Sharad Pawar on Sunday said there was no need for a debate once courts had ruled on Narendra Modi’s role during the 2002 riots, days after similar remarks by his party colleague Praful Patel led to suggestions that NCP was going soft on the BJP PM candidate.
The party, however, insisted that it had “fundamental ideological” difference with Modi and ruled out alliance with BJP.
Responding to a query during a press conference here, the NCP chief and Union Minister Pawar said, “If courts have given their verdict, then the question of holding a debate on it does not arise. We accept the court’s order and there won’t be any debate on it.”
Pawar was asked about Patel’s recent statement that any judicial pronouncement on Modi’s alleged involvement in the post-Godhra riots should be accepted.
“….judicial system is the final recourse for getting justice on any issue or to bring finality to any controversy, and if the judicial system has given any pronouncement, we ought to respect it. We will not question it further,” Patel had said.
A report in a Marathi daily earlier this week had said that Pawar had met Modi, BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, last month in New Delhi. However, later Pawar refuted the report.
Meanwhile, NCP leader Tariq Anwar said that they have ideological difference with Modi and there was no question of alliance with him.
“We have a fundamental ideological with Narendra Modi. It is not about a particular individual. NCP is always with secular forces and continue to remain with them. We can’t afford to tie up with communal forces.
“We stated this since the first day of the formation of our party. So there is no question of forming any political alliance with Modi and BJP,” Anwar said.
“Technically, the court has given him (Modi) a clean chit but he is still under suspicion. People don’t seem to agree with the fact that whatever was happened in 2002 was without his consent or support,” he said, adding, “that’s why US, UK and European Union don’t permit visa to him.”
Victim told the judge that she was being forced to relive the incident as she was made to appear in court again.