Chakravarthi, photos on Flickr

Thirteen Exhibition by George Chakravarthi on show at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon shows images of the artist as Shakespearean characters who committed suicide. Exhibition on until 29 April 2012

PaRCha - JNU - DSF SFI-JNU - 2012 ID-57345 by PaRChA project — the Pamphlet Repository for Changing Activism

.

Tehelka -India's Independent Weekly News Magazine Page 8 of 9 .

and unconstitutional. Some of these orders were: a) Illegal tapping of phones of Congress leaders and Modi rivals within the party like Haren Pandya, b) submission of reports to suit Modis political interests, c) eliminate Muslims who might try to disrupt Modis rath-yatra, d) spy on the private life of Major General Zahiruddin Shah who had been assisting the Gujarat Police in maintaining law and order. .

Sreekumar had maintained a register in which he used to record these illegal verbal orders. But the SIT concluded that the register maintained by RB Sreekumar cannot be considered a reliable document as the same appears motivated and no credence can be placed upon the same. Moreover, there is no corroboration to the oral version of RB Sreekumar by any of the independent witnesses. .

By independent witnesses the SIT has meant bureaucrats like Ashok Narayan, K Chakravarthi and PC Pande. But by the SITs own admission these bureaucrats were rewarded with post-retirement assignments by Modi and thus did not seem to have spoken honestly. .

In this third affidavit, Sreekumar also produced an audio recording which allegedly proved that state home secretary GC Murmu, home department official Dinesh Kapadia and the state governments special prosecutor Arvind Pandya had tried tutoring and intimidating him into not telling the truth before the Nanavati-Shah Commission. .

The SIT found the audio recording to be genuine but has alleged that Sreekumar produced it as an act of pique only after he was superseded for a promotion. What the SIT has failed to appreciate is the consistency in Sreekumars stand against the Modi governments communal and political agenda. .

Sreekumar had started preparing the register from 18 April 2002 onwards, just nine days after he was posted as the state intelligence chief. He also got the register certified by the then IGP (admin & security) OP Mathur. Sreekumar regularly made entries in the register till 19 September 2002, that is, till the day he was shunted out from the state intelligence bureau. Also, all his four reports detailed above were consistent and have been found to be based on field intelligence reports. Besides, he had filed his first affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission in July 2002, much before he was denied a promotion. .

In keeping with its pattern, the Modi government not only penalised Sreekumar for speaking up by superseding him, it also held back his post-retirement benefits. Sreekumar, however, fought against the government and won the case before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). .

Despite all this, SIT Chairman Raghavan has disregarded Sreekumar and commented, It has been clearly established that the register was an unofficial document that Sreekumar was not authorised to maintain, and adds that it has no evidentiary value whatsoever. .

However, Raghavan has failed to comment on Sreekumars affidavits before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, his numerous reports prepared in his capacity of state intelligence chief and also his testimony before the SIT. Unlike other bureaucrats, Sreekumar stood up and spoke against the chief minister. .

The SIT, self-admittedly, has not looked at several crucial records. What are they? .

.

By its own admission, there are several crucial records that the SIT has not examined. Mainly, they are: .

.

Phone call records of fixed landlines and mobile phone records of crucial persons in the government, including Modi. .

.

Television channel recordings of critical events like the events at Sola Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad, where the victims of the Sabarmati carnage were taken. .

.

Log books and station diaries maintained at police stations during the riots. .

.

Case diaries maintained by police officers investigating the riots. .

.

Files pertaining to the appointments of public prosecutors after the riots. .

.

Files relating to transfers of different police officers immediately after the riots. .

.

Records related to intelligence inputs both by the state and Central Intelligence Bureaus both before and after the riots. .

.

Security logs of the chief minister and other senior officials showing their movements during the riots. .

.

Records of the army and Central paramilitary forces showing not just their deployment but also permissions from civil authorities to use force and firearms. Just a cursory glance at that list suggests there is a mountain of evidence that has not even been looked at yet. .

.

The SIT, also self-admittedly, has not examined several crucial people. Who are they? .

Besides this, the SIT failed to examine the following crucial witnesses: KPS Gill, who was sent to Gujarat by the Central government on 4 May 2002 and who played a key role in reshuffling the police officers only after which the riots had subsided. Major General Zahiruddin Shah, who oversaw the deployment of the army in riot-affected areas of Gujarat. The then Chief Election Commissioner JM Lyngdoh, who had pulled up the Gujarat home department officials for presenting distorted and motivated reports. Journalists from leading newspapers and news channels who covered the transporting of bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad and then the mass cremations on 28 February 2002. The police officers who escorted the bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad. .

The political associates of the two ministers who were present along with them in the police control rooms. Constables and other lower level officers manning the control room during the riots. .

Just a cursory glance at this list again shows theres a crucial pool of first-hand testimonies that has not even been tapped yet. Does all of this both the existing evidence and the unturned stones not merit further investigation? The SIT was born with no teeth. Despite that, hasnt it recorded enough material to register an offence and set up a team of officers to investigate the Modi government with full legal powers and authority? .

There is a certain fatigue in chasing the idea of justice. Tired of fighting, the human spirit strains to move on. As the years pass, those who champion others causes begin to seem motivated rather than dogged. Why wont they let bygones be bygones, people wonder. Why will they not let everyone retreat into the haven of normalcy? Why have they made this their agenda? .

Many civil rights groups and sections of the media, including TEHELKA, have flagged the gross miscarriage of justice in Gujarat. Sometimes, there is a temptation to let the story pass. Enough has already been said about the Gujarat riots and Narendra Modi. There is now the danger of déjà vu, made doubly effete with inaction. But with every flagrant violation that passes without retribution into our collective memory, we become more debased as a society. We believe there is no accountability. We believe the wrong can get away. Heinous acts seem less and less heinous. Our Richter scales of outrage grow rusty. A more morally keen society would have held Modi to book for much less. As it should have held the ruling Congress to book back in 1984. .

And so the dogged questions must continue to be asked. Communal speeches. Transferred officers. Destroyed official records. Prejudiced public prosecutors. A compromised bureaucracy. Is all of this not already starkly sufficient proof to establish that Modi presided over a criminally prejudiced and communal administration? Are these the attributes of a model leader? Like his chosen officers, should we all develop collective amnesia about what happened in Gujarat? .

Reconciliation can only follow on truthtelling. In pursuing the story of the Gujarat riots, much more is at stake than individuals like Modi or political parties like the BJP. This story is about the future of this country. Its about basic questions: Can we allow the horrors of the 2002 Gujarat riots or the 1984 Sikh riots to repeat themselves? Can we dull our ideas of fair play? Can we allow the idea of India to erode by the day? .

The Supreme Court will make part of that decision .

.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\tehelka_SIT.htm 16/04/2012 .

ashish.khetan@tehelka.com .

.

drona-1400 by bhaskar setty

Action and Social Content movie of Shivrajkumar Drona

Director: Pramod Chakravarthi (Story, Screenplay, and Dialogue)

Producer: Mahadev

Sangamesh

Seshu Chakravarthy

Star Cast: Dr. Shivrajkumar

Iniya

Rangayana Raghu

Ravi Kishan

Rekha Das

Darshitha

Swathi Sharma

Cameraman: JS Vali

Music Director: Ram Krish

Follow us on:-

Website: www.dolphinmediahouse.com/

Facebook: www.facebook.com/Dolphinmediahouse-101882397880352/

Instagram: www.instagram.com/p/B2lyaa-gr6C/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Twitter: twitter.com/DolphinMediaHo1

Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/dolphin-mediahouse-1b565a193/

PaRCha - JNU - DSF SFI-JNU - 2012 ID-57342 by PaRChA project — the Pamphlet Repository for Changing Activism

.

Tehelka -India's Independent Weekly News Magazine Page 5 of 9 .

What makes all this even murkier is that the SIT has reported that Ashok Narayan, the then additional chief secretary (Home), lied blatantly when asked about the two ministers presence in the Police Control Rooms. DGP K Chakravarthi told the SIT that he was informed by Ashok Narayan that it was decided by the government that IK Jadeja would sit in DGPs office on 28 February 2002 to get information about the law and order situation in the state, as the State Control Room was located in his office. Ashok Narayan also informed him that Ashok Bhatt would similarly sit in the Ahmedabad City Police Control Room situated in the office of Ahmedabad city. .

IK Jadeja was the minister of urban housing while Ashok Bhatt was the health minister at the time. Neither had any business being at the police headquarters. But when he was questioned on this, Ashok Narayan denied having given any such instructions to Chakravarthi. .

The then Ahmedabad police commissioner PC Pande also lied about Ashok Bhatts prolonged presence in the city police control room. Pande claims the minister may have been there for 10-15 minutes. Ashok Bhatts version tallies with Pandes. However, when minister IK Jadeja was questioned, he claimed it was Gordhan Zadaphia, Modis deputy in the home ministry, who had asked him to remain present in the police control room. (Zadaphia has since fallen out with Modi and floated his own party. It is, therefore, convenient for Modi and the BJP to pass all the blame on solely to Zadaphia.) .

Through all this, it is clear that in trying to pass the buck, Chakravarthi, Narayan and Pande have ended up lying and contradicting each other before the SIT. .

On the other hand, its only Sanjeev Bhatt who appears to be consistent with his version of events. He told the SIT that he had registered his protest with DGP Chakravarthi about the presence of ministers in the control room and, with his permission, shifted them to an empty room in the same building. He says he further remembers some of the supporting staff of Jadeja seeking certain information from the state IB on that day and on subsequent two or three days. (DGP Chakravarthi does not refute Sanjeev Bhatt on this as it only shows him in good light.) .

The critical question here is why were these ministers and their political staff seeking sensitive information like that of deployment of police forces in different regions? Was the information passed on to the rioters on the ground? In any case, what were ministers of urban housing and health doing in a police room during the riots? .

SIT Chairman Raghavan states: It has been conclusively established that two ministers were indeed operating from the two control rooms for a few days from 28 February 2002 onwards. There is however no information to establish that they interfered with police operations. .

There seems to be little use in pointing out repeatedly how the SIT failed to push its findings towards harder investigation. Instead, it is time to pose a different question: is this the way to ascertain the truth behind one of the countrys worst communal massacres? Can a massive conspiracy about a state-orchestrated pogrom be unravelled by merely recording statements of police officers who themselves were complicit in one way or the other? .

The police who did take corrective action against rioting Hindu mobs were shunted out. Inexplicably, the SIT claims this is the governments prerogative .

The SIT report does not only record how compliant police officers were rewarded. In a shocking litany of cases, it also records how upright police officers were punished instantly and unambiguously for doing their job, sending out a stark message. If this does not count for mala fide intention on the part of the government, what can? .

Rahul Sharma, an IPS officer of 1992 batch, is just one example. Superintendent of police, Bhavnagar district, in 2002, Sharma had done a commendable job of controlling the murderous riots by taking swift action against those Hindu leaders who were inciting communal passions. But Sharma told the SIT that three days after he had protected a mosque from being torched by a rioting Hindu mob and saved the lives of dozens of Muslim children, he was transferred out to an insignificant posting. Though Zadaphia had called and commended him, he had said the ratio of Hindus and Muslims killed in police firing was not proper, i.e., that is more number of deaths of Hindus than Muslims. Soon after, he was transferred. (Page 33) .

Another police officer, Vivek Srivastava, a 1989 batch IPS officer, who was superintendent of police of Kutch district was shunted out after he arrested a BJP leader on charges of assaulting a Muslim family. According to the report, Srivastava stated that he got a few phone calls from the office of home minister and chief minister asking him about the details of the case and whether there was adequate evidence against all the accused to which he confirmed that sufficient evidence was available. Srivastava was transferred in the last week of March 2002 and posted as deputy commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Ahmedabad Zone. (Page 33) .

Another IPS officer Himanshu Bhatt, who was SP, Banaskantha, was transferred to the State Intelligence Bureau at Gandhinagar in March 2002. Bhatt had initiated action against a sub-inspector who had assisted a rioting mob. As it happened the sub-inspector concerned had important political connections and was not only reinstated but also allowed to resume his duty at the same police station. Bhatt has since left the country and settled abroad. The SIT couldnt examine Bhatt. .

Satish Chandra Verma, who was DIG, border range at Kutch-Bhuj during the riots, had issued a formal order to arrest a sitting BJP MLA, Shankar Chaudhary, for being involved in the riots and killing two Muslims. He was transferred soon after as the principal of the State Reserve Police Training Centre, Junagadh. (Page 34) .

Inquiry officer Malhotra notes that none of these officers, however, would admit that they were victimised. All of them stated that transfers were the prerogative of the government. Malhotra concludes that these transfers appear to be unusual and .

.

PHOTO: TRUPTI PATEL .

fishy but stops there. Raghavan too admits to their controversial and questionable nature. But, surprisingly, neither of them comes to the obvious conclusion that this could be one of the reasons for further investigation into the States collusion. .

.

The SIT admits that police officers who allowed riots to fester were rewarded with lucrative postings. But fails to come to a logical conclusion .

In a brazen statement, as upright officers were clipped for doing their duty by the Modi government, derelict officers, who had made a mockery of their uniforms and the trust reposed in them by society, were applauded and rewarded. .

MK Tandon, who was the joint commissioner of police of Sector 2, Ahmedabad and in whose region more than 200 Muslims were butchered to death, was given the important posting of IG, Surat Range, soon after the riots. In July 2005, he was appointed to the post of ADGP (law & order) at the state police headquarters, a position with statewide jurisdiction. Tandon retired from the same position. .

.

The SIT has found that Tandon deliberately didnt respond to distress calls from Gulberg Society and Naroda Gaon and Naroda Patiya, where some of the most gruesome massacres were underway. Instead, he got bogus cases registered in other parts of Ahmedabad to justify the presence of himself and his police force in those areas rather than Gulberg and Naroda. The SIT has also found that Tandon was in telephonic contact with Jaideep Patel and Mayaben Kodnani the architect of massacres at Naroda Gaon and .

.

Naroda Patiya. .

PB Gondia, deputy to Tandon, was DCP Zone IV at the time. He now enjoys the powerful post of inspector general of police of State CID. In his report, Malhotra says: In my view Gondia virtually ran away from Naroda Patiya at 1420 hours when the situation was very serious and virtually uncontrollable and also did not reach Gulberg Society despite the distress calls. The SIT also found that, like Tandon, Gondia was in regular telephonic contact with Kodnani and Jaideep Patel. .

In addition to these police officers, there were other controversial bureaucrats who have remained in high government favour despite their black track records. Among them are G Subba Rao, the then chief secretary; Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home); PK Mishra, the then PS to Modi; PC Pande, the then Ahmedabad CP; Deepak Swaroop, the then IGP, Vadodara Range; K Nityanandam, the then secretary (Home); Rakesh Asthana (presently commissioner of police of Vadodara city) and DG Vanzara (now in jail for staging encounter killings). .

The SIT also notes that, while conducting the trail of the Best Bakery Case, the additional sessions judge of Greater Bombay had made adverse comments and passed strictures against K Kumaraswamy, the then joint CP, Vadodara city and Ramjibhai Pargi, the then ACP, Vadodara city for attempting to subvert justice. .

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\tehelka_SIT.htm 16/04/2012 .

.

Photo 11159 by Public.Resource.Org

Studio/Sept.49, A32(c)

Shree S. Chakravarthi, Joint secreary Ministry of Transport, Government of India.

Drona-memes-good-mess by bhaskar setty

Action and Social Content movie of Shivrajkumar Drona

Director: Pramod Chakravarthi (Story, Screenplay, and Dialogue)

Producer: Mahadev

Sangamesh

Seshu Chakravarthy

Star Cast: Dr. Shivrajkumar

Iniya

Rangayana Raghu

Ravi Kishan

Rekha Das

Darshitha

Swathi Sharma

Cameraman: JS Vali

Music Director: Ram Krish

Follow us on:-

Website: www.dolphinmediahouse.com/

Facebook: www.facebook.com/Dolphinmediahouse-101882397880352/

Instagram: www.instagram.com/dolphinmediadhouses/

Twitter: twitter.com/DolphinMediaHo1

Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/dolphin-mediahouse-1b565a193/

drona-meme-1 by bhaskar setty

Action and Social Content movie of Shivrajkumar Drona

Director: Pramod Chakravarthi (Story, Screenplay, and Dialogue)

Producer: Mahadev

Sangamesh

Seshu Chakravarthy

Star Cast: Dr. Shivrajkumar

Iniya

Rangayana Raghu

Ravi Kishan

Rekha Das

Darshitha

Swathi Sharma

Cameraman: JS Vali

Music Director: Ram Krish

Follow us on:-

Website: www.dolphinmediahouse.com/

Facebook: www.facebook.com/Dolphinmediahouse-101882397880352/

Instagram: www.instagram.com/p/B2lyaa-gr6C/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Twitter: twitter.com/DolphinMediaHo1

Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/dolphin-mediahouse-1b565a193/

PaRCha - JNU - DSF SFI-JNU - 2012 ID-57340 by PaRChA project — the Pamphlet Repository for Changing Activism

.

Tehelka -India's Independent Weekly News Magazine Page 3 of 9 .

and action is warranted against him? As chief minister, he did not have to physically patrol streets with mobs to be held culpable. He only needed to look away or send a tacit signal for utter mayhem to take over. That itself would have been crime enough. But from the SITs findings, Modi clearly did more than that. .

Despite this, the SIT chairman claims that there is not enough substantiation for him to recommend further action against Modi under the law. The question then is do we need to change our laws? Or change their selective application? How is it that, to name just one case, men like Binayak Sen reputed doctor and human rights champion can be sentenced to life imprisonment on extremely flimsy evidence and on much lighter allegations? .

The decision on the need for a more thorough investigation now rests with the Supreme Court. Senior Supreme Court lawyer and former additional solicitor general of India, Raju Ramachandran, who is the amicus curiae in the case, has already submitted his observations and recommendations on the SIT probe to the apex court on 20 January. Nobody except the court and the SIT knows what Ramachandran has suggested. .

All eyes are therefore set on the Supreme Court Bench comprising three judges DK Jain, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam which will convene on 3 March and decide the future course of action. .

AMONG MANY civil rights groups and publications, TEHELKA has been at the forefront of the fight for justice for Gujarat riot victims. In October 2007, through a six month-long undercover operation, TEHELKA had got over 60 hours of footage containing unprecedented on-camera confessions of dozens of rioters, VHP and BJP leaders and public prosecutors admitting to their complicity in the riots and exulting about the elaborate conspiracy that had subverted justice in the aftermath of the riots. The TEHELKA sting led to an uproar in civil society. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) asked the Gujarat government to carry out a probe into the TEHELKA video recordings. But the Modi government simply refused. Following this, the CBI was asked to inquire into the sting. The CBI seized the footage and equipment from TEHELKA and sent it to a forensics lab for authentication. The tapes were declared 100 percent genuine. .

No matter what the Supreme Court decides on 3 March, TEHELKA wants to place the full truth of the SIT probe in the public domain and let readers arrive at their own perspective about Modis guilt in the 2002 Gujarat riots. .

Reading the report is a strange experience. Right through, there is a kind of uneasy see-saw between the reports startling findings and its weak, watered-down conclusions. This tension between findings and conclusions tells its own story. .

What follows is some of the key accusations against Modi and the conclusions the SIT report drew on them. .

Narendra Modi did hold a meeting on 27 February 2002. Did he tell his officers to let Hindus vent their anger freely against Muslims? SIT claims there is no conclusive evidence .

The SIT probe against Modi and his government was ordered by the Supreme Court on 27 March 2009 while hearing a complaint filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of slain Congress leader, Ehsan Jafri, who along with dozens of other Muslims was hacked and burned to death during the riots. Zakia had made 32 specific allegations against Modi and other BJP functionaries, bureaucrats and police officers. The most serious allegation was that Modi had given instructions to the then DGP, chief secretary and other senior officials to allow Hindus to freely vent their anger at the Muslims for the Sabarmati carnage. This instruction was allegedly given at a meeting held at the chief ministers bungalow in Gandhinagar on 27 February 2002. .

SIT Chairman Raghavan notes: The inquiry clearly established that such a meeting was in fact held at the chief ministers residence on the night of 27.02.02 after the chief ministers return to Ahmedabad following his visit to Godhra earlier in the day. (Page 3 of chairmans comments) .

According to inquiry officer AK Malhotra, a retired CBI man, the meeting lasted for about half an hour. There were eight confirmed participants: .

1..

Chief Minister Narendra Modi .

.

2..

Acting Chief Secretary Swarna Kanta Verma .

.

3..

Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Ashok Narayan .

.

4. .

DGP K Chakravarthi .

.

5..

Ahmedabad Commissioner of Police PC Pande .

.

6..

Secretary (Home) K Nityanandam .

.

7..

Principal Secretary to CM PK Mishra .

.

8..

Secretary to CM Anil Mukim .

.

Before the SIT, two of the senior officers present Swarna Kanta Verma and Ashok Narayan did not refute the allegation that Modi had uttered the shocking words of allowing Hindus to vent their anger. Instead they pleaded loss of memory due to passage of time. (Page 16) Four officers K Chakravarthi, K Nityanandam, PC Pande and PK Mishra have categorically denied that the CM had instructed the police not to control Hindu mobs for a window of time. One officer, Anil Mukim, who is presently on deputation to the Central ministry of commerce, has curiously denied attending this meeting at all. .

.

The selective amnesia by two senior officers coupled with Mukims blatant denial of having even attended the meeting suggests a massive cover-up. This becomes even more believable when seen in the light of the fact that out of the four officers who sided with Modi, two PC Pande and PK Mishra had been rewarded with lucrative post-retirement assignments by the Modi government. After his retirement in 2009, PK Mishra has been posted as chairman of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission with a fixed tenure for six years. While Pande, after his retirement, has been posted as chairman of Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation. The third, K Nityanandam is still serving in the Modi government and holds the post of managing director of the Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation. Ashok Narayan, who didnt refute the allegation but pleaded memory loss, was also rewarded. After the riots, Narayan was promoted to the post of chief secretary. On 23 May 2003, he was appointed as state vigilance commissioner. He turned 60 on 31 July 2004 but was granted a two-year extension. Subsequently, he was granted four extensions of six months each till 31 December 2008. That adds up to four years of extended benefits granted by the Modi government. .

.

Accordingly, SIT Chairman Raghavan observes the three officers (PC Pande, PK Mishra and Ashok Narayan) had been accommodated in post-retirement jobs, and are therefore not obliged to speak against the chief minister or the state government. (Page 4 of chairmans comments) .

The SIT report has also noted that Justice PB Sawant, a retired Supreme Court judge and Justice Hosbert Suresh, a retired judge of the Bombay High Court, who were members of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal that had inquired into the riots have confirmed that former Gujarat minister for state for revenue, Haren Pandya had deposed before them, implicating Modi for his role in the riots. .

The two retired judges told the SIT that Pandya appeared and deposed before the tribunal on 13 May 2002, on condition of anonymity, that he had attended a meeting on 27 February 2002 night at the residence of Modi in which the latter had made it clear that there should be a backlash from the Hindus on the next day and the police should not come in their way. (Page 18 of the report). .

Pandya was murdered mysteriously in 2003. With his death, there is no way to find out if the meeting he referred to was the same one in which senior bureaucrats had participated or if a separate meeting of BJP leaders had been convened by Modi. But .

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\tehelka_SIT.htm 16/04/2012 .

.

Happy Birthday Sudeep by Pradeep Madgaonkar by Pradeep Mandgaonkar

Happy Birthday to the Abhinaya Chakravarthi, the kind natured and the humble person #KichhaSudeep by Pradeep Madgaonkar

#kichha #sudeep #sandalwood #sandalwoodmovies #sandalwood_official #sandalwoodadda #KannadaNews #kannadafilm #kannadamovies #KichchaSudeepaCharitableSociety #KichchaCreatiions

DRONA-2 by bhaskar setty

Banner: Dolphin Media House

Film: Drona

Starcast: Shivarajkumar, Iniya, Rangayana Raghu & Others

Producer: Mahadevappa Halagatti

Director: Pramod Chakravarthi

Music: Ramkrish

Lyricist: Dr.V.Nagendra Prasad, Phanish Raj, Arasu Anthare

IMG_8740 by Anudinam.org

chakravarthi thirumaganaaar

Rajaji by traveling simian

A statue of Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari, the last Governor General of India. Visit Wikipedia for details.

jana mobile 122 by Anudinam.org

'Thalpagiri kshethra ranganatha swamy'pavithrostavam prabanda patanam - Kutti nallan chakravarthi srikar swamy

JD Chakravarthi Interview by I Luv Cinema.IN

www.iluvcinema.in/telugu/jd-chakravarthi-interview/

Dhrona-1 by bhaskar setty

Banner: Dolphin Media House

Film: Drona

Starcast: Shivarajkumar, Iniya, Rangayana Raghu & Others

Producer: Mahadevappa Halagatti

Director: Pramod Chakravarthi

Music: Ramkrish

Lyricist: Dr.V.Nagendra Prasad, Phanish Raj, Arasu Anthare

PaRCha - JNU - DSF SFI-JNU - 2012 ID-57341 by PaRChA project — the Pamphlet Repository for Changing Activism

.

Tehelka -India's Independent Weekly News Magazine Page 4 of 9 .

.

since Pandyas deposition before the tribunal was not recorded, the SITwas not willing to take the statements of the two retired judges into consideration. .

The SITs entire approach to this, in fact, displays a singular lack of will. The enquiry officer on page 13 of his report has stated: .

1. .

Some of the public servants, who had retired long back, claimed loss of memory as they did not want any controversy. .

.

2. .

The other category of public servants, who have recently retired and provided with good post-retirement assignments, felt obliged to the state government and the present chief minister and therefore their testimony lacks credibility. .

.

3. .

The serving public servants, who have been empanelled for higher posts, did not want to come into conflict with the politicians in power and incur their wrath, which affected their frank response. .

.

Despite this acute awareness that officers were not deposing freely before them, inexplicably, the SIT doesnt want to dig deep. Wrapping up his observation, the inquiry officer states: It can be concluded that a law and order meeting was in fact held by Modi at his residence late in the evening of 27 February 2002. However, the allegation that the chief minister instructed the chief secretary, DGP and other senior officials to allow the Hindu community to vent their anger on the Muslims in the wake of Godhra incident is not established. .

.

Sanjeev Bhatt: Against the tide, one man is willing to speak the truth. Why has the SIT discarded him? .

Though many officers have chosen the soft option silence, a plea of amnesia .

there is one other senior IPS officer who claimed he was present at the meeting convened at the CMs residence. Sanjeev Bhatt, presently a deputy inspector general, was posted as a deputy commissioner of police in the State Intelligence Bureau at the time of the riots. .

Bhatt told the SIT that it was DGP Chakravarthi who had insisted on his presence at the meeting. According to Bhatt, since the state intelligence chief GC Raigar was away on leave, the DGP had wanted somebody from the intelligence department to be present to provide answers on the intelligence failure behind the Sabarmati carnage at Godhra and tackle any other intelligence related query that might have come up at the meeting. .

Bhatt, however, refused to say more. He told the SIT that since the probe against Modi was merely at a preliminary stage, he would not like to speak up. However, if a criminal case was registered he would be duty bound to testify and tell the truth. (Given the purely exploratory nature of the SITs mandate, as a serving officer, Bhatts rationale was that speaking out at this stage would jeopardise his career without necessarily having any impact.) .

Curiously, however, just his willingness to testify at a later stage had a significant fallout pointing to all the wheels grinding behind the scenes. When inquiry officer Malhotra examined Narendra Modi on 25 March 2010, Modi made a strange slip. He admitted that he had called a law and order meeting at his residence on 27 February 2002, after his return from Godhra where he had gone to inspect the Sabarmati carnage. .

Asked about who was present, Modi named the seven officers, apart from himself, listed above. However, without further prompting from the inquiry officer, he went on to assert, Sanjeev Bhatt, the then DC (Int.) did not attend, as this was a highlevel meeting. Why did he bring up Bhatts name? The inquiry officer had asked him about who was present, not about who was not. Clearly, somebody had alerted Modi about Bhatts statement before the SIT. He had come prepared to contradict and discredit Bhatts version even when the question posed to him by the SIT officer had no reference of Bhatt. .

The other seven officers at the meeting have also displayed strange reactions when asked about Bhatts presence at the meeting. Swarna Kanta Verma and Ashok Narayan have pleaded loss of memory. PK Mishra, then principal secretary to the CM, has not refuted Bhatts presence but claims he cannot recollect if he was there. Out of the remaining four participants, only the then DGP Chakravarthi has categorically denied Bhatts presence. The other three have given vague replies. .

Despite this ambivalence, inquiry officer Malhotra concludes on page 149 of his report, Since Bhatts presence at the meeting is not proved his statement has to be ignored. Malhotra himself has called the testimonies of these seven officers unreliable because they were either rewarded by Modi or continue to serve in his government. When it comes to Bhatts presence at that crucial meeting then, why is Malhotra, quite bizarrely, willing to believe these otherwise unreliable witnesses? .

The SIT chairmans comments are equally inexplicable. He admits that Sanjeev Bhatt, SP, Intelligence told SIT that only if there was a legal obligation arising from the registration of a regular criminal case, he would be duty bound to disclose facts of discussion at the meeting. This indicated he had some reservations about what transpired on the occasion. But the chairman goes on to say, Bhatt is considered an unreliable witness, especially because no official, who is known to have definitely attended the meeting has spoken of his presence there. Also he was considered too junior to have been invited to such a high-level meeting. (Pages 3-4 of chairmans comments) .

Clearly, SIT swallowed Modis unsolicited information on Bhatt without a rational analysis. What makes this even stranger is that while the SIT team discards Bhatts claim of having attended the controversial meeting on 27 February 2002, they are quite happy to rely on other statements made by Bhatt elsewhere in the report. .

Narendra Modi illegally positioned his health and housing ministers in the police control room but its hard to find evidence of their interference: SIT .

In situations of an internal security crisis like a terror attack or communal riots, the police control room is akin to a war room. From the deployment of forces to coordination of scattered teams on the field to collection of field reports, it is from the control room that the police orchestrates its response. On 28 February 2002, as riots erupted across the state, in an extremely controversial and extra-legal move, Modi positioned two of his Cabinet ministers and their political staff in the Control Rooms. .

The massacres at Naroda Gaon, Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad started at around 10 in the morning and continued till around eight at night. The state police failed to respond despite repeated calls for rescue by the victims. Under these circumstances, the presence of these ministers in the police control rooms becomes highly suspect. .

Page 30 of the report states: Sanjeev Bhatt, the then DC (Int.) has stated that he had attended a meeting at the CMs residence on 28 February 2002 along with DGP and ADGP (Int.) GC Raiger. (Raiger had cut short his leave and had reported back on duty on the morning of 28 February). After the meeting, he returned to his chamber on the second floor of Police Bhawan at about 1100 hours and shortly thereafter went to meet the DGP on the first floor of the same building. When he entered the DGPs chamber he found that, as instructed after the conclusion of the CMs meeting, two Cabinet ministers of Gujarat, namely, Ashok Bhatt and IK Jadeja had already arrived and were sitting on a sofa in the DGPs chamber. He further stated that GC Raiger, the then ADG (Int.) and Maniram, the then ADG (law and order) were also present there. Sanjeev Bhatt briefed the DGP and after taking tea he returned to his chamber. Shortly thereafter, Sanjeev Bhatt happened to go to State Control Room on the first floor to collect some documents and saw IK Jadeja and his support staff sitting in the chamber of Dy SP, Control Room. .

This leads to a very uncomfortable question. Inquiry officer Malhotra found the above narrative of Bhatt to be true and has used it to prove that IK Jadeja was indeed present in the state police control room. Malhotra has also not disputed Bhatts claim that he attended a meeting with the chief minister on the morning of 28 February 2002. Why then is it impossible to believe that Bhatt was present at the chief ministers meeting the evening before, when Modi allegedly told his officers to let Hindus vent their anger freely for a few days? If Bhatt is senior enough to attend a meeting on 28 February morning, why was he too junior to attended a meeting on 27 February evening? .

In fact, Bhatts claim that he did attend the controversial 27 February meeting is all the more credible as his boss, state intelligence chief Raiger was on leave, leaving Bhatt the senior most intelligence officer around. It needs to be emphasised that Bhatt, in fact, attended the 28 February morning meeting even though his boss had reported back on duty. .

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\tehelka_SIT.htm 16/04/2012 .

.

CHAKRAVARTHI KL 10 BA 0948 KONDOTTY KAKKAD OS by AV PhotoZ

chakravarthi by vamsimohan

ria-chakravarthi-latest-photos-4 by Rajitha Raj

Chakravarthi by Dinesh Merugumilli

Shilpa-Chakravarthi-Photos-In-Saree-At-Palnadu-Audio-Release-2 by HARESH MADESH

P1020601 by class82