Your Silence on Hate-Filled Voices Threatens Unity of Nation’: IIM Students, Faculty to PM

In a letter, 183 students, staff and faculty members from IIMs in Ahmedabad and Bangalore urged PM Modi to break his silence on the many “hate-filled” calls for violence echoing across India today.

New Delhi: A group of students and teachers from two Indian Institutes of Management (IIM) have written to the Prime Minister, observing that his silence on the rising intolerance in the country emboldens the “hate-filled voices”.

The letter sent to the Prime Minister’s office had 183 signatories, including 16 faculty members, from the IIMs in Ahmedabad (IIM-A) and Bangalore (IIM-B). A copy was also sent to The Wire.

“Your silence on the rising intolerance in our country, Honourable Prime Minister, is disheartening to all of us who value the multicultural fabric of our country. Your silence, Honourable Prime Minister, emboldens the hate-filled voices and threatens the unity and integrity of our country,” the letter says.

Urging the prime minister to steer the country away from “forces that seek to divide us”, the letter noted that the Indian constitution gives every citizen the right to practice any religion without fear and shame.

“There is a sense of fear in our country now – places of worship, including churches in recent days, are being vandalised, and there have been calls to take arms against our Muslim brothers and sisters. All of this is carried out with impunity and without any fear of due process,” the letter said.

The letter sought the PM’s “leadership to turn our minds and hearts, as a nation, away from inciting hatred against our people”.

Also read: ‘Complicity of Police; Forced Conversion a Myth’: PUCL on Attacks on Christians in Karnataka

“We believe that a society can focus on creativity, innovation and growth, or society can create divisions within itself. We want to build an India that stands as an exemplar of inclusiveness and diversity in the world. We, the undersigned faculty, staff and students of the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore and Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, hope and pray that you will lead the country in making the right choices,” it added.

According to the Indian Express, the letter was drafted by five faculty members of IIM-B: assistant professor, strategy, Prateek Raj; associate professor, public policy, Deepak Malghan; associate professor, entrepreneurship, Dalhia Mani; associate professor, decision sciences, Rajluxmi V. Murthy and associate professor, public policy, Hema Swaminathan.

Other faculty signatories from IIM-B include Rahul Dé, dean of programmes and chairperson of the Office of International Affairs and Manaswini Bhalla, chairperson of the economics and social sciences section.

From IIM-A, JSW chair professor of innovation and public policy and dean of alumni and external relations, Rakesh Basant was one of the three faculty members who signed the letter.

Speaking to the Express, Raj said that a group of students and faculty took the initiative as “silence was not an option any more.”

“For far too long, the mainstream discourse has dismissed the voices of hate as the fringe. That’s how we are here,” he said.

He stated that the objective of the signatories was to underline the fact that “if voices of hate are loud, voices of reason should be louder”.

The report also stated that while for Raj, it was Bangalore MP Tejasvi Surya’s speech calling for a “quota” for Hindus to convert Muslims and Christians, there was a similar trigger for other signatories, such as the recent attacks on Christian congregations and the genocidal calls by the Haridwar Dharam Sansad.

The full text of letter is appended below:

4th January 2022

Dear Honourable Prime Minister:

We, the undersigned, request you and our elected members to preserve the culture of tolerance and diversity that defines our great nation. Hate speeches and calls for violence against communities based on religion/caste identities is unacceptable. Our Constitution gives us the right to practice our religion with dignity – without fear, without shame. There is a sense of fear in our country now – places of worship, including churches in recent days, are being vandalised, and there have been calls to take arms against our Muslim brothers and sisters. All of this is carried out with impunity and without any fear of due process.

We expect our leaders to safeguard our Constitutional rights. We expect our leaders to ensure safety and security for every Indian citizen. We expect our leaders to motivate us to be human and look beyond differences based on caste, religion, language, and other identities. Your silence on the rising intolerance in our country, Honourable Prime Minister, is disheartening to all of us who value the multicultural fabric of our country. Your silence, Honourable Prime Minister, emboldens the hate-filled voices and threatens the unity and integrity of our country.

We request you, Honourable Prime Minister, to stand firm against forces that seek to divide us. We ask your leadership to turn our minds and hearts, as a nation, away from inciting hatred against our people. We believe that a society can focus on creativity, innovation, and growth, or society can create divisions within itself. We want to build an India that stands as an exemplar of inclusiveness and diversity in the world.

We, the undersigned faculty, staff, and students of the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIMB) and Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA), hope and pray that you will lead the country in making the right choices.

Yours sincerely,

(All signatures below are in a personal capacity and alphabetical order)

A Ramyatanuja

Abhinav D R P

Abhinav Kanoria

Abhishek Jaisingh

Abhishek Kujur

Abhishek Shaw

Abid Ahmed Khan

Abu Rehan Abbasi

Abu Shahir M S

Adarsh Chamaria

Adithya Anand

Aditya Prakash

Ajinkya Patil

Akash Kamble

Akshay Pratap Horo

Alpesh Sosa

Anasha KP

Anisha Jain

Anjali S

Ankur Sarin

Anmol Kankariya

anoop chhabra

Anshul Kapoor

Anshuman Paranjape

Anupama Kondayya

Anuraag Shetty

Apurva Hyanki

Arjit Kumar Prince

Arjun K

Arnab Biswas

Arpit S

Arun Mathew

Asfia Aejaz

Ashish Sen

Ashok P

Asif Shaikh

Ayush Mishra

Balakrishna B

Barnali Priyadarshini

Bharghvi Prajapati

Bhavana Gaddam

BIBEK BHATTACHARYA

Chadive Roopesh Reddy

Chitra Andrade

Dalhia Mani

Debopriyo Ray

Deepak Malghan

Deepika Sharan

Deepti Sharma

Dinanta Ballabh

Dipali Sharma

Durvesh Chauganjkar

Gourav Nayak

Hariharasudhan Ayyappan

Harshal Dongre

Harshitha R

Hema Swaminathan

Hemanshu Dhangar

Himanshu Shekhar

Ishika Somani

Ishwar Murthy

Jeevan Nagaraj

Jithin Krishnan

Jugal Choudhary

Jyotesh Singh

Kanchan Mukherjee

Kapil Gupta

Kaushal Kumar

Ketki Kundawar

Khalil Ahmad

Kranthi Chaitanya

Krishna Wadhwa

Kritika M

Kumari Suman

Lakshmi C Rajeev

Madhur Butke

Madhusudhan K

Mamata Anurag Salakapurapu

Manasa Viswanatha

Manaswini Bhalla

Manisha Raman

Mansi Parmar

Mansi Srivastava

Mansur Khan

Md Shahrukh Anjum

Medha Gorantla

Mir Autif Mohammad

Mira Bakhru

Mohammad Farhan Maktabay

Mohammad Salman

Mohit Sharma

Mopidevi Jyothi Swaroop

Mrutyunjaya Sahoo

Mudit Vaish

Mugilarasan K

Muneer Kalliyil

Murari Srinivasa

Naman Sharma

Navdeep Mathur

100

Naveen Meena

101

Nazhar Hussain

102

Neha Gautam

103

Nelphy Rose Siby

104

Nibir Das

105

Nikhil Satish

106

Nishant Mallick

107

Nithin Kumar Peratla

108

Omer farooq

109

P C Narayan

110

Pradeep MS

111

Pradeep V

112

Pragati

113

Pranav Bhageria

114

Prateek Raj

115

Praveenkumar K

116

Rafhat Quazi

117

Rahul De

118

Rahul Kumar

119

Rahul Rao

120

Rahul Reddy Bikka

121

Rajalaxmi Kamath

122

Rajesh

123

Rajluxmi V Murthy

124

RAKESH BASANT

125

Ravi Shankar Pandey

126

Renjini Krishnan

127

Reshma MN

128

Ritika Goel

129

Ritwik Banerjee

130

Rohit Aman

131

Roshni P

132

Rudrabhatla Bharath Kumar

133

S Parthasarathy

134

S. Athar

135

Sagarika Barman

136

Sahil Arora

137

Sahil Parmar

138

Sai Dattathrani

139

Sai Sowmya Aasi

140

Sai Yayavaram

141

Sakshi Yadav

142

Samarjit Dey

143

Sandeep Pandey

144

Sarang Bhat

145

Sarthak Jain

146

Sasidhar S

147

Satish Kumar Korada

148

Selvamuthu Thirukumaran M

149

Shihas Abdul Razak

150

Shiril Saju

151

Shivangi Rajora

152

Shreyas Krishna Seethapathy

153

Shubham Kumar

154

Sk Aminoor Rahman

155

Somnath Shukla

156

Srevatsan S

157

Sridharan S

158

Srikrishna Manikanta Pani JVM

159

Srinath Vigneshwar

160

Srinivasan Murali

161

Subhankar Saha

162

Sugandha BK

163

Sunil Kulkarni

164

Sunita Chawan

165

Supriya Kakade

166

Swati Bajpai

167

Tanieem

168

Tenzing Choppel Gensapa

169

Toshan Kharumnuid

170

Tushar Meshram

171

Utkarsh Sahu

172

Vaibhav Garg

173

Varun Gupta

174

Venkatalakshmi R

175

Vignesh R

176

Vijay Raj

177

Vinod Ganesh

178

Viriezo Vizo

179

Vishal Laxman Bengeri

180

Vivek

181

Vivek Kandimalla

182

Vivek Kumar

183

Zainab Feroz

Don’t Give Masala to Media, It Hurts Party Image: Modi to BJP Leaders

“It’s our job to not get entangled in every thing and guide the nation on every issue by standing in front of the TV.”

New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi today asked BJP leaders not to make “irresponsible” statements, providing “masala” to the media. Such comments hurt the party’s image, the prime minister told his colleagues.

In an interaction with the party’s MPs, MLAs and other representatives, Modi said leaders at times jump to make statements in front of the media and end up providing “masala” (fodder to controversies). There is then no point in blaming the media for such controversies, he said.

“Don’t blame the media. It is doing its job. It’s our job to not get entangled in every thing and guide the nation on every issue by standing in front of the TV. Those with the responsibility of speaking on the issue will do it,” he said.

Touching on the subject of some party leaders making embarrassing comments, Modi said his remarks might seem bitter but must be made.

“At times our workers talk a lot about the media doing this, media doing that. But have we thought that we end up giving masala to the media with our mistakes? As if we are some social scientists or scholars who can analyse every problem. The moment we see a cameraperson we rush to make a statement. The media will use the part which it finds useful. It is not its fault. We will have to restrain ourselves,”

The most recent example in a long list of such embarrassing and ludicrous comments has come from Tripura’s newly appointed BJP chief minister Biplab Kumar Deb

“Internet and satellite communication had existed in the days of Mahabharata. Sanjaya (the charioteer of king Dhritarashtra) using the technology gave a detailed account and description to the blind king about the battle of Kurukshetra,” Deb said while inaugurating a two-day workshop on computerisation of the public distribution system.

In a video interaction with MPs and MLAs posted on Modi’s website, the prime minister told them that if everybody makes comments, it ends up harming the nation’s, party’s and their personal image.

This is not the first time Modi has told BJP leaders to be careful while speaking to the media. Soon after being sworn in in 2014, the prime minister told the elected MPs that they should publicly raise issues only around their own constituencies, and not as if they are party spokespersons.

‘Jan Gan Man Ki Baat’ Episode 220: Bharat Bandh and PM Modi’s Silence

Vinod Dua discusses the ‘Bharat Bandh’ against the dilution of the SC/ST Act and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s continued silence on crucial issues.