Global Hunger Index assessment does not reflect the ground reality and is not worthy of consideration. It is, in fact, a hallmark of misinformation and false propaganda.
Exposing Vishwambhar Choudhari's Lies
To allege that the Modi government is indulging in giving plum postings as quid pro quo is being too generous with creativity.
Read Time: 5 minutes
click play to listen to the article
To expect the BJP to give employment to the opposition ecosystem is being imaginative to a fault. The Congress or any other party never did that — no one had a problem then? In fact, Congress has a history of removing even commoners from their jobs for being supportive of ideologically opposing leaders. On the other hand, one of the biggest criticisms that the BJP supporters have against the BJP is that it doesn’t favour its supporters the way the Congress does. Even a cursory glance at the Padma awards gives one a very clear idea of how the Congress and the Left nurture their ecosystem. Going beyond politics, even in our normal life, would we hire someone we know would not work efficiently?
Further, if one has to interpret based on imagination and not facts then there are n-number of conclusions that can be drawn. The other side can also argue that these people were posted looking at their just-minded approach. In any case, to allege that these postings were quid pro quo is being too generous with creativity.
RK RAGHAVAN, YC MODI
On 26 March 2008 the Supreme Court appointed RK Raghavan & YC Modi to head the SIT to investigate 2002 Godhra riots. The SIT grilled Modi for over nine hours. In May 2010, the SIT gave a clean chit to Modi. In 2011, the SC directed the SIT to again examine a case for any larger conspiracy. The SIT submitted its closure report in February 2012 again exonerating Modi. The SC accepted this report and even praised RK Raghavan for his work. In April 2013, another petition challenging the SIT clean chit to Modi was filed. In December 2013, the court ruled that there is no case against Modi. Again, in April 2014, the SC refused to even register a case challenging the clean chit by SIT. In June 2022, the SC junked Zakia Jafri’s plea and again upheld this SIT report.
RK Raghavan: Now, what is so special about being made an envoy to Cyprus? Is this posting some kind of big reward — No. Is it a very prestigious position — No. Does it pay exceptionally better compared to other positions — No.
YC Modi: The post of the chief of National Investigation Agency is not a post of prestige but that of responsibility. But YC Modi has even retired from here on 31 May, 2021. The Haren Pandya probe headed by YC Modi was during his tenure in the CBI under the Congress regime (up to 2010). Malicious propagandist, Prashant Bhushan’s NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) based on allegations made by Rana Ayyub in her book Gujarat Files had sought re-investigation in this case but the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and instead slammed ₹50,000 fine on the NGO. The court said, “The Book by Rana Ayyub is of no utility. It is based upon surmises, conjectures, and suppositions and has no evidentiary value”. It further said that, “The opinion of a person is not in the realm of the evidence.”
It is important to remember that Prashant Bhushan had filed a plea against the execution of Mumbai blast accused, Yakub Menon. In a first, the Supreme Court of India held a 90-minute hearing on this plea at 3:00 AM only to reject the atrocious application. Bhushan later termed the execution to be a sad day for Indian democracy.
In 2009, Congress had won the elections spectacularly and BJP was reduced to a mere 116 seats. In 2012, BJP was nowhere in the race to win 2014 elections and Modi had not even been declared a PM candidate. Did RK Raghavan or YC Modi in 2008 or 2012 know that BJP would win the elections in 2014. At a time when opinion polls gave 125-150 seats to the BJP, RK & YC must have been indeed extremely clairvoyant to predict BJP winning 2 years later and that Modi would be the PM and that he would return the “favour” by making Raghavan an envoy to miniscule Cyprus and YC Modi the chief of NIA.
P SATHASIVAM:
P Sathasivam did not clear Amit Shah’s name in Tulsiram Prajapati case. In fact, he even shifted the case out of Gujarat to the Congress ruled Maharashtra. P Sathasivam was the Chief Justice of India, holding office under the Congress rule between 2013-2014. If he quashed one of the many FIRs against Amit Shah, he was also the one who ordered a CBI probe into the same issue.
Tulsiram Prajapati was a close aide of Soharabuddin Sheikh, a LeT terrorist plotting to kill Modi. Both Tulsiram Prajapati and Sohrabuddin Sheikh were known extortionist and arms smugglers as well.
This fake encounter case against Amit Shah was itself a fake case under the Home Ministership of P Chidambaram aimed to hound Shah and Modi. The entire ecosystem was moved against Modi since 2002. The then CBI Director is said to have approved a note which spoke of the need to “fix Shah and arrest him in the Sohrabuddin case”. Amit Shah had to spend 3 months in jail and was externed from Gujarat for 2 years. DG Vanzara, former Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad chief and co-accused in the case was jailed for 8 years. In connection to the case the court noted that, “Premier investigating agency like CBI had before it a pre-meditated theory & script intended to anyhow implicate political leaders & agency nearly did what was required to reach that goal rather than probing as per law”.
In 2014, the court discharged Amit Shah. In 2016, the Supreme Court rejected the petition against the discharge of Amit Shah. In 2018, the Bombay High Court dismissed another plea challenging the discharge of Amit Shah. Prominent journalists who pronounced Amit Shah guilty in this case later tendered an unconditional apology in the court and accepted they had telecasted a false story on their television channels.
As in the case of RK Raghavan & YC Modi, the FIR against Amit Shah was quashed when neither the BJP was in power nor was Amit Shah even the president of the BJP.
KV CHOWDARY:
The very statement displays complete lack of even basic information about the so-called case. KV Chowdary had no case under him in which he could give Modi a clean chit. KV Chowdary was an Indian Revenue Service officer since 1978. Primarily the said case was filed not against Modi, but against the appointment of KV Chowdary as the CVC. The case was filed by malicious propagandist, Prashant Bhushan through an NGO — Common Cause.
It was not KV Chowdary but a panel of judges of the Supreme Court, who forget giving a clean chit in a probe, summarily dismissed even the plea seeking a probe against the Sahara and Birla groups. The SC while dismissing the case said that the documents placed by Prashant Bhushan aren’t credible enough to even warrant a probe. The court said that Bhushan’s plea was devoid of any merit. Referring to papers placed before the court by Bhushan, the court commented that such “random materials” are “inadmissible materials” and have “no evidentiary value under law” and such documents cannot constitute legal evidence. The panel also cited an order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission where it found that materials recovered were fabricated. Earlier too, the SC had refused to order a probe in the case, and called the documents produced by Bhushan as “fictious” and “not authentic”.
RAKESH ASTHANA:
If Asthana was made the Special Director in CBI by Modi, he was also transferred from the CBI to the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security by Modi. An NGO, Common Cause had filed a case challenging Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as a Special Director alleging his name had figured in an investigation which in reality hadn’t even named him in the FIR. The special CBI court and given Asthana a clean chit. Prashant Bhushan then approached the Delhi HC against the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner. The Delhi HC dismissed Bhushan’s petition.
Rakesh Asthana is the police officer who investigated the ₹9.4 billion Fodder Scam which saw a high-profile politician (Lalu Prasad) being punished, probably for the first time in India. He was involved in unravelling the conspiracy behind 2008 Ahmedabad blasts. 49 accused were convicted. He was also involved in investigating a case related to Asaram Bapu. He has been in jail since 2013.
UU LALIT:
UU Lalit never appeared for Amit Shah in Soharabuddin case; it was Ram Jethmalani who argued for Shah in the Supreme Court. Lalit has however appeared for former Congress Chief Minister of Punjab, Amarinder Singh, actor Salman Khan, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa as well as Congress leaders SM Krishna & Navjot Sidhu.
Lalit’s name was recommended by the collegium of 4 senior-most judges headed by the Chief Justice of India (The senior-most judge naturally becomes the CJI) only because another candidate withdrew his candidature to be appointed as a judge. The insinuation that Lalit was made the judge against some quid pro quo is inappropriate and baseless.
In 2011, the Supreme Court appointed UU Lalit as the special public prosecutor for the CBI in the 2G spectrum cases, stating that “in the interest of a fair prosecution of the case, appointment of UU Lalit is eminently suitable”. Previously, Lalit had been a public prosecutor (public prosecutor is appointed by the government) for the center for more than 5-years and for the state of Maharashtra for around 15-years — both stints during the Congress regime.
SUNIL GAUR:
Again, zero efforts to cross-check the authenticity of such claims. No such appointment has been made. But what if such an appointment was made? Again, is PMLA tribunal any prestigious post or a post that pays better — No. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait had also denied bail to P Chidambaram. Justice Banumathi had also rejected the bail plea of Chidambaram. No allegations of plum postings for them?
Tags: Truth Unveiled, Lutyens
Share this article:
Leave a Comment
0 Comments
Recommended For You
HMV, His Master’s Voice points towards an ecosystem which creates narratives for their political masters — leaders of Sharad Pawar’s NCP. The HMVs have a single-point agenda: to discredit Devendra Fadnavis at every forum, regional and national.
India is in the early days of its most vicious election campaign. While we may see the opposition and its darbaris, just like when the Pulwama attack took place, speaking in one voice, it won’t be long, we’ll see them resorting to questioning and doubting today’s air strikes.
Speaking out against Nehru's lingering influence is essential. His reign planted the seeds of corruption, with entitlement overshadowing merit and dynasty prevailing over democracy. The parallel between Nehru's era and Sonia-Rahul Gandhi's is uncanny. The thread of corruption persists, a sinister legacy passed through generations.