By A K Srivastava Jamshedpur, Sept. 23: Doctors say that I am out of danger now.”You were one of the rare cases when an elderly 82 plus-year-old patient with chronic ailments like BP, sugar and breathing problem came out as a winner in spite of pneumonia and the Corona attack,” they said. The 19 days […]
New Delhi, Dec 29 (IANS) Law Minister Kapil Sibal Sunday alleged that the pain reflected in Narendra Modi’s blog post over the 2002 Gujarat riots was aimed at electoral gains during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections and the “riots baggage” will remain with the Gujarat chief minister.
In a post on his blog, Sibal said 11 years was too late to express pain and agony for the Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial candidate.
“This pain and agony reflected in Modi’s blog is for an audience whose sympathy will be vital in May 2014,” Sibal said.
Sibal said the ordeal of the riot victims needs attention and not that of Modi.
Modi Friday said the 2002 sectarian violence in Gujarat had “shaken (him) to the core”.
His remarks came after an Ahmedabad court Thursday dismissed a plea challenging the Special Investigation Team’s closure report giving a clean chit to him and 58 others in a case related to the communal riots.
Modi said the court verdict made him feel “at peace” and termed the post-Godhra riots as a “crippling blow to an already shattered and hurting Gujarat”.
The Gujarat chief minister attacked his critics, saying they were blaming him for events that shattered him.
“This act of liberation does not connect us with the real Modi. His riots baggage will remain. It is too late to express he was shaken to the core. Had that been so, the core would have reacted in time, not a belated one before the Lok Sabha elections,” Sibal said.
“Pain is an emotion expressed without calculation. Pain can never be a belated reaction. And one who suffers in silence cannot remain silent for 11 years,” Sibal said.
He also questioned Gujarat government’s stance in cases related to the 2002 riots.
“Where was the pain when the state defended those who now stand convicted, when affidavits about their innocence were filed in courts and lawyers were paid for defending the indefensible?
“Where was the pain when the state did not reach out to those crying for help and those seeking justice and when the state was collaborating with the accused to settle their affidavits, while being prosecuted in court?”