Bharatiya Janata Party expelled to its 15 leaders from the party who are contesting as independent candidates in the Assembly election.  Three of these are former MLAs who have been denied ticket.

The candidates are Ishwarbhai Rout (Mota Ponda), Rajnikant Rajvadi (Navsari), Tersinh Damor (Dohad), Indranath Parmar (Sojitra), Dilipbhai Patel( Anand), Rajeshbhai Pathak( Balasinor), Prahaladbhai Patel (Visnagar), Ishvarbhai Makwana( Jotana), Magansinh Vaghela(Kankrej), Prabhudasbhai Patel( Bhiloda), Rajabhai charia(Talala), Sunil Ojha(Bhavnagar), Dhanraj Kela(Vadhvan), Chunibhai Gohil( Veraval), Jayantibhai Babhania (Mahuva).

Modi’s statement in an election campaign at Mangrol in Gujarat proved that at last he dared to say what he was subsiding all these days. Yes, Gujarat is back again to election now with hot issues which earlier seemed to be issueless.

During the election rally Modi while referring to Sonia who held Modi responsible for the communal disharmony and alleged him to be anti farmer and anti tribal, Modi said, “Sonia Gandhi spoke of terrorism. But she has no right to talk of this. Till today, the perpetrators of Parliament haven’t been sent to the gallows. And, Congress in Gujarat is raising its voice on the Sohrabuddin issue.”

“But, it should explain to the people what should be done to a man who stored illegal arms and ammunition? You tell me, what should have been done to Sohrabuddin?” he asked the crowd.

The crowd replied, “Kill him, kill him.”

“Well, that is it. Do I have to take Sonia Gandhi’s permission to do this? Hang me if I have done anything wrong,” Modi replied in response.

Sohrabuddin issue became highlighted after CBI investigation team submitted a report to the Apex Court alleging that the encounter was fake in which he died.

Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi’s controversial remarks over the death of Sohrabuddin have pushed senior advocate KTS Tulsi, who defended the state government in the Supreme Court in the fake encounter case, into declaring that he would opt out and return the brief.

Tulsi accused Modi of playing “ducks and drakes” with the rule of law and the apex court by making remarks justifying the extralegal killing.

“Unless the Chief Minister gives a suitable clarification and offers to apologise it is not possible for me to represent Gujarat government as Special Counsel,” Tulsi said.

Tulsi said he found that the affidavit filed by the state government in the Supreme Court had clearly stated that the killing of Sohrabuddin was a cold-blooded murder, stage managed in a fake encounter.

“It had said that the officers who had participated in the encounter had fabricated the evidence. The chargesheet has already been filed in the case and the statement by the CM on the way the suspected terrorist was dealt with is not acceptable to me,” Tulsi said.

“How can the chief minister take stand diametrically opposite to that of what was stated by the state government before the Court. The position of both the CM and the government becomes untenable,” Tulsi added.

Tulsi was reacting to Chief Minster’s justification of Sheikh’s killing in election speeches by saying he deserved such a fate.

Tulsi had emphatically told the Supreme Court that the state would spare no one involved in Sohrabuddin’s extralegal killing, and had persuaded the court not to order a CBI probe.

Compounding the problems for Modi, Sohrabuddin’s brother Rubabuddin, who had forced the state to take action against top police officers including DG Vanzara by filing a petition before the apex court, is in the process of moving the SC to seek Modi’s prosecution for being part of the conspiracy to kill his brother and his sister-in-law, Kauserbi.

The Congress kept up its attack on Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, saying he should be tried and convicted for human rights violations, but refrained from focusing on the 2002 riots.

“Modi’s track record on the one issue of human rights has been abysmal. Those who think that we are hesitant to rake it up, please note that we have been repeatedly raking up this issue,” AICC spokesman Abhishek Singhvi told to media.

“The Gujarat polls are not a one-issue election and not a one-person election. Gujarat election is an assessment of the BJP on all fronts, on all issues, on all facets,” According to Singhvi .

He said Modi deserves to be tried and convicted by Indian courts and also by the international courts of justice.

The BJP on Sunday filed a compliant with the Election Commission against Congress president Sonia Gandhi saying her speech at one of the election rallies violated the model code of conduct.

“We have submitted a complaint to the Election Commission against Sonia Gandhi,” According to general secretary of the Gujarat unit of BJP, Jayanti Barot, .

“Sonia Gandhi, through her speech on Saturday at Chikli in Navsari district, had tried to divide people on caste lines and arouse religious sentiment before the elections.

The UPA chairperson had said in Navsari “those ruling Gujarat are “dishonest” and “merchant of death”.
She had also levelled baseless allegations against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi,” According to Barot .

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, on Wednesday, filed his nomination for the battle for the state.

Speaking to reporters after filing his papers, Modi took potshots at the media and social activists, saying development was the only agenda this polls.

“The Gujarat elections are unique as no political party or media or NGOs decide the election programme. It’s the people of Gujarat who decide finally and they want progress and development,” said Modi.

For Modi who is contesting for the second time from Maninagar, the stakes are very high.

The Congress has decided to field stalwart Dinsha Patel in Maninagar against Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Patel is Minister of State for Petroleum and MP from Nadiad in central Gujarat.

According to  sources in Congress, Dinsha will file nomination tomorrow morning. By fielding Dinsha Congress is trying to woo Patel voters in the constituency. It may be noted that the BJP has already given tickets to 22 Patels.  Congress is probably trying to make roads into Maninagar constituency which is dominated by Patels.

It may be noted that Dinsha is being projected as the Congress Chief Minister.

Though Patel is being nominated from Maninagar for the first time, he has earlier won five Assembly elections and four Lok Sabha elections from Gujarat.

After the communal riots in the year 2002, Modi had won the 2002 elections from Maninagar constituency.

This year in the second phase of Gujarat elections scheduled to be held on December 16, Modi will be facing Congress candidate Dinsha Patel, who will be banking on the large number of Patel votes in the constituency.

Let us reflect on the elections: why was the turnout a meagre 30% in this year’s DUSU elections? Does that mean that these newly elected representatives do not have the right to represent our issues because they have been elected by a minority?

Issues like fee-hike, campus safety, extra-curricular activities, new vocational courses and cultural development have been raised every year and yet the student unions have not fared well in terms of addressing the said issues. Issues like money and muscle power cannot be neglected. Every year, student leaders are accompanied by many non-university students to campaign for them. This malaise is pervasive in all groups. This is done to display their political clout in terms of numbers.

Contesting elections at the student level is a costly affair. The students of the university are a motley crowd, cutting across castes, regions, tribes, religions, and languages. The colleges are spread all over the city of Delhi – north, east, south and west. Thus, to manage the plethora of voices and demands, money power becomes crucial. It acts as a lubricant that energises the campaign. It has also become a yardstick to select student leaders representing the various par-ties. This necessitates a dilution of the democratic criteria that is supposed to govern the choice of contestants. Candidates for these elections are often chosen along partisan lines, which jolts the democratic process.  Surely, it does not augur well for the healthy development of leadership ethos amongst students.

The coverage of these elections by the media tends to depict contestants as stereotypes of ‘Netagiri-rajniiti’ (leaders and politics). This also takes the duel away from the important issues.

Issues of transparency in selection, accountability, audit of funds, as pointed out by the former Election Commissioner J.M.Lyngdoh, are not dealt with in the right spirit. The involvement of political parties in student elections (like the National students Union of India’s affiliation with Congress (I)), distances these elections from student concerns. The ordinary student, disillusioned with such developments, prefers to stay away from these elections. Student leaders are found to be negligent and lackadaisical in their approach towards the welfare of the students, in real terms.

Thus the trumpets and the drums used in the campaigns fall short of making any real impact on the student’s mind. Perhaps, this shows why students did not turn up to vote at the elections, preferring to treat the all-important voting day as a “holiday”.

However this pessimism needs to be done away with.  We cannot have a functioning democracy if we ignore the significance behind participation in electoral affairs. The perils of ignorance are colossal. We need to stand up to resist the apathy and lack of political will on the part of the leaders.  We cannot let these elections serve as a playground for clash of political ambitions. The real issues confronting the students – ranging from special buses catering to the needs of the students of the university, curbing eve-teasing, organising welfare camps, opening research centres, improving library facilities, amongst others, need to be immediately addressed. It is high time we realised the value of our participation and deliberations to cure the problems confronting the student community. This will surely have positive ramifications for the student community at the national level.

Neeraj Shekhar, son of late prime minister Chandra Shekhar, will be the Samajwadi Party candidate from the Ballia Parliamentary constituency, the by-election for which is expected soon.

The announcement of Shekhar’s candidature was made by SP leaders Janeshwar Mishra, Ram Gopal Yadav and Amar Singh at a joint press conference in the presence of Shekhar. Chandra Shekhar represented Ballia eight times in the Lok Sabha.

Shekhar denied suggestions that the family of the former Prime Minister would be a divided lot in the by-election, saying his feeling was that the entire family was backing him including elder brother Pankaj.

Neeraj said he was the lone member of the family contesting the poll.

The by-election from the constituency, deferred in view of floods in the region, last time had seen Pankaj also in the fray along with Neeraj, fighting for the legacy of their father.

Mohammad Hamid Ansari, a former diplomat and academic, was elected India’s new vice-president on Friday.

A nominee of the ruling alliance, Ansari, 70, defeated opposition-backed rival, Najma Heptullah, by 233 votes for the largely ceremonial post. He is India’s third Muslim vice-president.

An electoral college of members of parliament elects the vice-president, who also acts as chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.

“Mohammad Hamid Ansari has been declared elected vice-president,” returning officer Yogendra Narain told reporters.

Last month, India elected its first female president, Pratibha Patil, in what supporters called a boost for the rights of millions of disadvantaged women, despite a vitriolic campaign by the opposition questioning her suitability.

He headed the National Commission for Minorities, a body set up to protect the rights of minorities, including Muslims who make up more than 13 percent of India’s 1.1 billion population.

Ansari was India’s envoy to the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Australia and the country’s permanent representative to the United Nations, according to his official bio data.

He is a former vice-chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University, a historical university in north India, and a recipient of the country’s prestigious civilian award, the Padma Shri.

Taking a broad view of how humanity had performed in the 20th century,  The past century with despair. The century of wars, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, depressions, the scourge of AIDS, environmental degradation, and other forms of exploitation was savage enough. Yet, in the midst of the misery, principally of Western making, one country stands out. And that country is India. For India, if the struggle for freedom was the primary theme of the first part of the century, the struggle to establish and maintain the largest democracy in the world was the main theme of the second part. What Europe aspires to achieve today in the form of the European Union has already been achieved by the Indian Union.

Added to the achievement of freedom, democracy and unity, India has a good reason to celebrate the emergence of Gandhi who has a valid claim to be considered the man of the past century, if not of the millennium. There were others, like Tagore and Vivekananda, whose voices claimed the attention of the world. Their voices have abiding lessons for India and the rest of the world. Martin Luther King III, the son of Martin Luther King Jr., wrote movingly some time ago that he had come to realize the importance of Gandhi’s teachings and the effect it had on his father and ultimately on his nation.

It is possible, indeed, to claim that the 20th century was the Indian century. But it is wise not to be swept off one’s feet by this grandeur. It is the irony of Indian history that the reality of this society appears fractured on all the points noted above. Independence did not come to the subcontinent without Partition. The Indian holocaust caused suffering to millions of people. Indian democracy is not free of perversions where those who are supposed to uphold it make a mockery of it. Indian unity is precarious. There is hardly any solidarity that is visible among egoists, caught up in petty feuds and petty victories and petty defeats.

We should not lose sight of the recent past. All those Indians who have travelled abroad during the last ten years cannot but fail to notice the change that has come about in the external perception of India during this time. India is no longer seen as a country of snake-charmers, sadhus and squatters. It is being increasingly recognized as a rising society with industrial might and intellectual power. This respect is not unearned. The new breed of entrepreneurs, such as N.R. Narayana Murthy, and Indian intellectuals, most visibly Amartya Sen, do their country proud. It is possible that India might turn the new century into the Indian century. Will that happen?

There are crippling problems that have to be overcome. The poverty, illiteracy and poor health of the Indian masses are not only a matter of humanitarian concern in themselves but also a concern for the further development of this country. Moreover, poor infrastructure, poor work culture and archaic rules do not promote development as is evident in a state like West Bengal. More serious than these concerns is the invisible problem of mentality. A case can be made, going back to Schumpeter, that what works in the situation of slow change may not work in the process of rapid change. This critical point has not been understood well. Thus, if H.D. Deve Gowda feels, as was evident in the controversy on the development of Bangalore, that protecting his electoral turf is important and delays are a way of life, and Narayana Murthy’s way of calculating delays operates along a different clock, more in tune with global reality, then we have a classical case of the mentality of slow change or no change proving disruptive with respect to rapid change.

There are many such disturbing acts that signal different mentalities. A case in point is the manner in which the discussion about the choice for the highest positions in the land has been carried out. It has been old business as usual of electoral calculations and petty gains. Was any thought spared for the image of the country in a situation where India is being more and more noticed as a world power? Was it considered that India needed a president and a vice-president who could, by their personalities, proudly represent the nation abroad, while upholding the integrity of their offices internally? A very parochial inward view was taken, even by the Left parties. This is sad. The Constitution of India does not impose restrictive conditions for the election of president or vice-president, except in general terms. The normal expectation is that persons considered for such positions should be persons of eminence and of proven integrity in public life.

All of us can have a wish-list for these positions. My own wish-list included A.P.J. Abdul Kalam as president, and in the event of his not willing to go in for the second term, the combination of Karan Singh as president and the person who does Bengal proud as its governor, Gopal Krishna Gandhi, as vice-president. All of them are persons of integrity who have thinking minds. They can hold their own in any company in India or abroad.

A.P.J. Abdul Kalam has done us proud. He is a man who has shown vision and care for the future of this country. There was no reason why he should not have been requested to serve another term. If it was important to have a new person, it was sad the manner in which Karan Singh was overlooked. Not many persons in this country can represent the high standards set by Rajendra Prasad, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Zakir Hussain better than Karan Singh. Any person who has heard him or read his writings knows the breath of vision that he brings to his understanding of the world. As far as his secular credentials are concerned, he is secular in the sense in which Vivekananda was secular. Vivekananda was steeped in the religion of his birth, fully appreciated its best elements and universal promise, and yet was critical of its failings.

Karan Singh has been active in the international arena in promoting inter-faith harmony. His vision of India and the world is best expressed by his concern to find that light within all of us which will lead us inwardly to an enlightened existence and outwardly towards peace, harmony and global consciousness. This is the best message that India can give to the world, a message that is needed in these troubled times. This is the message that Gandhi, Tagore, and Vivekananda tried to give to the world in their own ways.

Gopal Krishna Gandhi deserves to be noted not just as the youngest grandson of Mahatma Gandhi. He has already found fond acceptance among the people of this state as a person with a head, heart and integrity. He came to the state as the governor with a distinguished career behind him. A governor who thinks nothing of sitting in a classroom along with normal students just because the teacher happens to teach a subject in which he is interested is no ordinary person. Like Karan Singh, he is an accomplished speaker.

India is a vast land, which has crossed the one-billion mark in population. It is a gifted land where talent exists among the poor and the uneducated no less than among those who are more privileged. Surely, there are persons who deserve to hold the highest positions as much, if not more, than Karan Singh and Gopal Krishna Gandhi. Sadly, political considerations prevailed in the choice of persons. It does not prove our secular credentials if all the three candidates proposed for the position of vice-president are Muslims. On the contrary, it shows, in a distasteful manner, how a secular image is pursued with calculation by those in a position to decide.

Was it too much to expect that national interests would be considered more important than these petty political considerations? History has its own way of forming judgments. If Jawaharlal Nehru gave us Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan as president, Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi have shown their own stature by giving us Zail Singh and Pratibha Patil.