A fitting response from Modi – exposes the “Liars” in the “Secular Media”

To
The Election Commission of India
Nirvachan Sadan,
Ashoka Road,
New Delhi.110001.
Subject: Your Notice dated 6th December 2007 to Shri Narendra Modi, Chief Minister, Gujarat State.

Sir,

I am in receipt of your notice dated 6th December 2007 wherein on the basis of the media reports and a complaint dated 5th December 2007 filed by Teesta Setalvad, I am alleged to have made an open exhortation to violence and misused of religion for political ends. The Election Commission has further stated that by linking the name of Sohrabuddin to terrorism in my speech amounts to indulging in activity which may aggravate existing differences, creating mutual hatred and causing tension between different communities .I deny this charge in its entirety.

1. The Commission has acted on the basis of a complaint which alleges that my stand is contrary to what the State of Gujarat has stated in its affidavit before the Supreme Court. The basis of the complaint appears to be a report dated 5th December 2007 of the Times of India by one Shri Prashant Dayal. The relevant extract in the Times of India reads as under:
Modi…….you tell what should be done to Sohrabuddin?
People at the rally: Kill him, kill him.
Modi: Well, that is what I did. And I did what was necessary.”
The last sentence of the report of the Times of India has generated controversy in the whole nation. Television Channels and News Papers have made comments to the effect that I have stated that ‘Sohrabuddin got what he deserved’, or that ‘it is a confessional statement by me’ or that ‘Modi has justified a murder’. All other news papers cuttings which the Commission has taken into account are dated 6th December 2007, which do not report my speech delivered on 4th December, 2007 but are comments inspired by false imputation in the Times of India. This last sentence is not reflected in the CD as having been used by me.

2. ‘The Statesman’ dated 6th December 2007 quoted me as having said – “he (Sohrabuddin) has got what he deserved”: The Hindustan Times of 6th December quoted me as saying “Well then, that’s it.” I had on 6th December 2007, immediately after receiving Election Commission’s notice requested that I may be supplied copy of the CD of the speech and also various inputs which have influenced the issuance of the notice. I have since received the copy of CD on the evening of 7th December 2007 at 5.45 p.m. I find none of the above statements are contained in my speech as recorded in the CD. The .E.C. notice is issued on the basis of unverified and false media reports.

3 As I am also involved in a campaign I am sending this as a preliminary reply, which I am sure would satisfy the Election Commission with regard to the contents of my speech. Before I answer specifics raised in the notice and the complaint, I wish to state that India is governed by Rule of law and Constitution. I am entitled to my right of free speech. Free and fair election involves a debate on the political issues in the market place of politics. When statements are made by political opponents, others are entitled to reply to them. The tone and content of the statement must necessarily adhere to the Model Code of Conduct. I wish to categorically state that I regard the Election Commission as a constitutional authority under an obligation to ensure free and fair election which will also defend my right of free speech against those who have started hate campaign against me.

4. On 1st December 2007, AICC President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi visited Gujarat and referred to me by suggesting those who are ruling Gujarat are “liars, dishonest and merchants of fear and death (Maut-ke-Soudagar).” On 3rd December 2007, AICC General Secretary Mr. Digvijay Singh visited Gujarat and referred to it as a State which has unleashed “Hindu terrorism.” The newspapers reported these statements extensively. Separate complaints with regard to the violation of the Code of Conduct were sent to the Election Commission by the Gujarat Unit of BJP. No action has been taken against those responsible for these statements by the Election Commission. I am sure the Election Commission would at least now proceed to take action on those reports.

5. One of the critical issues in our country is the problem of terrorism. India has lost the lives almost 90,000 of innocent citizens and security personnel in the last 17 years to terror. In the last four years, 5,619 innocents have been killed by the terrorist. The Government of Gujarat has a strong policy against terrorism. I believe that UPA and Congress party is indulging in Vote Bank politics and have sent soft signals on terrorism. My party and I have repeatedly made these charges against the Congress Party. In Gujarat only one life has been lost in the last four years through terror. This is a result of our strong policy against terrorism. The Nation and the people of Gujarat are entitled to witness a fair debate on terrorism. If any of the view point is censored or not permitted it will be interference in the right of free speech. Our Constitution and the election commission’s obligation to conduct free and fair election will not extend to preventing me from expressing my strong views against terrorism..

6 My speech, therefore, has to be read entirely in this context. It was a political response to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi referring to me as those who rule the Gujarat as a ‘Mout-ke-saudagar’. Surely it cannot be policy of the Election commission first to ignore the violation of the Code of Conduct in her statement and then censor my political response to that statement. I have gone through my speech on the CD supplied. It is merely a response to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi calling me “Mout-ka-Saudagar”.