[Reader-list] MODI AND MADHURI

[Asit Das]

 Modi and Madhuri – more details of the alleged relationship. And no, this
is not a father-daughter
relationship.<http://sabhlokcity.com/2013/11/modi-and-madhuri-more-details-of-the-alleged-relationship-and-no-this-is-not-a-father-daughter-relationship/>
*On November 16, 2013, in Current Affairs
<http://sabhlokcity.com/category/current-affairs/>, India
<http://sabhlokcity.com/category/india/>, by Sanjeev Sabhlok*



This statement by suspended IAS officer Pradeep Sharma is from the
following source<http://twocircles.net/2011dec07/how_holy_modi_gujarat_cop%E2%80%99s_affidavit_sc_reveals.html>.
I'm sure more will come out fairly soon. This whole thing is getting quite
ugly.

Note that Modi is a married man. The issue of his extra-marital alliances
should be of concern, but this is much more than that: the case of misuse
of the taxpayer machinery to spy on "Madhuri". Modi may have a problematic
personal life, but he has no business to use TAXPAYER FUNDS to support his
private relationships.

Note that Madhuri's father's statement needs to be taken with a strong
pinch of salt, since Madhuri is an adult and she is not necessarily
expected to talk about her private affairs with her father.

“THE CHIEF MINISTER’S ILLICIT LIASON WITH MS –name removed–:

It was in between 2003 to 2006 that the Petitioner, in the capacity of
District Collector of Kutch, commissioned a series of projects toward the
beautification of Bhuj city and overall development of Kutch district. A
site was selected for developing a hill garden in 2005, for which [MADHURI]
—name removed—from Bangalore was selected as the Landscape Architect. *The
Chief Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, visited Kutch to inaugurate the hill
garden project upon its completion, and was at this time introduced to Ms.*
 [MADHURI]–name removed—. Thereafter, Ms. —name removed— communicated to
the Petitioner her decision to return to Bangalore as well as shared her
ongoing interaction with the Chief Minister. *The fact of
the intimacy between Shri Modi and Ms.—name removed— was confirmed when the
Petitioner was in close proximity of the two and overheard their
conversation during one of the official functions. Subsequently, Ms. —name
removed—further revealed to the Petitioner that when she called Shri Modi
in his office, he would freely interrupt scheduled meetings, walking out of
his office on senior officials in order to speak to her privately.*

During the second week of March 2006 at approximately 5:00 PM, Ms. —name
removed—called the Petitioner and conveyed that she had just landed in
Ahmedabad city and was planning to visit Bhuj. Shortly thereafter, when the
Petitioner attempted to telephone her, Ms. —name removed—’s cell phone was
switched off and remained so for the next 48 hours. Two days later at
approximately 11:00 AM, Ms. —name removed— called the Petitioner and* conveyed
that she was at the residence of Shri Modi, and had spent the duration of
the previous two days at his residence. Subsequently, she met the
Petitioner in Bhuj and described in detail her stay with Shri Modi.*

Ms. —name removed—described that the next day being Holi, many people
visited Shri Modi for the festival and played with colour. Shri Modi
attended to them briefly and returned to his quarters. In the meantime, Ms.
—name removed— had developed fever and requested a physician, but Shri Modi
conveyed that calling a physician was impossible, given the peculiarity of
their situation. The following morning she left for Vadodara in a car sent
for by Shri Modi.

In November 2008, while the Petitioner was posted as Municipal
Commissioner, Bhavnagar, Ms. —name removed—contacted the Petitioner to
inform him that Shri Modi had asked her to do a project on Alang Shipyard
for which she would like to come to Bhavnagar. She came to Bhavnagar and,
during that time, the Petitioner observed that she was constantly in touch
with Shri Modi, who was abroad and probably in South Africa. *She also
conveyed to the Petitioner that Shri Modi had asked her about the
Petitioner and whether the Petitioner knew about her intimate relationship
with Shri Modi. In one conversation, Ms. —name removed—showed the
Petitioner a text message that the Chief Minister had sent to her from
abroad. The Petitioner made a note of the cell phone number from which it
had originated. The number was 9909923400.*

It is submitted that the Petitioner had two cell phones at the time, with
Nos. 99251 99799 and 98240 01729. On one of these, the Petitioner had saved
the aforesaid number from which Ms. —name removed— had received personal
message from Shri Modi. Once, the Petitioner accidentally dialed Shri
Modi’s number, thinking that he was actually calling someone else, but the
Petitioner got no reply on Shri Modi’s phone. The Petitioner realized his
mistake and promptly disconnected. The Petitioner verily believes that Shri
Modi must have found out the address of the holder of the SIM card from
which his personal number was [accidentally] dialed, and placed it under
observation either with the help of State CID (Intelligence) or illegal
phone tapping methods involving the use of electronic equipment through
unauthorized collaboration. Shri Modi could then have found that Ms. —name
removed— was speaking to the Petitioner often over phone.

Around this time, the Petitioner received an anonymous letter conveying
that a video of sexual activity between Ms. —name removed— and one person,
was available on an internet website, and the letter advised the Petitioner
to desist from contacting Ms. —name removed—, as her character and actions
were not befitting of her company with Gujarat State officials. *The
Petitioner did indeed come across such a video clipping and it now appears
to the Petitioner that Shri Modi, who was monitoring the Petitioner’s cell
phone calls, started believing that videos involving Ms. —name removed—
perhaps included him i.e. Shri Modi…”*

II/III.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/the-amit-shah-tapes-why-bjps-worried-father-defense-is-lame-1233051.html

The Amit Shah tapes: Why BJP’s ‘worried father’ defense is lame
by FP Editors
Nov 16, 2013

Accused of using state police to keep track of a woman architect, the BJP
has chosen to hide behind the statement of her father who says that he
personally asked Modi to keep a watch on her. Unfortunately for the party,
they couldn’t have picked a worse defence.

The woman’s father, Pranlal Soni, said in a statement that his daughter,
who was based in Bangalore, had come to Ahmedabad when her mother was to
undergo a surgery.

She was forced to commute at odd hours between the hospital and a nearby
hotel, which was a matter of concern to him.

He had, therefore, verbally requested Modi, “with whom we have
long-standing family relations” to “take care” of her. He expressed his
shock that some “vested interests” were twisting facts in the media in this
regard.

This weak explanation does little to let the BJP off the hook, and may lead
the party and its anointed leader into greater trouble. Until now, there
has been little direct evidence on the involvement of Modi apart from the
person alleged to be former Minister of state Amit Shah’s references to a
‘Saheb’ on the audio tapes. (Cobrapost and Gulail also claim that Modi met
‘Madhuri’ – an architect from Bangalore – in 2005 during a public function
of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation.)

Just following orders? Amit Shah has chosen not to respond to the
allegations. AFP

In the tapes, this person constantly refers to the watchful eye of the
‘Saheb’ who seems to be step ahead of even the police in knowing what
‘Madhuri’ is doing. He also seems to be constantly checking as to why the
police isn’t doing its job as completely as it should be.

The father’s statement, however, directly ties Modi to the illegal
surveillance since the claim is that this ‘protection’ was offered in
response to a direct request to the Gujarat CM.

The Times of India reports that the person purported to Amit Shah in the
tapes was particularly interested in knowing who ‘Madhuri’ was meeting,
dating or planning to get engaged to.

One of the men is reportedly IAS official Pradeep Sharma who was in 2005
the Municipal Commissioner of Bhavnagar and is reportedly against the Modi
regime. He had even alleged in 2011 that he was being targeted because he
knew of the architect’s links with a prominent person in the government,
the report said.

Cobrapost and Gulail have hinted that Sharma’s arrest could be linked to
his meetings with ‘Madhuri’ given the person purported to be Amit Shah
tells Singhal that one of the men meeting the architect should be thrown
into jail.

Sharma was arrested in 2010 in connection with irregularities in the
allocation of for a wholesale market in Bhuj after it was destroyed in the
2001 earthquake. He was subsequently released on bail by the Supreme Court.

According to a petition filed in the Supreme Court on his behalf by the
Human Rights Law Network, Sharma had claimed that he was being victimised
because of his brother’s role in getting Amit Shah arrested in the
Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake shootout case. Sharma’s brother, Kuldeep Sharma,
was Additional Director General of Police.

Whether the reference on the tapes is to Sharma or someone else, if the
audio recordings are authentic, the state has no right to arrest anyone
because of a personal relationship — more so as part of ‘taking care of’ a
friend’s daughter.

What the father’s defence exposes instead the propensity of powerful
politicians to use state machinery — in this case, no less that the
Anti-Terrorism Squad of the Gujarat Police — as personal property, .

The very claim that any father would ask a CM to keep his daughter under
constant and intrusive surveillance — which included tapping her phone and
those of her family — is outright bizarre.

The use of state machinery to ‘take care’ of a private individual isn’t
unusual in a country where political connections are often used to garner
favour but in this case it makes very little sense.

The architect seemed to have had no problems flying to Bhavnagar alone,
going to malls, travelling alone or meeting people and seemed to be pretty
secure. And yet her father felt she needed to secretly tailed and tapped
for her own protection? Why not just ask for a security detail? It would be
still a misuse of taxpayer money but at least constitute a logical request
from a worried father?

And even if the father did ask Modi to keep such a close watch over his
daughter — clearly without her knowledge — it is still a violation of her
right to privacy as an Indian citizen. No parent has the authority to cede
the basic civil liberties of their child, more so an adult one.

The Gujarat government, particularly its home department which is directly
under Modi’s control, has long been under a cloud for suspected violations
of human and civil rights. This time around, however, BJP’s Prime
Ministerial candidate cannot blame the CBI or talk up the threat of
terrorism. Nor can he pretend that a full-on, round-the-clock surveillance
by the state’s anti-terrorism squad of a private citizen is just a ghar ka
mamala.

III.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/vinod-k-jose/some-details-on-saheb-modi-and-women/10151684587881557

Some details on "Saheb" Modi and Women
15 November 2013 at 18:54

*An additional material to read with tonight's expose of Narendra Modi's
right hand man, Amit Shah stalking a woman for his "Saheb" is pasted below!
To connect the dots, pls see what seems like an excerpt from Pradeep Sharma
IAS's writ petition in the Supreme Court.   *


 *(Tapes of Amit Shah stalking the woman
architect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roVZrT2_xuc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roVZrT2_xuc&feature=youtube_gdata_player>)*


 *Excerpts from Sharma’s affidavit*

*“THE CHIEF MINISTER’S ILLICIT LIASON WITH MS XXXX*

*It was in between 2003 to 2006 that the Petitioner, in the capacity of
District Collector of Kutch, commissioned a series of projects toward the
beautification of Bhuj city and overall development of Kutch district. A
site was selected for developing a hill garden in 2005, for which XXXX from
Bangalore was selected as the Landscape Architect. The Chief Minister, Shri
Narendra Modi, visited Kutch to inaugurate the hill garden project upon its
completion, and was at this time introduced to Ms. XXXX. Thereafter, Ms.
XXXX communicated to the Petitioner her decision to return to Bangalore as
well as shared her ongoing interaction with the Chief Minister. The fact of
the intimacy between Shri Modi and Ms. XXXX was confirmed when the
Petitioner was in close proximity of the two and overheard their
conversation during one of the official functions. Subsequently, Ms. XXXX
further revealed to the Petitioner that when she called Shri Modi in his
office, he would freely interrupt scheduled meetings, walking out of his
office on senior officials in order to speak to her privately.*

*During the second week of March 2006 at approximately 5:00 PM, Ms. XXXX
called the Petitioner and conveyed that she had just landed in Ahmedabad
city and was planning to visit Bhuj. Shortly thereafter, when the
Petitioner attempted to telephone her, Ms. XXX’s cell phone was switched
off and remained so for the next 48 hours. Two days later at approximately
11:00 AM, Ms. XXX called the Petitioner and conveyed that she was at the
residence of Shri Modi, and had spent the duration of the previous two days
at his residence. Subsequently, she met the Petitioner in Bhuj and
described in detail her stay with Shri Modi.*


 *Ms. XXX described that the next day being Holi, many people visited Shri
Modi for the festival and played with colour. Shri Modi attended to them
briefly and returned to his quarters. In the meantime, Ms. XXX had
developed fever and requested a physician, but Shri Modi conveyed that
calling a physician was impossible, given the peculiarity of their
situation. The following morning she left for Vadodara in a car sent for by
Shri Modi.*


 *In November 2008, while the Petitioner was posted as Municipal
Commissioner, Bhavnagar, Ms. XXXX contacted the Petitioner to inform him
that Shri Modi had asked her to do a project on Alang Shipyard for which
she would like to come to Bhavnagar. She came to Bhavnagar and, during that
time, the Petitioner observed that she was constantly in touch with Shri
Modi, who was abroad and probably in South Africa. She also conveyed to the
Petitioner that Shri Modi had asked her about the Petitioner and whether
the Petitioner knew about her intimate relationship with Shri Modi. In one
conversation, Ms. XXX showed the Petitioner a text message that the Chief
Minister had sent to her from abroad. The Petitioner made a note of the
cell phone number from which it had originated. The number was 9909923400.*


 *It is submitted that the Petitioner had two cell phones at the time, with
Nos. 99251 99799 and 98240 01729. On one of these, the Petitioner had saved
the aforesaid number from which Ms. XXXX had received personal message from
Shri Modi. Once, the Petitioner accidentally dialed Shri Modi’s number,
thinking that he was actually calling someone else, but the Petitioner got
no reply on Shri Modi’s phone. The Petitioner realized his mistake and
promptly disconnected. The Petitioner verily believes that Shri Modi must
have found out the address of the holder of the SIM card from which his
personal number was [accidentally] dialed, and placed it under observation
either with the help of State CID (Intelligence) or illegal phone tapping
methods involving the use of electronic equipment through unauthorized
collaboration. Shri Modi could then have found that Ms. XXX was speaking to
the Petitioner often over phone.*


 *Around this time, the Petitioner received an anonymous letter conveying
that a video of sexual activity between Ms. XXXX and one person, was
available on an internet website, and the letter advised the Petitioner to
desist from contacting Ms. XXX, as her character and actions were not
befitting of her company with Gujarat State officials. The Petitioner did
indeed come across such a video clipping and it now appears to the
Petitioner that Shri Modi, who was monitoring the Petitioner’s cell phone
calls, started believing that videos involving Ms. XXX perhaps included him
i.e. Shri Modi…”*