vvvslaxman Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 This is the kind of Fox news type journalism "whoever talks louder and longer is the winner". Karan Tapar is known for that. Treating interviews as some kind of verbal bout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 How can you disallow a petition without hearing it in full? Courts can disallow in some cases but as a principle courts don't reject anything without parties being heard. Rejection of cases and petitions supposed to happen in very rare cases. SC allowing petition doesn't have any significance in context of culpability of Narendra Modi in Gujrat riots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 imagine if he becomes pm are they going still do this. I suppose they will hide under a rock. NDTV will then argue with American diplomats: WHY DID YOU ACCEPT MODI AS THE LEADER OF INDIA NA CHANGE YOUR POSITION :ohyeah: :mad: :hitler: We'll still have the seculars running around in circles defending NDTV and other netas writing elsewhere about the PM not being a representative of India :hatsoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Forget the 2002 riots, Gardiner claims that there were NO protests when Modi had to visit UK previously. That is delusion of the highest order! :haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Point is why even bring up the riots or the investigations with a foreign MP? It is an internal matter of India and has got nothing to do with the British MP. Can you imagine a US or UK news channel discussing their internal matters with an Indian MP ? Look at the interview, at 1.30min onwards the MP says clearly that Modi has been elected by the people of Gujarat and it is not appropriate for him (the MP) to interfere in the democratic process of India. He further says that the invitation is because of the deep economic and trade interests. It is then that this airhead, agenda driven joke of journalist brings up the "blot" of riots in front of a foreign MP. An absolute disgrace. Your "Why" has been answered enough on this thread. The journalist is asking for a reason for UK's change in stance towards Modi and Gardiner replies with faux pass and blatant lies. Mr. Modi is not even part of the trial in SC.He was not named in the chargesheet by SIT' date='which was monitored by the SC.[/quote'] Your facts are muddled but I repeat SC has not given any "clean chit" to Modi as claimed by Gardiner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Your "Why" has been answered enough on this thread. The journalist is asking for a reason for UK's change in stance towards Modi and Gardiner replies with faux pass and blatant lies. Your facts are muddled but I repeat SC has not given any "clean chit" to Modi as claimed by Gardiner. The change in stance question has been answered an year back. expecting a foreign MP to be absolutely accurate about things going on in India is not fair. Are these folks going to ask just this one question and no other questions every time modi is invited by the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeautifulGame Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 If u don't know accurate facts then how can he own Razdan in that argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 If u don't know accurate facts then how can he own Razdan in that argument This video is about nidhi showing her aukat more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 The change in stance question has been answered an year back. expecting a foreign MP to be absolutely accurate about things going on in India is not fair. Are these folks going to ask just this one question and no other questions every time modi is invited by the UK? :hysterical: All details? He did not even get one detail right. Surely you should know details about whom you are inviting - 1. WRONG - "Modi is the leader of the opposition party" 2. WRONG - "There has never been a boycott of any Indian politician of any party" 3. WRONG - "Supreme Court of India has absolved Narendra Modi of 2002 riots allegations" Razdan might be a Congress mouth piece but Gardiner comes across as a A - grade chewtiya. If u don't know accurate facts then how can he own Razdan in that argument Here is what me thinks - he thought Indian journalists would praise him for his invitation based on his perception about Modi in India. Once Razdan questioned that - he got his panties in a twist. In fact, Gardiner does not even follow decent rules of a conversation. Multiple times he does not even allow Razdan to complete her question and he goes - "no ... no ... no," and continues to mumble even while Nidhi is completing her question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Your "Why" has been answered enough on this thread. The journalist is asking for a reason for UK's change in stance towards Modi and Gardiner replies with faux pass and blatant lies. Your facts are muddled but I repeat SC has not given any "clean chit" to Modi as claimed by Gardiner. So was there a boycott earlier on Mr Modi by UK govt ? And was Modi convicted by SC of any criminality pertaining to the riots ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 So was there a boycott earlier on Mr Modi by UK govt ? And was Modi convicted by SC of any criminality pertaining to the riots ? Nidhi Razdan said there were protests last time when Modi was supposed to visit UK. That is true, she did not mention the protests were from the UK government or US government. Gardiner denied that there were ay protests, at any level, for any Indian politician from any party! That is false. Modi has not been convicted but has not been given a clean chit too - the matter is under courts. Razdan never said Modi was convicted by the SC but Mr. Gardiner chewtiya says that SC has "absolved him of all wrong doings". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 :hysterical: All details? He did not even get one detail right. Surely you should know details about whom you are inviting - 1. WRONG - "Modi is the leader of the opposition party" 2. WRONG - "There has never been a boycott of any Indian politician of any party" 3. WRONG - "Supreme Court of India has absolved Narendra Modi of 2002 riots allegations" Razdan might be a Congress mouth piece but Gardiner comes across as a A - grade chewtiya. . Leader of opposition is an immaterial point. UK doesn't have to care about his position in any case before inviting him. He is foremost leader of BjP, of that there is little doubt., official position notwithstanding. I don't think Gardner has to really know or care of his official title. On the second point, I am bit on the fence. I was also of similar opinion, but has there an official position of Uk govt or parliament ? Third point, has he been convicted of criminal involvement in riots ? I have read the judgement. So, it would be nice if someone can post what part of it was convicting him. Yes in 2004 SC had made strong observations on him, but that becomes immaterial in light of subsequent SIT report and SC observations. I am not up to date on facts. So I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 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. Errrr...because Modi is Indian. 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. Mudslinging on Modi? You need to check up on the definition of mudslinging. If anything is close to mudslinging in that interview it is Gardiner accusing Razdan of not having respect for her country's Supreme Court. She is not taking any allegations at face value, she is using them to question the reason behind UK's change of stance. She is not the one initiating any new set of allegations against Modi or Gardiner - that would have been mudslinging. 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. Definitely. If UK has an unofficial boycott policy against some army General for human rights violations in Kashmir or the North East and the reverses its stance, it is a very pertinent journalistic question to ask them that what ground realities brought about the change. Your lordship is hardly the one to decide what is the crux of this thread and what is not. If by "your lordship" you are a referring to me, then no I don't decide the crux of the thread. In most cases the OP does and in this case the OP made a claim that Razdan was ripped apart by Gardiner. How can any ripping apart take place based on lies and misrepresentation of facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Leader of opposition is an immaterial point. UK doesn't have to care about his position in any case before inviting him. He is foremost leader of BjP, of that there is little doubt., official position notwithstanding. I don't think Gardner has to really know or care of his official title. On the second point, I am bit on the fence. I was also of similar opinion, but has there an official position of Uk govt or parliament ? Third point, has he been convicted of criminal involvement in riots ? I have read the judgement. So, it would be nice if someone can post what part of it was convicting him. Yes in 2004 SC had made strong observations on him, but that becomes immaterial in light of subsequent SIT report and SC observations. I am not up to date on facts. So I could be wrong. Point 1 is not immaterial. Gardiner bhaiyya bases his decision to call Modi on many factors - one being the "leader of the opposition party". That's wrong. Point 2 - The official position had been to deny a visa to Modi. Even if there isn't, Razdan is asking about the general sentiment of citizens of the UK. The last time these were UK citizens protested against his visit. Point 3 - Razdan does not mention anything SC related until Gardiner bhaiyya in his usual condescending tone claims that "SC has absolved Modi of all wrong doings multiple times". He's wrong there has well. The opposite of not absolved does not mean convicted - one can be not absolved, not convicted state too which is the case with Modi. Razdan does not claim that Modi was convicted but Gardiner claims Modi has been absolved. Razdan 3 - Gardiner bhaiyya 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Leader of opposition is an immaterial point. UK doesn't have to care about his position in any case before inviting him. He is foremost leader of BjP, of that there is little doubt., official position notwithstanding. I don't think Gardner has to really know or care of his official title. LOL! When Biden recently visited India, he met Sushma Swaraj, BJP's leader in the Lok Sabha not Narendra Modi, their campaign chief, in official capacity. The stupidity that Modi bhakti can lead to is astounding. Official positions don't matter anymore. :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 We'll still have the seculars running around in circles defending NDTV and other netas writing elsewhere about the PM not being a representative of India :hatsoff: At least the so called "seculars" don't go around defending the lies of a foreign MP just because it gives their neta a supposedly higher darja in international diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Modi tou jaayega UK baaki sab bakwaas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saneindian Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Now BarryG has become a chewtiya because he invited Modi to House of Commons Yeah right, Modfans are abusive. BTW DM on the above 1 Calling Modi 'leader of the opposition party' is wrong? 2. Saying that there has been no boycott (note the word boycott in, and not protest as you are saying) of an Indian politician of any politicla party is factually incorrect? 3. Go through the interview again where Madam Razdan talks of the court cases and legal issues before BarryG brings in the SC. Note also how swiftly Madam Razdan moves to 'moral issues' from 'legal issues' and how abruptly she cuts the interview when she sees the tide turning against her. If ever there was a case of a TV anchor getting schooled on her own show, it was in those ending lines by BarryG. Note how Modi's letter to the PM opposing the food security bill was being flashed on one part of the screen while she was interviewing BarryG. Any connections between the two? Also, isn't it ironical for an anchor and a channel which regularly hides behind the alibi of "case is sub-judice, lets not talk about it" to be invoking us being a dmocracy and having a right to be critical of SC? The same channel where if a panelists tries to make an accusations against the Gandhis, he gets told by the anchor "We will not allow you platform of our channel to make wild allegations"! Democracy and all that jazz.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 At least the so called "seculars" don't go around defending the lies of a foreign MP just because it gives their neta a supposedly higher darja in international diplomacy. The seculars did their part in defending the workers of the secular party that wear the mask of the neutral media. They see nothing wrong in dragging foreign politicians into the domestic mudslinging but instead want to understand how all of sudden a section of the picture perfect British political system decided on inviting this despicable person, current & three term CM to the House of Commons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asterix Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Only Omar can 'rip apart' Nidhi now.. No one elsh.... :agree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts