Rajat Sharma

My Opinion

Extradition of Nirav Modi will nullify Rahul’s slogan ‘Chowkidar Chor Hai’

AKB_frame_51537For the second time, a London court rejected fugitive diamantaire Nirva Modi’s bail petition on Friday saying that he was a flight risk and could jump bail.

Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said in her order: “there are allegations of substantial fraud on the banks in India of up to US $2 billion (Rs 14,000 crore). The government of India has, very unusually for a case of fraud, alleged that interference of witnesses has taken place and that evidence has been destroyed. I am conscious of his right to bail but I find the conditions of bail do not allay my fears, so no bail.”

The Indian government’s counsel had argued that Nirav Modi had threatened to kill a witness, had destroyed evidence and even tried to buy citizenship in Vanuatu by paying $ 2 lakh. The counsel said, Nirav Modi threatened to kill a witness Ashish Lad and then offered him Rs 20 lakh to give a false statement.

Judge Emma Arbuthnot said, the bail bond offer of one million pounds was not substantial security in a case where a billion dollars is said to have been lost.

I had mentioned on the day of Nirav Modi’s arrest that he was working as an employee in a diamond jewellery company for a monthly salary of 20,000 pounds, out of which he was paying house rent of 17,000 pounds for an apartment in London. Now his job is gone, and he would not have to pay house rent since he is lodged in prison, and there are slim chances of him getting bail.

There are chances that Nirav Modi may be extradited to India soon, and if the CBI succeeds in its efforts, Rahul Gandhi’s “Chowkidar Chor Hai” slogan will stand nullified. Rahul will have to search for a new slogan to attack Prime Minister Narendra Modi.


Why is Opposition worried over anti-satellite missile test ?

akb28MarchOn Wednesday, India successfully tested an anti-satellite (ASAT) missile to target a live satellite on low earth orbit (300 km), thus joining the exclusive elite club of three nations, US, Russia and China, which have this capability. The three-stage interceptor missile was fired from APJ Abdul Kalam Island off Odisha coast, and soon after Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a televised address, announced the success of ‘Mission Shakti’.

The nation salutes its scientists in DRDO (Defence Research & Development Organisation) for giving India this capability. This is surely a defining moment in our historyl. However, this test in space set off a ground war in the Indian political arena with the opposition questioning its timing.

Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee went to the extent of complaining to the Election Commission alleging violation of Election Code of Conduct. Congress president Rahul Gandhi accused Modi of indulging in, what he called, “political theatre”.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley promptly hit back at the Congress president making a caustic comment with the proverb “when a finger points to the moon, the idiot points to the finger”. Jaitley said the opposition was only making “clerical objections”.

Opposition leaders have praised our scientists for this achievement, but they are worried because Prime Minister Modi has changed the electoral narrative by announcing this historic anti-satellite missile test.

The most worried politician seems to be Rahul Gandhi, who had been going to town with his ambitious Rs 72,000 a year minimum income guarantee promise for the last two days. The Congress president probably thought that his NYAY (minimum income) scheme would overshadow the narrative worked out by the BJP after the IAF air strike and Kisan Samman Nidhi plan, implemented by the Modi government.

While addressing his party workers on Wednesday, Rahul Gandhi said that the Prime Minister “was looking worried” in his televised address because of the minimum guarantee scheme.

The Congress president is free to make his own assumption but the fact remains that it was Prime Minister Modi, who had the political will to approve this missile test that has made India a world space power. The lesser we politicize this issue, the better.


Why BJP leadership decided not to field Dr M M Joshi in LS polls

akbVeteran politician Dr Murli Manohar Joshi is 86 and he is part of the Marg Darshak Mandal of BJP. In the last Lok Sabha elections, Dr Joshi contested and won from Kanpur constituency. The party leadership had given him subtle hints several times in 2014 and 2019 to stay away from active politics and even offered him a Rajya Sabha seat, but the old veteran insisted that he would contest.

On Monday, Dr Joshi released a statement saying that the BJP organisation secretary Ram Lal has asked him “not to contest election from Kanpur or anywhere else”. The statement itself was cryptic.

In the afternoon, BJP announced that Satyadev Pachauri, a minister in UP government, will be fielded as party candidate from Kanpur. Joshi thus joins the list of party veterans L K Advani, Shanta Kumar, B C Khanduri and Bhagat Singh Koshiyari who have been denied party tickets due to old age.

It could have been better if Dr Joshi had himself offered not to contest. This could have saved embarrassment both to him and the party leadership. There is no denying the fact that Dr Joshi spent almost his entire life in building the party, he became party president, he was HRD Minister in Vajpayee’s government and he headed the party manifesto drafting committee several times. He contested and won LS seats from Allahabad, Varanasi and Kanpur.

As far as I know, neither the party had any ill feeling towards him, nor did he had any towards the party leadership. The only obstacle was his age and the party leadership has taken a correct decision in asking him to stay away from electoral contest.

The party leadership had to take into consideration the winnability issue for each and every seat in UP, because of serious challengers from the SP-BSP alliance, and the caste and community factors. The main battles of LS elections will be fought in Bihar, UP and West Bengal and the party leadership cannot afford to take risks.


Winnability was the foremost factor in selection of BJP candidates

akbThe BJP announced its first list of 184 candidates for Lok Sabha elections on Thursday and the most important announcement was: Party president Amit Shah will contest from veteran leader L K Advani’s Gandhinagar constituency in Gujarat. Amit Shah is not new to Gandhinagar because he had been looking after Advani’s election for the last many years.

The suspense remains about another veteran leader Dr Murli Manohar Joshi. The candidate from Kanpur seat was not named on Thursday because there are reports that Dr Joshi wants to contest elections, and the party leadership does not want to tell ‘no’ to its veteran leader. Dr Joshi has not spoken to anybody so far, but there are indications that he may be persuaded to accept a Rajya Sabha seat, and excuse himself from the rough and tumble of Lok Sabha polls.

The list of 184 candidates clearly indicates the meticulous planning that went into deciding the names of contestants. Party chief Amit Shah obtained performance report cards for each and every MP, and this exercise was done in secrecy by professionals. These secret reports formed the basis for selection of candidates. I have seen a copy of the reports that give a clear indication of how the winnability factor of a candidate was decided.

The party leadership clearly went by the winnability factor and it cared the least about whether those who were denied tickets would become dissident or leave the party.

The second factor that worked behind preparation of the list was the clear division in the ranks of opposition. In UP, the SP-BSP alliance has kept the Congress out, in Bihar the ‘mahagathbandhan’ is still struggling to decide about the seats to be contested, in West Bengal, the Trinamool Congress has already declared its list of candidates and the Left-Congress alliance too has collapsed.

Clearly, the first round has gone to the BJP, and the Lok Sabha poll campaign may revolve only around the persona and achievements of Narendra Modi.



Unlike Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi’s extradition to India may be faster

AKB_frame_375London police on Tuesday swooped down on fugitive Nirav Modi at a local bank where he had gone to open an account. He was produced at a London court on Wednesday where the magistrate rejected his bail application and sent him to custody till March 29. The magistrate termed Nirav Modi as “a flight risk”, meaning that he could jump bail and flee the UK.

The fugitive diamantaire has been charged with conspiracy to commit fraud and conspiracy to conceal criminal property. Nirav Modi will now appear before the chief magistrate on March 29. CBI and Enforcement Directorate officials believe that the process of Nirav Modi’s extradition will be faster compared to the long drawn-out exercise currently going on for Vijay Mallya’s extradition.

The two cases are not similar. Fugitive industrialist Vijay Mallya had gone to the UK on a valid passport and his passport was revoked later. Nirav Modi travelled to many countries and entered the UK illegally on a revoked Indian passport. Indian government’s requests for extradition of both these fugitives are pending before the UK authorities.

Both the CBI and ED have filed detailed charge sheets listing documentary evidence on bank forgery for issuing fake LoUs (letters of undertaking), e-mail conversations, bank transfers and use of shell companies for laundering money in at least 15 countries, including the UK. In their charge sheets, the CBI and ED have documented illegal laundering of nearly Rs 6,400 crore out of Rs 7,000 crore allegedly siphoned off from Punjab National Bank. Nirav Modi’s properties in India are being attached.

The arrest and the process of extradition of Nirav Modi will surely add a feather to the cap of Prime Minister Modi, who will be campaigning across the country. The message that will be conveyed to the people is that the ‘chowkidar’ is doggedly hunting down the ‘chors’ (thieves). This, in effect, may take the wind out of the sail of Rahul Gandhi’s slogan ‘chowkidar chor hai’.










India seeks FBI help in extraditing Dawood from Pakistan

akbIndia TV on Monday night in its show ‘Aaj Ki Baat‘ gave details of how terror fugitive Dawood Ibrahim has shifted from Karachi and is now staying in an ISI safe house in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.These and all other info are being shared by Indian agencies with two senior FBI officials from USA, who are presently in New Delhi to assist the government in extraditing the underworld don.

India’s case is that Dawood Ibrahim and Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin are of Indian origin, and they can be put on trial only in Indian courts, unlike Lashkar-e-Toiba chief Hafiz Saeed and Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Maulana Masood Azhar, who are of Pakistani origin.

A 280-page dossier on Dawood Ibrahim has been prepared and shown to FBI officials, according to this report. Dawood is wanted in 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts and several other terror attacks. India will hand over this dossier to the Pakistani High Commissioner in Delhi and demand that Dawood be extradited. The underworld don is now 64 years old, and he has undergone major plastic surgery. A sketch of Dawood based on his last known photographs has been prepared.

FBI has been told by Indian agencies that Dawood may have become old but his ‘D company’ is still active and he is helping Jaish-e-Mohammed in setting up ‘sleeper cells’ inside India. Indian agencies have given numbers and details of at least five passports issued by Pakistan to Dawood under assumed names. Addresses and details of Dawood’s residences in Karachi have also been shared in this dossier.

India and the US are presently engaged in intelligence sharing to counter terrorism, and the Indian government hopes that the US would exert pressure on Pakistan government to hand over India’s most wanted criminal.


The inside story of how IAF launched its daring air strikes on Balakot

AKB_frame_16_MarchIndia TV on Friday night in its programme ‘Aaj Ki Baat’ telecast details about the meticulous planning that went into the daring IAF air strikes at the Jaish terror facility located in Balakot inside Pakistan. The actionable intelligence included details of the rooms inside the campus where the terrorists, their trainers, handlers and ISI army officers were staying. For the first time, these details have been made available to the media for the benefit of those who still doubt whether the air strikes were successful or not.

The idea of air strikes had originally come from Indian Air Force chief Air Chief Marshal B. S. Dhanoa, who was himself a fighter pilot. He had a major role to play during the air strikes during 1999 Kargil conflict.

Air strikes nowadays are carried out only when detailed layout and plan alongwith info about specific targets are made available to the fighter pilots. Laser guided smart bombs are designed to hit specific targets only. The entire layout was mapped from satellite surveillance.

There were already info about terrorists’ trail through dense forests to the hill top where the Jaish facility was located. There was also info from intelligence that nearly 300 terrorists had gathered at the campus and the Jaish chief Maulana Masood Azhar was expected to come in the next 2-3 days. But our Air Chief decided not to wait, and went in for the air strike.

When the air strike plan was prepared for our Mirage-2000 jets, the main worry was how the Pakistan Air Force would react. The Prime Minister had given clear instructions that there should be no casualties on our side.

Our strategists found out that the Pakistan Air Force command would take 13 minutes to make their aircraft airborne to counter our fighter planes. Thus, our Air Force had a 13-minute window to enter the enemy airspace, carry out the strikes and return safely. The air strikes took place at 4:02 am and all our aircraft returned safely. By the time the Pakistani F-16 aircraft took off to counter the air strikes, it was too late.

Already the IAF had other jet aircraft ready to provide cover to our Mirage-2000 aircraft. Had the PAF F-16 aircraft come in hot pursuit into our air space, they could have been shot down. Pakistan Air Force has admitted that their aircraft withdrew when they found a strong squadron of our aircraft waiting for them.

One vital point: The Pakistan army was expecting a surgical strike on land either across the Line of Control or near the international border. It was because of this reason, Jaish terrorists were withdrawn 50 km away from the LoC and stationed at Balakot deep inside Pakistani territory.

The Pakistani army did not have an inkling that the IAF would carry out air strikes on Balakot camp. It was Prime Minister Narendra Modi who revealed at a public rally that the enemy had expected a surgical strike on land, but the strikes were carried out from air.


Accountability must be fixed for Mumbai CST foot over bridge collapse

AK(002)On Thursday evening during rush hour traffic, the concrete slabs of the foot over bridge linking to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus fell 35 feet below crushing people underneath. Till Friday morning, six persons died and 38 others were injured, many of them critical. The casualty figure is bound to rise.

Local people along with police and fire brigade rushed to the spot and saved several commuters.

This is not first such bridge collapse in Mumbai. On September 29, 2017, a stampede took place after the Elphinstone over bridge collapsed causing heavy casualties. Twenty three people lost their lives. Army help was taken to rebuild the foot over bridge. An audit was conducted for all foot over bridges in and around Mumbai, and the CST foot over bridge was given a clean chit by the engineers of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.

Local leaders Raj Purohit, Milind Deora and Waris Pathan visited the spot and demanded action against the erring officials who were in charge of maintenance. Two Maharashtra ministers Vinod Tawde and Subhash Desai promised action against the officials. The accountability lies with the BMC, but the BMC Commissioner came to the spot to inspect and went away without speaking to the media.

Since it is election time now, the demand for action against officials may be overshadowed in the din of poll frenzy, but accountability for this mishap must be fixed at all costs, and the erring officials must be punished.


Priyanka’s speech had more impact on common man than Rahul Gandhi’s

AKB_frame_460On Tuesday in Gandhinagar, the Congress party launched its election compaign from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s home turf, Gujarat. The new party general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra gave her first election speech which lasted hardly seven minutes. This was in sharp contrast to Rahul Gandhi’s speech which lasted for half an hour.

Priyanka’s speech was simple and to the point, while Rahul’s speech was a rehash of what he had been saying all these years, without any variations. The difference in impact was clear. Priyanka easily connected with the common people. She did not claim that she knew much, but asked people to realize for themselves what is good for them and what is bad.

Without naming Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Priyanka questioned Modi’s remark that the country was now in safe hands. Priyanka said, the country’s safety lies in awareness among the common people. She refrained from describing anybody as ‘chor’ (thief), nor did she name Modi or the BJP. But she nevertheless conveyed her message effectively.

Let us hope Rahul will at least learn some aspects of political courtesy and control over his language from her sister.



Rahul, Farooq may have to face people’s wrath for their remarks on Azhar, air strike

baat_frame_64791 (002)Congress President Rahul Gandhi on Monday referred to Jaish-e-Mohammed chief as ‘Masood Azhar Ji’ while addressing his party booth workers in Delhi. He was referring to the Kandahar hijack incident in 1999, when Masood Azhar and two other terrorists were handed over to hijackers in exchange for release of hostages.

BJP leaders criticized Rahul for showing respect to the terror mastermind by using the word ‘Ji’. Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad reminded that it was senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh who had once said “Masood Azhar Ji” and “Hafiz Saeed Sahib”. This month, Digvijaya Singh had referred to the Pulwama terror attack in which 40 CRPF jawans were killed by a Jaish suicide bomber as “durghatana” (accident).

As an opposition leader, Rahul Gandhi is well within his rights to criticize Modi government’s policies and actions. Being the head of the opposition party, he should be doing so, but making a respectful mention of a terror mastermind whose men killed 40 of our jawans, is one such remark which the people of India may not accept. It may hamper the electoral prospects of the Congress party.

Former Jammu & Kashmir chief minister Dr Farooq Abdullah has also made a more objectionable remark. On Monday, he said that the “surgical strike”(air strike) on Balakot inside Pakistan was done “only for the purpose of elections. We lost an aircraft worth crores of rupees. Be thankful that the IAF pilot survived and returned from Pakistan with respect”.

Farooq Abdullah is an experienced politician, and I have seen him working for a long time. When he was in the NDA during Vajpayee’s rule, he used to condemn Pakistan almost daily. He also used to praise Narendra Modi. But when the BJP joined hands with PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti to form a government in J&K, he changed his tune.

Since Farooq Abdullah is now an opposition leader, he has the right to criticize the government, but it does not behove of him to blindly accept the claims of Pakistan army, and reject the claims of our army. This amounts to lowering the morale of our brave jawans and pilots. He refuses to believe that our Mig-23 Bison pilot shot down an F-16 aircraft of the Pakistan army.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, has therefore, rightly said in ‘Aap Ki Adalat’ show on India TV that such leaders may garner TRPs for Pakistani news channels, but they will have to face the wrath of the people in India.


Supreme Court has taken the right step by sending Ayodhya case for mediation

AKB_frame_402A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Friday referred the 70-year-old Ayodhya dispute to a three-member mediation panel, comprising spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, former SC judge F. M. Kalifulla and mediation expert Sriram Panchu and asked the panel to submit its report within eight weeks. The apex court asked them to carry out the mediation process in utmost secrecy.

I think this is a correct step in the right direction. It was former Prime Minister Chandrashekhar who had initiated talks to resolve the Ayodhya dispute, two years before the Babri mosque was demolished. Former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee also opted for mediation, and several other individuals or groups made efforts to bring out an amicable solution. All these efforts could not succeed.

The matter was then taken to Allahabad High Court which gave its judgement calling for a 2:1 bifurcation of the disputed land. The High Court accepted the plea that the Babri mosque was built on the debris of a temple in Ayodhya, but since the disputed land was sought to be trifurcated, the matter has now reached the apex court.

Technically it is a title suit, but the dispute is linked with the faith of millions of Indians. It is the job of the Supreme Court to deliver its verdict taking into account all the legal and Constitutional aspects, but it is not easy for the apex court of the land to deliver its judgement on an issue that relates to the faith of millions.

I feel the apex court has taken the right step towards mediation. Any judgement by the court could have resulted in victory or defeat for either of the parties, whereas a solution reached through mediation can accepted as a victory for India’s unity. Those who are saying that the court is delaying its verdict should understand that eight weeks’ time has been given to the mediators. During this time all parties can go through the translation of voluminous evidences, so that none of the parties can raise questions on translations later during hearings.

The setting up of the three-member mediation panel clearly shows the apex court’s intention of arriving at an amicable solution through dialogue, rather than a verdict imposed from above that could complicate the issue further.
