randomGuy Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 And after that the same Supreme Court allowed a petition to be filed by Jafri against Modi based on the same SIT report. How is that a clearance? There is no chargesheet on modi in the sit report. Hence its a clean chit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_B_ Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Maybe Sonia Gandhi was no invited cause the British MP's thought "me to speak italiano". while they think Modi can converse with them in a language they can understand. Maybe they will call Akilesh Yadav. He will tell them how to boost the law and order situation in the UK. In a stunning speach which even the queen will bow down to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 There is no chargesheet on modi in the sit report. Hence its a clean chit. There was never a chargesheet against Modi.So, technically he always had a clean chit. Then why the change in policy towards him was the question Razdan was asking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asterix Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 I don't think it's sudden. Didn't British Ambassador met Modi recently to thaw the relations? I think Gardiner mentioned that there's lot's of British investment in Gujarat and they want to explore the possibilities of increasing more investment.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 There was never a chargesheet against Modi.So' date=' technically he always had a clean chit. Then why the change in policy towards him was the question Razdan was asking?[/quote'] When supreme court's SIT report confirms it after thorough n independent investigation , it makes all the difference as far as Gardiner/ UK are concerned. Why must they still not engage with modi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 When supreme court's SIT report confirms it after thorough n independent investigation ' date=' it makes all the difference as far as Gardiner/ UK are concerned. Why[i'] must they still not engage with modi? I am not judging whether they should or not engage with Modi. I am contesting that Gardiner somehow "ripped apart" Razdan when he was unable to answer what brought about the change. 1. He refers to Modi as leader of the official opposition party. That is completely wrong. 2. He says it's a matter for the people of Gujarat. Well the people of Gujarat have been electing him from Day 1. 3. Razdan correctly states that court cases are not over and asks him are business interests going to drive UK. Gardiner incorrectly states that Supreme Court absolved Modi of accusations, when Supreme Court has clearly said that it will admit a petition against him on the basis of the SIT report. So, how did Gardiner rip apart Razdan when he could not answer the question posed and made factually incorrect statements? That is the crux of this thread, not whether Modi "should" be engaged by the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_B_ Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 I didn't know UK diplomacy is carried on basis of perception. Thanks for clarifying. At least the US does not do that - when Biden went to India he met Sushma Swaraj in official capacity' date=' who is the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha.[/quote'] This is not an official visit. IE he is not meeting the head of state the Queen. It would be equivalent to say Modi addressing the Indian caucus in the USA houses of representatives. Perception is always important in diplomacy. Didnt China invite Sonia Gandhi but not invite MMS recently? I would say perception is infact more important than sticking to official stances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diga Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 I am not judging whether they should or not engage with Modi. I am contesting that Gardiner somehow "ripped apart" Razdan when he was unable to answer what brought about the change. 1. He refers to Modi as leader of the official opposition party. That is completely wrong. 2. He says it's a matter for the people of Gujarat. Well the people of Gujarat have been electing him from Day 1. 3. Razdan correctly states that court cases are not over and asks him are business interests going to drive UK. Gardiner incorrectly states that Supreme Court absolved Modi of accusations, when Supreme Court has clearly said that it will admit a petition against him on the basis of the SIT report. So, how did Gardiner rip apart Razdan when he could not answer the question posed and made factually incorrect statements? That is the crux of this thread, not whether Modi "should" be engaged by the UK. Thats why I said "watch the Rajdeep interview".. it makes it more clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Thats why I said "watch the Rajdeep interview".. it makes it more clear I will watch it later, but based on the interview here do you concede that Gardiner has in no way "ripped apart" Razdan because a) He made factually incorrect statements and b) He did not get even close to answering the crux of the posed question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Maybe Sonia Gandhi was no invited cause the British MP's thought "me to speak italiano". while they think Modi can converse with them in a language they can understand. Maybe they will call Akilesh Yadav. He will tell them how to boost the law and order situation in the UK. In a stunning speach which even the queen will bow down to Snide repartee at Gujjus in the UK? :secret: No way can a Gujju from India understand the anglicized self aggrandizing wannabe hep Gujarati that the second/third generation Brit Gujjus ( at least the ones I've come across) speak. Modi is still going to face a huge semantic gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asterix Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Ofcourse Gardiner ripped apart Nidhi by telling her right there what he thinks about how Indian media anchors conduct uncivilized interviews... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Perception is always important in diplomacy. Didnt China invite Sonia Gandhi but not invite MMS recently? I would say perception is infact more important than sticking to official stances I hope you are aware that Sonia Gandhi is leader of the ruling party in the Lok Sabha and president of the ruling coalition in India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 I am not judging whether they should or not engage with Modi. I am contesting that Gardiner somehow "ripped apart" RazI an when he was unable to answer what brought about the change. 1. He refers to Modi as leader of the official opposition party. That is completely wrong. 2. He says it's a matter for the people of Gujarat. Well the people of Gujarat have been electing him from Day 1. 3. Razdan correctly states that court cases are not over and asks him are business interests going to drive UK. Gardiner incorrectly states that Supreme Court absolved Modi of accusations, when Supreme Court has clearly said that it will admit a petition against him on the basis of the SIT report. So, how did Gardiner rip apart Razdan when he could not answer the question posed and made factually incorrect statements? That is the crux of this thread, not whether Modi "should" be engaged by the UK. 1. Modi is the de facto leader of bjp, rajnath singh described him as the most popular leader of bjp. 2. Initial elections could have been won on religion and not development and other issues. For 3 in a row, modi got to have something else going for him, other than just the religion issue. But I go with you more on this point. 3. He meant what I said in the last post. Your 2nd point is valid to a good extent yet he did rip her apart IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Ofcourse Gardiner ripped apart Nidhi by telling her right there what he thinks about how Indian media anchors conduct uncivilized interviews... Didn't know someone who is lying and misrepresenting facts is capable of ripping apart someone. Agree with you on the bold part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 1. Modi is the de facto leader of bjp, rajnath singh described him as the most popular leader of bjp. Modi is campaign chief of the BJP. Rajnath Singh is their president, Sushma Swaraj is their leader in the Lok Sabha, and Arun Jaitley is their leader in the Rajya Sabha. By no stretch of imagination is he the leader of the opposition. 3. He meant what I said in the last post. Doesn't matter what he meant. It remains a factually incorrect statement. Even basic application of logic will tell you that the Supreme Court has not given a clean chit to Modi based on the SIT report, when the same Supreme Court has allowed a petition to be admitted against him based on the same SIT report. SIT is not a judicial body to give anyone a clean chit. Your 2nd point is valid to a good extent yet he did rip her apart IMO. By lying and misrepresenting facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Better start campaigning in Kashmir valley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Modi is campaign chief of the BJP. Rajnath Singh is their president, Sushma Swaraj is their leader in the Lok Sabha, and Arun Jaitley is their leader in the Rajya Sabha. By no stretch of imagination is he the leader of the opposition. Doesn't matter what he meant. It remains a factually incorrect statement. Even basic application of logic will tell you that the Supreme Court has not given a clean chit to Modi based on the SIT report, when the same Supreme Court has allowed a petition to be admitted against him based on the same SIT report. SIT is not a judicial body to give anyone a clean chit. By lying and misrepresenting facts. Arre bhai wo baahar ka banda hai , usko itni galti maaf Hai. Like I said, there has been development (SIT report, his elevation in bjp, his 3rd back to back win) on modi. One can't question UK on changing their stance in the wake of these developments. He did rip her apart if you ignore his inaccuracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Arre bhai wo baahar ka banda hai ' date=' usko itni galti maaf Hai. Like I said, there has been development (SIT report, his elevation in bjp, his 3rd back to back win) on modi. One can't question UK on changing their stance in the wake of these developments.[b'] He did rip her apart if you ignore his inaccuracies. I don't see how anyone can claim to have ripped apart someone else when the entire premise of the ripping apart was based on lies and misrepresentation of facts. But to each his own I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 I don't see how anyone can claim to have ripped apart someone else when the entire premise of the ripping apart was based on lies and misrepresentation of facts. But to each his own I guess. If she can't figure out quickly that it's a "lie" or "misrepresentation" , and not able to come back, it's also qualifies as ripped apart. Just like Arnab goswami rips apart the guests in news hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 If she can't figure out quickly that it's a "lie" or "misrepresentation" ' date=' and not able to come back, it's also qualifies as ripped apart. Just like Arnab goswami rips apart the guests in news hour.[/quote'] She did clearly and correctly state that the Supreme Court has not cleared Modi. She missed out on rebutting him on the "leader of the opposition" and the people of Gujarat statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts