Nidhi Razdan being ripped apart by British MP Barry Gardiner

[The Outsider]

Check his answer to 2nd question(some 2mins onwards) ...He mentions FDI as well as the growth of Gujarat.Nidhi interrupts him ' date=' and continues on the 2002 & court cases which clearly irks him[/quote'] Yes, heard it again. He does talk about FDI and when Razdan asks him "are business interests only going to guide British policies", he starts making up stuff. Razdan's behavior and her manner of conducting the interview is not being justified by me right from my first post in the thread. However, she does ask him if business interests are the primary driver of the policy and he starts making up stuff. It is a legitimate line of questioning underneath her behavior as to why Britain has changed it's stance and whether business is the primary driver for it. I am not in favor of Indian MPs or journalists petitioning foreign countries regarding Modi's visa till they can convict him in India. It reeks of bullshit that you can't convict him in India, but are petitioning other countries to take punitive action on your behalf. However, Razdan is not doing what those 65 MPs did. She is probing about the reason of change in Britain's stance. Most of these 2-4 minute interviews do not have a multiple line of questioning approach. They are focused on getting 1-2 points answered, which in this case was about the reason behind the change in UK's stance. Huh? She clearly says "Let me tell you Mr. Gardiner that the cases are not closed" when he attacks her personally of not having respect for the Supreme Court, which was a clear lie or misrepresentation of facts. Let's not muddle things here. The thread was created to state that Razdan was ripped apart by Gardiner and multiple posters agreed to it. My question and premise of the argument is simple - how can a claim of being ripped apart be made on the foundations of lies and misrepresentation of facts, and I have not got any good answer to it. One poster even admitted that Gardiner's statements had inconsistencies, but still ripped apart Razdan. What kind of Lahori logic is that? Addressing the SIT issue, the SIT prepared a report and submitted a list of people who they thought should be prosecuted to the Supreme Court. That by no stretch of imagination amounts to the Supreme Court giving Modi a clean chit. The proof for that is the fact that the court has allowed for a submission of a petition against Modi based on the same SIT report. If the court was convinced of Modi being clear, it would have disallowed the petition.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Yes, heard it again. He does talk about FDI and when Razdan asks him "are business interests only going to guide British policies", he starts making up stuff. Razdan's behavior and her manner of conducting the interview is not being justified by me right from my first post in the thread. However, she does ask him if business interests are the primary driver of the policy and he starts making up stuff. It is a legitimate line of questioning underneath her behavior as to why Britain has changed it's stance and whether business is the primary driver for it. I am not in favor of Indian MPs or journalists petitioning foreign countries regarding Modi's visa till they can convict him in India. It reeks of bullshit that you can't convict him in India, but are petitioning other countries to take punitive action on your behalf. However, Razdan is not doing what those 65 MPs did. She is probing about the reason of change in Britain's stance. Most of these 2-4 minute interviews do not have a multiple line of questioning approach. They are focused on getting 1-2 points answered, which in this case was about the reason behind the change in UK's stance. Huh? She clearly says "Let me tell you Mr. Gardiner that the cases are not closed" when he attacks her personally of not having respect for the Supreme Court, which was a clear lie or misrepresentation of facts. Let's not muddle things here. The thread was created to state that Razdan was ripped apart by Gardiner and multiple posters agreed to it. My question and premise of the argument is simple - how can a claim of being ripped apart be made on the foundations of lies and misrepresentation of facts, and I have not got any good answer to it. One poster even admitted that Gardiner's statements had inconsistencies, but still ripped apart Razdan. What kind of Lahori logic is that? Addressing the SIT issue, the SIT prepared a report and submitted a list of people who they thought should be prosecuted to the Supreme Court. That by no stretch of imagination amounts to the Supreme Court giving Modi a clean chit. The proof for that is the fact that the court has allowed for a submission of a petition against Modi based on the same SIT report. If the court was convinced of Modi being clear, it would have disallowed the petition.

How can you disallow a petition without hearing it in full?

[The Outsider]

How can you disallow a petition without hearing it in full?

You can, if you are convinced that there is nothing new which will come out of it. If it was such a given, why would the Supreme Court even waste it's time reviewing the validity of such a request if it's given that all petitions will be admitted? http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1797529/report-supreme-court-allows-zakia-jafri-to-file-protest-petition-against-sit-report

Supreme Court allows Zakia Jafri to file protest petition against SIT report

Why would the Supreme Court bother allowing something which is a given according to you?

[seedhi]

Razdan's behavior and her manner of conducting the interview is not being justified by me right from my first post in the thread. However' date=' she does ask him if [b']business interests are the primary driver of the policy and he starts making up stuff. It is a legitimate line of questioning underneath her behavior as to why Britain has changed it's stance and whether business is the primary driver for it.

Starting around 2.00 min the MP had already said that business along with the fact that Modi was a dominant politician in India was the reason for the invitation. But she was not satisfied with the answer (there is no reason not to be), and she is the one who first rakes up 2002 riots and the supposed "blot" on Modi. When the MP has already given an answer about the reason for the invitation, what is the need to bring up the riots? Moreover, she brought the riots into the discussion after the MP had already mentioned that he does not want to comment on the internal democracy of India. This is simply not the way of talking about an Indian chief minister to a foreign MP.

However, Razdan is not doing what those 65 MPs did. She is probing about the reason of change in Britain's stance.

No she isn't. She already had his answer that the invitation was because of economic interests and Modi's influence in India. She was the one who then raised the riots issue. And what is the meaning of asking whether only economics (and not human rights) is the driver of Britain's foreign policy ? Is Britain the arbiter of morality and human rights? And who gave the British the right to determine moral positions about an issue internal to India in the first place ? Is it proper for a journalist to insinuate to a foreign MP that doing business with Gujarat is immoral? Why is it hard for her to believe the MP's answer that business interests and Modi's influence in India was the reason behind the invitation and why did she have to then rake up the riots issue? She is either totally dumb or lacking even a shred of neutrality or both.

[seedhi]

You can' date=' if you are convinced that there is nothing new which will come out of it. If it was such a given, why would the Supreme Court even waste it's time reviewing the validity of such a request if it's given that all petitions will be admitted?[/quote']The Supreme Court did not pass a judgment on the conclusions of the SIT report and left that task to the lower court. It did however say that the members of the SIT and the amicus had made commendable efforts. The protest petition is a standard procedure and the right of the complainant if the police (or the SIT in this case) files a closure report. So there is nothing unusual in allowing a protest petition. On the other hand, the Supreme Court declined the original plea of the complainant (Zakia Jafri) to file a FIR against Mr Modi.

[seedhi]

You can, if you are convinced that there is nothing new which will come out of it. If it was such a given, why would the Supreme Court even waste it's time reviewing the validity of such a request if it's given that all petitions will be admitted? http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1797529/report-supreme-court-allows-zakia-jafri-to-file-protest-petition-against-sit-report Why would the Supreme Court bother allowing something which is a given according to you?

At least read the article that you have linked. This was after Zakia Jafri had exceeded the deadline for filing her protest petition in the lower court and demanded more documents from the SIT. The Supreme Court granted (partially) her request for the additional documents and also allowed her more time to file the protest petition.

[The Outsider]

Starting around 2.00 min the MP had already said that business along with the fact that Modi was a dominant politician in India was the reason for the invitation. But she was not satisfied with the answer (there is no reason not to be)' date=' and [b']she is the one who first rakes up 2002 riots and the supposed "blot" on Modi. When the MP has already given an answer about the reason for the invitation, what is the need to bring up the riots? Moreover, she brought the riots into the discussion after the MP had already mentioned that he does not want to comment on the internal democracy of India. This is simply not the way of talking about an Indian chief minister to a foreign MP.

I've already said her manner of speaking and demeanor were typical of poor journalism from Indian news channels without any prodding on your part, so can we drop that point? Yes, the MP gave an answer to which she questioned the underlying morals of UK's foreign policy - is it primarily based on economics? Tell me, how is that slamming Modi? If anything it is an attack on UK's duplicity with regards to human rights - when they imposed an embargo on Modi it was based on human rights, but while lifting it, it's based on economics?

No she isn't. She already had his answer that the invitation was because of economic interests and Modi's influence in India. She was the one who then raised the riots issue. And what is the meaning of asking whether only economics (and not human rights) is the driver of Britain's foreign policy ? Is Britain the arbiter of morality and human rights? And who gave the British the right to determine moral positions about an issue internal to India in the first place ? Is it proper for a journalist to insinuate to a foreign MP that doing business with Gujarat is immoral? Why is it hard for her to believe the MP's answer that business interests and Modi's influence in India was the reason behind the invitation and why did she have to then rake up the riots issue? She is either totally dumb or lacking even a shred of neutrality or both.

That's the crux, isn't it? UK claims to be an arbiter and upholder of human rights and morality, but when it comes to actions they are relying on economics, which everyone knows but what exactly is wrong in a journalist pointing it out?

The Supreme Court did not pass a judgment on the conclusions of the SIT report and left that task to the lower court. It did however say that the members of the SIT and the amicus had made commendable efforts. The protest petition is a standard procedure and the right of the complainant if the police (or the SIT in this case) files a closure report. So there is nothing unusual in allowing a protest petition. On the other hand, the Supreme Court declined the original plea of the complainant (Zakia Jafri) to file a FIR against Mr Modi.

How does it amount to clearance from the Supreme Court is the basic question here?

At least read the article that you have linked. This was after Zakia Jafri had exceeded the deadline for filing her protest petition in the lower court and demanded more documents from the SIT. The Supreme Court granted (partially) her request for the additional documents and also allowed her more time to file the protest petition.

I picked up the first article from a google search because my purpose was not to delve into the details, but to point out the fact that the Supreme Court has a say as to whether a petition should be allowed or not, which was the point sunnyji was arguing. That is the reason, I only quoted the headlines with an emphasis on "allowed"

[gattaca]

whatever excuses you give. She is poor journalist she doesn't wait for the person to finish it like I am going to ask you for an interview and I am going to rub my opinion on you. I thought we as Indians have better manners she shows none and she says I can say something against the supreme court this more of defending her earlier mistake and commits another. She should definitely given training how to be a journalist. Can you someone pass on "How to be a journalist For dummies" to her ?She is actually a dummy here.

[diga]

I picked up the first article from a google search because my purpose was not to delve into the details, but to point out the fact that the Supreme Court has a say as to whether a petition should be allowed or not, which was the point sunnyji was arguing. That is the reason, I only quoted the headlines with an emphasis on "allowed"

just introspect.. you will find atleast a tinge of hypocrisy in your reply. Nidhi can question the SC, but will never ever question Rahul-Sonia:hysterical:

[The Outsider]

just introspect.. you will find atleast a tinge of hypocrisy in your reply.

Not really. The article served the purpose I was aiming to achieve.

Nidhi can question the SC, but will never ever question Rahul-Sonia:hysterical:

Take it up with Nidhi.

[BeautifulGame]

https://www.change.org/petitions/david-cameron-and-ed-miliband-stop-the-visit-of-mass-murderer-narendra-modi-to-the-uk

[seedhi]

I've already said her manner of speaking and demeanor were typical of poor journalism from Indian news channels without any prodding on your part, so can we drop that point? Yes, the MP gave an answer to which she questioned the underlying morals of UK's foreign policy - is it primarily based on economics? Tell me, how is that slamming Modi? If anything it is an attack on UK's duplicity with regards to human rights - when they imposed an embargo on Modi it was based on human rights, but while lifting it, it's based on economics?

Oh come on .. after the MP has already given her the reason for the invitation she begins by saying that "some" people consider that Modi is still stained by the "blot" of the 2002 riots. How is this not smearing the CM of an Indian state in front of a foreign MP ? Narendra Modi is an Indian CM, not a convict or an absconding criminal who is being sheltered by the UK. And frankly it is laughable to suggest that Nidhi Razdan is attempting to probe (in that 4 minute interview over a bad audio link) the duplicity in British foreign policy. What is there to probe anyway? This is a country which supported dictatorships all over the world to serve its own interests .. for example the overthrow of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah, the support to Pinochet, the support to Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Saudi royals, Bahrain etc .. the list goes on and on. She could have used any of these examples instead of smearing an Indian CM, if she was really interested in a debate over British foreign policy. Lets stopping kidding, she was only interested in smearing the Gujarat CM and wanted the MP to join her in a bit of mudslinging.

That's the crux, isn't it? UK claims to be an arbiter and upholder of human rights and morality, but when it comes to actions they are relying on economics, which everyone knows but what exactly is wrong in a journalist pointing it out?

Sure, go ahead, but don't smear an elected Indian CM in the process. Use the example of Bahrain or Pinochet or Saudis to prove your point.

How does it amount to clearance from the Supreme Court is the basic question here?

It doesn't mean a clean chit or an indictment, I just wanted to point out that a protest petition is a standard procedure and not out of the ordinary.

[The Outsider]

Oh come on .. after the MP has already given her the reason for the invitation she begins by saying that "some" people consider that Modi is still stained by the "blot" of the 2002 riots. How is this not smearing the CM of an Indian state in front of a foreign MP ? Narendra Modi is an Indian CM, not a convict or an absconding criminal who is being sheltered by the UK. And frankly it is laughable to suggest that Nidhi Razdan is attempting to probe (in that 4 minute interview over a bad audio link) the duplicity in British foreign policy. What is there to probe anyway? This is a country which supported dictatorships all over the world to serve its own interests .. for example the overthrow of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah, the support to Pinochet, the support to Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Saudi royals, Bahrain etc .. the list goes on and on. She could have used any of these examples instead of smearing an Indian CM, if she was really interested in a debate over British foreign policy. Lets stopping kidding, she was only interested in smearing the Gujarat CM and wanted the MP to join her in a bit of mudslinging.

She was probing a British MP on their duplicity on an Indian channel - yeah it would have been so much more sensible to use Saudi as an example!

Sure, go ahead, but don't smear an elected Indian CM in the process. Use the example of Bahrain or Pinochet or Saudis to prove your point.

Please quote the lines where you thought Razdan smeared Modi. Questions don't amount to smearing, allegations do - please keep that mantra in mind.

It doesn't mean a clean chit or an indictment, I just wanted to point out that a protest petition is a standard procedure and not out of the ordinary.

Indictment? Where the feck does Razadan talk about an indictment? It's that ignorant fool who talks about a clean chit. So to cut a long discussion short: 1. Has the Supreme Court ever given a clean chit to Modi? 2. If, no then was Gardiner's statement factually incorrect? The answers to the above two questions are pretty much the crux of this thread, and not whether Modi is guilty, convicted, mass murderer etc. etc. If you answer "No" to both the above factual questions there is no logical premise for Gardiner to have ripped Razdan.

[surajmal]

4 pages of going in circles. undietv jeb mein hai. masla khatam.

[ravishingravi]

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/full-text-sit-closure-report-on-gujarat-riots/256419-3.html ( Text of SIT copy submitted to SC ) http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/no-evidence-against-narendra-modi-says-supreme-court-appointed-team-10-facts-196003 ( SC's observations ) Rather than some rhetoric BS, I think it is better to just lay out the documents and deal on facts of the case.

[The Outsider]

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/full-text-sit-closure-report-on-gujarat-riots/256419-3.html ( Text of SIT copy submitted to SC ) http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/no-evidence-against-narendra-modi-says-supreme-court-appointed-team-10-facts-196003 ( SC's observations ) Rather than some rhetoric BS, I think it is better to just lay out the documents and deal on facts of the case.

Did you read the date on that report? Are you aware that SIT has no judicial powers to provide someone a clean chit? Do you know that the Supreme Court has allowed a petition against Modi based on the same SIT report, which you are providing here to provide context? Would appreciate step by step answers.

[EnterTheVoid]

She tried to make him guilty by association. From the outset, riot this, riot that, blah blah blah. The same old nonsense regurgitated over and over again.

[seedhi]

She was probing a British MP on their duplicity on an Indian channel - yeah it would have been so much more sensible to use Saudi as an example!

Obviously. Why should she use Modi as an example ? He is an elected Indian CM with no criminal record. It would be much more sensible to use any one of the dictatorships that Britain has helped install and/or promote to expose British foreign policy.

Please quote the lines where you thought Razdan smeared Modi. Questions don't amount to smearing, allegations do - please keep that mantra in mind.

She said that "there are those who look at human rights who will argue that the blot of 2002 still hasn't left him". This clear mudslinging on Modi and highly inappropriate to bring this up with a foreign MP. She takes these so called allegations at face value implying that concern about human rights implies a position against Narendra Modi. Let me just add that our Indian army is also accused of human rights violations in Kashmir and the north east by many of the same people and international organizations who accuse Narendra Modi. Would it be appropriate for an Indian journalist to raise this issue in any manner with a foreign MP ? What if Nidhi Razdan had said to a foreign MP who has invited an Indian army delegation to the UK that "there are those who look at human rights who will argue that the blot of Kunan Poshpura still hasn't left the Indian army" ? Simply put, there is no reason whatsoever to involve foreigners into an issue which is completely internal to India.

Indictment? Where the feck does Razadan talk about an indictment? It's that ignorant fool who talks about a clean chit. So to cut a long discussion short: 1. Has the Supreme Court ever given a clean chit to Modi? 2. If, no then was Gardiner's statement factually incorrect? The answers to the above two questions are pretty much the crux of this thread, and not whether Modi is guilty, convicted, mass murderer etc. etc. If you answer "No" to both the above factual questions there is no logical premise for Gardiner to have ripped Razdan.

Your lordship is hardly the one to decide what is the crux of this thread and what is not.

[gattaca]

imagine if he becomes pm are they going still do this. I suppose they will hide under a rock.

[seedhi]

For me the main point of the thread is that it is outright disrespect of the Indian judicial system if a matter completely within its purview is sought to be discussed with foreign governments and entities. The worse part is the expectation that foreign governments and entities should define and occupy moral positions on these matters. Nidhi Razdan does precisely this in this interview with the foreign MP who is clearly disgusted by her behavior, and he isn't the only one.