Curitiba, Brazil's RIT was the first BRT system implemented in the world.

Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a term applied to a variety of public transportation systems using buses to provide faster, more efficient service than an ordinary bus line. Often this is achieved by making improvements to existing infrastructure, vehicles and scheduling. The goal of these systems is to approach the service quality of rail transit while still enjoying the cost savings and flexibility of bus transit.^[1] The expression BRT is mainly used in the Americas; in Europe and Australia, it is often called a busway, while elsewhere, it may be called a quality bus.

Etymology[link]

Bus rapid transit takes part of its name from rail rapid transit, which describes a high-capacity urban public-transit system with its own right-of-way, multiple-car trains at short headways, and longer stop spacing than traditional streetcars and buses. BRT, however, uses buses on a wide variety of rights-of-way, including mixed traffic, dedicated lanes on surface streets, and busways completely separated from traffic.

Typical transit speeds of BRT systems range from 17 to 30 miles per hour (27 to 48 km/h), which can compare with surface running light rail.^[2]

History[link]

This section requires expansion.

The first BRT system in the world was the Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT, translated as "Integrated Transportation Network"), implemented in Curitiba, Brazil in 1974.^[3][4]

Main features[link]

Separated lane for TransJakarta buses in Jakarta, Indonesia

BRT systems come in a variety of forms, such as dedicated busways with their own rights-of-way (such as Ottawa's Transitway or Pittsburgh's Martin Luther King Jr. East Busway), bus services using HOV lanes, dedicated freeway lanes (such as Honolulu's CityExpress) and limited stop buses on pre-existing routes.

An ideal bus rapid transit service would be expected to include most of the following features:

• Bus only, grade-separated (or at-grade exclusive) right-of-way: A dedicated bus lane allows the bus to operate separately, without interference from other modes of traffic. Although buses have a long turning radius, dedicated busways can be engineered to tighter standards than an open roadway, reducing construction costs while still assuring safe operation.
  • A bus-only right-of-way may be elevated, depressed, or routed through a tunnel. An abandoned rail right-of-way is sometimes used.
  • A transit mall or bus street can be created in city centers by dedicating all lanes of a city street to the exclusive use of buses.
  • Low-cost infrastructure elements that can increase the speed and reliability of bus service include bus turnouts, boarding islands, and curb realignments.

• Comprehensive coverage: BRT systems can either share existing roadways with other traffic, or use bus lanes that restrict other traffic from a portion of the roadway. Service along public roadways can be improved by taking advantage of bus priority methods.

• Serves a diverse market with high-frequency all day service: A BRT network with comprehensive coverage can serve a diverse market (all income ranges) by moving large numbers of people between locations quickly and reliably throughout the day, while maintaining a comfortable riding experience.^[1] These characteristics are essential to satisfying the demands of a diverse market or offering high-frequency service without heavy subsidy.

The Quito trolleybus system has lines running on exclusive BRT lanes with underpass crossings.

• Bus priority: Preferential treatment of buses at intersections can involve the extension of green time or actuation of the green light at signalized intersections upon detection of an approaching bus. Intersection priority can be particularly helpful when implemented in conjunction with bus lanes or bus streets, because general-purpose traffic does not intervene between buses and traffic signals.

• Vehicles with tram-like characteristics: Recent technological developments such as bi-articulated buses and guided buses have benefited the set-up of BRT systems. The main developments are:
  • Improved riding quality (Use of guided bus and powertrain control technologies for smoother operation),
  • Increased capacity (articulated and double-decker),
  • Reduced operating costs (hybrid electric powertrain).

• A specific image with a brand name: (e.g. Viva, Max, TransMilenio, Metropolitano, Select) marking stops and stations as well as the buses.^[5] The system's brand identity contributes to its attractiveness as an alternative to driving cars.^[6]

• Off-bus fare collection: Conventional on-board fare collection slows the boarding process, particularly when different fares are collected for different destinations and/or classes of passengers. Some BRT systems collect fares upon entering an enclosed bus station or shelter area prior to bus arrivals (similar to fare collection at a kiosk prior to entering a subway system). This allows passengers to board quickly through all doors of a stopped bus.

• Level boarding: Many BRT systems also use low-floor buses (or high-level platforms with high-floor buses) to speed passenger boardings and enhance accessibility.

• Stations: High-quality BRT systems feature significant investment in enclosed stations which may incorporate attractive sliding glass doors, staffed ticket booths, information booths, and other more standard features listed above. This style of station is seen throughout Colombia, in (Bogotá's TransMilenio, Cali's MIO, Bucaramanga's Metrolinea, Pereira's Megabús) and in most other Latin American BRT systems developed in the last decade.^[when?] This design is also used in Johannesburg's Rea Vaya^[7]. The term "station" is more flexibly applied in North America and ranges from enclosed waiting areas (Ottawa and Cleveland), to large open-sided shelters (Los Angeles), to simple signposts.

All of the above characteristics were noted as features of Bogotá's TransMilenio, described as a "model BRT system" in the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute's May 2006 report. TransMilenio serves Bogotá with high-capacity articulated buses, which passengers can board through three doors. Bi-articulated buses are also now used on the busiest routes. A smart card system is used for off-board fare collection. Nevertheless, despite moving 45,000 ppdph, Transmilenio faces huge problems (especially during peak hours), in terms of not being quite organized, nor having the necessary capacity for handling the high passenger volume, a situation not being limited to peak hours only, but at most times along the day.^[8]

In some cities and large towns, such as Amsterdam, Essen (Germany), Pittsburgh, and Seattle, it is common for a right of way exclusive to public transport to be shared by both light rail and buses, and in some cases taxis.

Comparison with other forms of mass transit[link]

BRT attempts to combine the advantages of a rail system (notably a partially or completely dedicated right-of-way, which greatly improves punctuality and reliability) with the advantages of a bus system (low construction and way maintenance costs, low vehicle costs, right-of-way not required for entire length, and the ability of feeder bus services to join a trunk busway). In Latin America and cities in Asia, the BRT service is usually compared to metro-quality rail, and normally results in consistently similar enclosed stations featuring smartcard turnstiles and level-platform boarding. In North America, the BRT is usually compared to LRT-quality rail, and typically results in open-air shelters with ticket-dispenser machines, or even just curbside signposts difficult to distinguish from other roadside visual clutter.

Comparison with conventional bus routes[link]

When available, the dedicated right-of-way lanes of BRT systems allow them an increased average vehicle speed bypassing traffic congestion, to provide more passenger miles with the same number of vehicles and personnel than conventional bus services. A smoother ride can also be expected, because the BRT is not immersed in stop-and-go traffic. BRT services usually feature higher frequency service than conventional routes; Latin American systems rely heavily on short headways to achieve their ridership capacity.

But when compared to normal bus service in mixed traffic, addition of BRT dedicated lanes requires wider roads or reduction of mixed traffic lanes.

Comparison with light rail[link]

Primary considerations in choosing between light rail and bus rapid transit systems are the differences in construction costs, operating costs, capacity, adaptability and image.

Proponents of light rail point out that the operating costs of BRT are not necessarily lower than light rail. The typically larger light rail vehicles enjoy reduced labor costs per passenger, and the unit capital cost per passenger can be lower than a BRT system.^[9] In contrast to BRT, light rail and tram systems require the placement of rails for the entire line. The tram usually avoids the high additional costs for engineering structures, such as tunnels, that need to be built for metro rail systems. Properly maintained rail tends to provide a smoother ride, making it more attractive to riders than road-based systems. As of 2011, there is no widely-acknowledged research that has successfully and unequivocally proven that passengers prefer rail, once other factors such as frequency and reliability are allowed for.

With similar dwell times in stations, the capacity of rail systems would scale with the length of the train. For instance, a light rail system running on two-minute headways with 200-passenger cars operating as single units could carry 6,000 passengers per hour (pph). Theoretically, this same system should carry 12,000 pph with two-car trains, and 24,000 pph with four-car trains. In practice, real-world delays and headway disruptions cause a practical limitation of around 12,000 to 19,000 pph for light rail systems.^[10]

A survey by the UK Transport Research Laboratory reported the following peak passenger flows (passengers per hour) for BRT transitways. These were based on actual verifiable counts in real world conditions:^[11]

• Designated Lane: Ankara, Istanbul, Abidjan 7,300 – 19,500
• Designated Lanes with Feeders Curitiba, Brazil 13,900 – 24,100
• Designated Lanes with Bus Ordering (Travelling in Clusters) Porto Alegre 17,500 – 18,300
• Designated Lanes with Overlapping Routes, Passing at Stations and Express Routes Belo Horizonte, São Paulo 15,800 - 20,300
• TransMilenio, Bogotá 35,000 - 40,000^[12]

Many BRT systems, such as Ottawa's OC Transpo and Brisbane's South-East Busway, are based on multiple bus routes sharing a common dedicated busway to bypass congestion, especially to/from a central business district. In this form, the BRT system's passenger capacity is limited by vehicle capacity multiplied by vehicle headway of the busway. As buses can operate at headways as low as 10 seconds between vehicles (compared to at least one minute headways for rail vehicles), actual busway capacity can reach passenger rail capacities. In the NBRTI's May 2006 report, average headways of 13 seconds at busy intersections were observed in the TransMilenio BRT system.^[8]

At the high end of capacity, the XBL, or express bus lane, at New Jersey Route 495 and the Lincoln Tunnel between New Jersey and New York City carries 62,000 pph in the 4-hour morning peak, more than any light rail line.^[13] However, this lane serves no intermediate stops, and normally runs without any interruption in flow. Furthermore, a very large multi-story Port Authority Bus Terminal is required to accept and dispatch passengers in hundreds of buses. Intermediate stops increase the headway, and limit a BRT lane to about 10,000 pph, even with passing lanes in the stations. This is still five times the number carried in the automobiles of a congested freeway lane. At its busiest point, Brisbane's South-East Busway currently has the capacity for in excess of 15,000 pph per direction.^[14]

Many agencies make a clear distinction between a pure BRT, which operates in exclusive lanes, and a more compromised form in mixed traffic. For example, the Los Angeles Orange Line runs entirely in an exclusive lane and therefore achieves speed and reliability comparable to rail. Because it is functionally equivalent to rail, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority presents this line as an integral part of its rail transit system, distinct from its "Rapid" lines, which run in mixed traffic.

Cost[link]

The capital costs of implementing BRT lines can be lower than up-front costs of constructing LRT lines. A study by the United States Government Accountability Office found that the average capital cost per mile for busways was $13.5 million while light rail average costs were $34.8 million.^[15] However, a huge range of capital costs can be seen, as BRT lines can cost anywhere from $200,000—$55 million per mile, while LRT lines can range from $12.4—$118.8 million per mile.^{[citation needed]} The total investment varies considerably due to factors such as cost of the roadway, station structures, park-and-ride facilities, traffic signal systems and vehicles.

The costs of a running a BRT system is about $13.49 a mile and the total cost for a year of expenditure is $987.80 according to a study done by the GAO. Running a BRT system is much less expensive than running a light rail system. The BRT is also much less expensive than a trolley system.^[16]

Environmental problems[link]

The typical diesel engine on the bus causes noticeable levels of air pollution, noise and vibration. With hybrid vehicles and the new forms of trolleybus, BRT designers hope to increase ride quality and decrease pollution. Since the energy used for acceleration is proportional to the vehicle mass, electric traction allows lighter vehicles, faster acceleration, and ability to feed energy back into batteries or the power grid through regenerative brakes. Regenerative braking has also become standard on many modern rail systems.

A BRT system can use trolleybuses to lower gaseous and noise emissions. The price penalty of installing overhead lines could be offset by the system's environmental benefits potential for savings from centrally generated electricity, especially in cities where electricity is less expensive than other power sources. In addition, most trolleybus applications can be converted to light rail with the only extra expense being the laying and maintenance of tram tracks in the street.

In tunnels or tunnel systems[link]

Metro Bus Tunnel in Seattle, Washington.

A special issue arises in the use of bus vehicles in metro transit structures. Since the areas where the demand for an exclusive bus right-of-way are apt to be in dense downtown areas where an above-ground structure may be unacceptable on historic, logistic, or environmental grounds, use of BRT in fully underground tunnels may not be avoidable.

Since buses are usually powered by internal combustion engines, bus metros raise ventilation issues similar to those of tunnels. In the case of tunnels, powerful fans typically exchange air through ventilation structures on the surface, but are usually placed in a location as remote as possible from occupied areas to minimize the effects of noise and concentrated pollution.

A straightforward way to deal with this is to use internal combustion engines with lower emissions. The 2008 Euro V European emission standards set a limit on carbon monoxide from heavy-duty diesel engines of 1.5 g/kWh. This is one third that of the 1992 Euro I standard. As a result, less forced ventilation will be required in tunnels to achieve the same air quality.

A more complex alternative is electrical propulsion in tunnels. Seattle in its Metro Bus Tunnel, and Boston in Phase II of its Silver Line are using this method in their BRTs. In the case of Seattle, dual-mode (electric/diesel electric) buses manufactured by Breda were used until 2004, with the center axle driven by electric motors obtaining power from a trolley wire through a trolley pole in the subway, and with the rear axle driven by a conventional diesel powertrain on freeways and streets. Boston is using a similar approach, after initially using electric trolleybuses to provide service pending delivery of the dual-mode vehicles in 2005. In 2004, Seattle replaced its "Transit Tunnel" fleet with diesel-electric hybrid buses, which operate similarly to hybrid cars outside the tunnel and in a low-noise, low-emissions "hush mode" (in which the diesel engine operates but does not exceed idle speed) when underground.^[17][18]

The need to provide electric power in these underground environments brings the capital and maintenance costs of such routes closer to those of light rail, and raises the question of building light rail instead. In Seattle, the downtown transit tunnel was retrofitted for conversion to a shared hybrid-bus and light-rail facility in preparation for Seattle's Central Link Light Rail line, which opened in July 2009.

Think Tanks and Blogs[link]

In the USA there are at least three think-tanks directly involved in lobbying for BRT systems:

• National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI) — established by the US Federal Government in January 1991, and housed at the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida
• Bus Rapid Transit Policy Center (BRTPC) — promotes BRT technology over light rail
• Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) — a non-governmental organization focussed on sustainable transport including promoting BRT systems in developing countries

The objectivity of the work of CUTR and at least one of its employees has been questioned.^[19]

EMBARQ, The World Resources Institute's Center for Sustainable Transport supports the development of BRT and often posts news related to BRT on the TheCityFix blog network.

The Streetsblog series of blogs and Streetfilms videoblog also are frequent proponents of BRT.

Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide[link]

In June 2007, the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) published the BRT Planning Guide with support from the United Nations Environment Programme, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, the Hewlett Foundation, and Viva Cities. The guide draws from the extensive BRT design experience of Latin American transit planners, and aims to disseminate this information in cities looking to design and implement BRT systems of their own.^[20] The guide is currently available in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese, and is free for download in .pdf format from ITDP's website.^[21]

Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit[link]

In the U.S.A., a report “Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making” (CBRT) was prepared by the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute located at the Center for Urban Transportation Research. It provides transportation planners and decision-makers with basic information and data to support the development and evaluation of bus rapid transit (BRT) concepts. This report describes the physical, operational, cost, performance and potential benefits of BRT's.

List of systems[link]

Implementation by country[link]

See also[link]

Bus rapid transit in New Jersey Express bus service Guided busway Quality Bus Corridor Queue jump

Straddling bus Sustainable transportation Transit bus Traffic engineering (transportation)

Sustainable development portal

Double articulated bus in Hamburg, Germany.

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Bus rapid transit

Buses portal

• The National BRT Institute
• BRT Technologies: Assisting Drivers Operating Buses on Road Shoulders. University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, Department of Mechanical Engineering
• Bus Rapid Transit Policy Center
• Global BRT Data Database of Bus Rapid Transit systems around the world
• Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide (available for download in pdf) Institute for Transportation & Development Policy
• The BRT Standard 1.0 Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (2012)
• Across Latitudes and Cultures Bus Rapid Transit An international Centre of Excellence for BRT development
• "Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise" U.S. General Accounting Office
• Wang Fengwu and James Wang (April 2004). "BRT in China". Public Transport International. http://www.motorworld.com.cn/buses/brt/pdf/China-en.pdf. Retrieved 2010-03-10. 
• Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit Transportation Research Board
• Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines Transportation Research Board
• Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual Transportation Research Board
• Levinson, Herbert S. (2002). "Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview". Journal of Public Transportation 5 (2). http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%205-21%20Levinson.pdf. 
• "Ask the Experts – Developing a BRT Project". Cambridge Systematics. http://www.camsys.com/kb_experts_brt.htm. 
• "Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit". National Bus Rapid Transit Association. 2009. http://www.nbrti.org/CBRT.html. 
• Vincent, William; Lisa Callaghan Jerram (April 2008). Bus Rapid Transit and Transit Oriented Development: Case Studies on Transit Oriented Development Around Bus Rapid Transit Systems in North America and Australia. Washington, DC: Breakthrough Technologies Institute. http://www.crcog.org/publications/TransportationDocs/NBHBusway/2010/BRT-TOD-Report.pdf. 

Country specific

• Delhi BRT System Delhi Transit.
• Bus Priority Systems, a web page about the guided busway system, including its use underground in Essen, Germany.
• Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit - A Survey of Select U.S. Cities (available for download in pdf) Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (May 2011)

Narendra Modi નરેન્દ્ર મોદી
Chief Minister of Gujarat
Incumbent
Assumed office 7 October 2001
Governor	Dr. Kamla Beniwal
Preceded by	Keshubhai Patel
Constituency	Maninagar
Personal details
Born	(1950-09-17) 17 September 1950 (age 61) Vadnagar, Gujarat, India
Political party	Bharatiya Janata Party
Residence	Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
Alma mater	Gujarat University[1]
Religion	Hinduism
Website	Narendra Modi
As of 9 March, 2009 Source: Government of Gujarat

Narendra Damodardas Modi (Gujarati: નરેન્દ્ર મોદી; born 17 September 1950^[1]) is the current Chief Minister of the Indian state of Gujarat. Born in a middle class family in Vadnagar, he was the third of six children born to Damodardas Mulchand Modi and his wife Heeraben.^[2] He has been a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) since childhood also having interest in politics since adolescence. He holds a master's degree in political science. In 1998, he was chosen by L. K. Advani, the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), to direct the election campaign in Gujarat as well as Himachal Pradesh.

He became Chief Minister of Gujarat in October 2001, promoted to the office at a time when his predecessor Keshubhai Patel had resigned, following the defeat of BJP in the by-elections. His tenure as chief minister of Gujarat began on 7 October 2001, and he is the longest serving Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat.^[3] In July 2007 he became the longest serving Chief Minister in Gujarat's history when he had been in power for 2063 days continuously.^[4] He was elected again for a third term^[5] on 23 December 2007 in the state elections, which he had cast as a "referendum on his rule".^[6][7]

Personal life[link]

Modi was born in a middle class family in Vadnagar in Mehsana district of what was then Bombay State, India.^[8] During the Indo-Pak war in the mid sixties, even as a young boy, he volunteered to serve the soldiers in transit at railway stations.^[9] As a young man, he joined the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, a student organisation and was involved in the anti-corruption Nav Nirmāṇ ("Reconstruction") Movement. After working as a full time organiser for the organisation, he was later nominated as its representative in the Bharatiya Janata Party.^[10] As a teenager Modi used to run a tea stall with his brother.^[11] Modi completed his schooling in Vadnagar. He earned a masters degree in political science from Gujarat University.^[12]

Early activism and politics[link]

Modi was a pracharak (campaigner) in the RSS during his university years.^[12][13] He took up the challenging task of energising the party cadres in right earnest. In partnership with Shankersinh Vaghela, Modi set about creating a strong cadre base in Gujarat. In the initial period, Vaghela was seen as a mass leader, while Modi was recognised as a master strategist.

The party started gaining political mileage and formed a coalition government at the centre in April 1990. This partnership fell apart within a few months, but the BJP came to power with a two-thirds majority on its own in Gujarat in 1995. During this period, Modi was entrusted with the responsibility of organising two crucial national events, the Somnath to Ayodhya Rath Yatra (a political rally through India on a converted Toyota van) of L.K. Advani and a similar march from Kanyakumari (the southernmost part of India) to Kashmir in the North. After the exit of Shankarsingh Vaghela from the BJP, Keshubhai Patel was made Chief Minister while Narendra Modi was sent to New Delhi as a General Secretary of the Party.

In 1995, Modi was appointed the National Secretary of the party and given the charge of five major states in India. In 1998, he was promoted as the General Secretary (Organization), a post he held until October 2001. In 2001, Narendra Modi was chosen by the party to be the Chief Minister of Gujarat after the removal of chief minister Keshubhai Patel.

Tenure as Chief Minister of Gujarat[link]

Personality[link]

Modi is known for leading a frugal lifestyle. He has a personal staff of just three. He is known to be a workaholic Chief Minister and an introvert.^[14] He ordered the demolition of many Hindu temples that were built without proper government sanction which earned him the ire of VHP^[11] He is a crowd puller as a speaker. Modi has also tried to turn his image from an Hindu Nationalist politician to an image of able administrator. He wears business suits and is improving his command over the English language.^[15]

Awards and recognitions[link]

Modi was awarded Gujarat Ratna by Shri Poona Gujarati Bandhu Samaj at Ganesh Kala Krida Manch on celebration of centenary year.^[16]

Development of Gujarat[link]

As a Chief Minister, Modi started various 'yojanas' or plans. This includes:

• Panchamrut Yojana,^[17][18][19] a five-pronged strategy for an integrated development of the state,
• Sujalam Sufalam, a scheme to create a grid of water resources in Gujarat in an innovative step towards water conservation and its appropriate utilisation.
• Krishi Mahotsav – agricultural research labs for the land
• Chiranjeevi Yojana – To reduce infant mortality rate
• Matru Vandana – Providing preventive and curative services under the Reproductive and Child Health Programme
• Beti Bachao – Campaign against female infanticide to improve sex ratio
• Jyotigram Yojana – Provide electricity to every village
• Karmayogi Abhiyan – To educate and train government employees
• Kanya Kelavani Yojana – To encourage female literacy and education
• Balbhog Yojana – Midday meal scheme for students to encourage school attendance from poor backgrounds.^[20]

Vibrant Gujarat[link]

Vibrant Gujarat is a biennial Global Investors' Summit held by the Government of Gujarat in Gujarat, India. The event is aimed at bringing together business leaders, investors, corporations, thought leaders, policy and opinion makers; the summit is advertised as a platform to understand and explore business opportunities in the State of Gujarat. the event has been held continuously since 2003.

Gujarat earthquake[link]

The biggest challenge which he had to face when he took over as the Chief Minister, was the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the areas affected by the massive Gujarat Earthquake of January 2001.

Gujarat violence[link]

On 27 February 2002, a train was burned by a Muslim mob in the town of Godhra leading to 59 deaths, most of them Hindu pilgrims and activists returning from the holy city of Ayodhya.^[21] Riots broke out in the state after it was suspected to be caused by Muslims, leading to 1180 deaths, many of them Muslims. Modi administration was accused of inaction over the riots and for encouraging them.^[15] As an aftermath of the riots, there were calls for Modi to resign from his position as chief minister of Gujarat. The opposition parties stalled the national parliament over the issue. Even Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and Telugu Desam Party (TDP), allies of the BJP, asked for Modi's resignation.^[22][23] Modi submitted his resignation to the Governor and recommended the dissolution of the 10th Gujarat Legislative Assembly.^[24][25] In the following state re-elections the BJP, led by Modi, won 127 seats in the 182-member assembly.

In April 2009, the Supreme Court of India appointed a special team of investigators to look into the role Modi had played in the alleged anti-Muslim conspiracy.^[15] The team was appointed in response to the complaint of zakia Jafri, the widow of ex-Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who was murdered in the riots.^[26] In December 2010, a Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) in its report to the Supreme Court seeking answers pertaining to the Ehsan Jafri case, submitted that they had found no evidence against Narendra Modi.^[27]

However in February 2011, the Times of India reported that a confidential report from the SIT indicted Modi on several counts of alleged complicity in the Gujarat riots of 2002.^[28] Most other sources have noted that the SIT report does not indict Modi for the riots due to lack of evidence.^[29][30] The Indian Express too said the report did not find any Modi involvement in the violence, though it did accuse him of watering down the seriousness of the situation.^[31] According to the Hindu, the report not only found that Modi tried to water down the seriousness of the situation, but Modi also implicitly justified the killings of Muslims, and failed to condemn the attacks on them.^[32] The Bharatiya Janata Party demanded an investigation into the publication of the report, claiming the leak was politically motivated.^[33]

The apex court refused to pass any order on the case and referred it to the Ahmedabad magistrate for a decision.^[34] In April 2012, a Special Investigation Team found absolved Modi of any involvement in the Gulberg massacre, arguably the worst episode of the riots.^[35]. On 7 May 2012, a Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae, Raju Ramachandran observed that Modi can be prosecuted under sections 153 A (1) (a) & (b), 153 B (1), 166 and 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code for promoting enmity among different groups during the 2002 Gujarat riots.^[36]. However the amicus report has been criticised by the Special Investigation Team for relying heavily on the testimony of a perjurer^[37].

2007 elections[link]

Modi made a speech at Mangrol in which he justified the alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, During the election campaign In response to Sonia Gandhi's speech calling him a "merchant of death",^[38] and referred to Sohrabuddin's killing. For this speech the Election Commission of India, a constitutional body governing election proceedings in India, cautioned Modi as it considered it as indulging in an activity which may aggravate existing differences between different communities.^[39] Modi won the election and continued his post as the Chief Minister Of Gujarat, he won with majority of votes of 122 seats out of 182 total assembly seats.^[40]

Conflicts with Governor Kamla Beniwal[link]

On 25 August 2011 Gujarat Governor Kamla Beniwal appointed Justice R A Mehta to the post of Lokyukta of Gujarat, a critical anti-corruption post that had been lying vacant since 2003. Justice R A Mehta was recommended for the post by the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court in June. Since Governor Beniwal had made this decision without consulting and getting the approval of the chief minister and his council of ministers, the action angered Narendra Modi and his BJP party.^[41]

This marked the beginning of a strained relationship between Modi and the Governor. On 25 September 2011, Narendra Modi accused the Governor of running a parallel government in the state supported by the Congress. He demanded that she be recalled back.^[42] He also later accused her of delaying the progress of bills by not passing them.

The decision of the governor in the appointment of R A Mehta was challenged in the high court by the Modi government. The two member high court bench gave a split verdict on 10 October 2011. Later, a third member upheld the governor's decision in January 2012.^[43]

Foreign visits[link]

As the Chief Minister of the Gujarat State, to attract foreign investment in the state, Narendra Modi has made visits to foreign countries, including China and Singapore.

Narendra Modi made his first China visit in 2007 to invite investors Vibrant Gujarat Global Investor Summit,^[44] and second visit in November 2011. One month after the second visit to China, the Chinese Government released 13 Diamond traders from India jailed by the Shenzhen Customs, which the Chief Minister described as the consequece of his diplomatic efforts and statesmanship.^[45]

In 2005 Narendra Modi was denied of diplomatic visa to the United States, in addition to this visa denial, he was also revoked from his already granted B-1/B-2 visa.^[46]

Sadbhavna Mission[link]

In the late 2011-early 2012 Narandra Modi practised a series of fasts in the name of Sadbhavna Mission. The mission started on 17 September 2011 in Ahmedabad with 3 day fast with a view to strengthen the atmosphere of peace, unity and harmony in the state. He observed total 36 fasts in 26 districts, 8 cities including Ahmedabad.^[47]

Views and opinions[link]

Modi's position on terrorism[link]

On 18 July 2006 Modi delivered a speech criticising Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh "for his reluctance to revive anti-terror legislations" like the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He asked the Centre to empower states to invoke tougher laws in the wake of the blasts in Mumbai.^[48] Quoting Modi:

Narendra Modi has frequently commented that if the BJP came to power at the Centre, they will honour the 2004 Supreme Court judgement to hang Afzal Guru.^[49] Afzal was convicted of terrorism in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack in 2004 by the Supreme Court of India and is in Tihar Jail.^[50]

On account of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, on Thursday 27 November, Narendra Modi held a meeting to discuss waterfront security along the coastline.^[51] The meeting decided to ask the Central government to urgently sanction the following:

• Increase the number of police stations along the coast to 50 (from 10)
• Increase the number of police to 1500 from 250
• 30 modern high-speed surveillance boats.

The 30 coastal boats, under construction at Goa's shipbuilding yard, will have the capacity to run at the speed of 25 nautical miles per hour. These are being manufactured under the Centre's Rs 58-crore grant for coastal security.^[51]

Views on criticism of Modi's governance[link]

In 2003, when Narendra Modi was asked about the conflict of his dreams for Gujarat's future with international criticism of his past activities, Modi said,^[52]

Modi's decision to link Gujarat's violence with the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US drew criticism from some observers, who contrasted it with the then Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani's unpleasant apology for Gujarat in London a year ago.^[52] Modi responded to this criticism by The Guardian,^[52]

See also[link]

• Chief Minister
• Gujarat
• Bhartiya Janata Party

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Narendra Modi

Official

• @narendramodi Official & verified Twitter Account
• Narendra Modi Official website
• Narendra Modi Personal blog

Other

• Profile at BBC News

v t e Current Chief Ministers of Indian states (list)     Andhra Pradesh: Nallari Kiran Kumar Reddy Arunachal Pradesh: Nabam Tuki Assam: Tarun Gogoi Bihar: Nitish Kumar Chhattisgarh: Raman Singh Goa: Manohar Parrikar Gujarat: Narendra Modi Haryana: Bhupinder Singh Hooda Himachal Pradesh: Prem Kumar Dhumal Jammu and Kashmir: Omar Abdullah Jharkhand: Arjun Munda Karnataka: D. V. Sadananda Gowda Kerala: Oommen Chandy Madhya Pradesh: Shivraj Singh Chauhan Maharashtra: Prithviraj Chavan Manipur: Okram Ibobi Singh Meghalaya: Mukul Sangma Mizoram: Pu Lalthanhawla Nagaland: Neiphiu Rio Orissa: Naveen Patnaik Punjab: Parkash Singh Badal Rajasthan: Ashok Gehlot Sikkim: Pawan Kumar Chamling Tamil Nadu: Jayalalithaa Tripura: Manik Sarkar Uttar Pradesh: Akhilesh Yadav Uttarakhand: Vijay Bahuguna West Bengal: Mamata Banerjee Delhi: Sheila Dikshit Pondicherry: N. Rangaswamy