Home

IMC-USA Weekly News Digest - September 21st, 2009


IN THIS ISSUE

COMMUNAL HARMONY

NEWS HEADLINES

OPINIONS & EDITORIALS

COMMUNAL HARMONY

A TEMPLE WHERE HINDUS WELCOME MUSLIMS FOR PRAYERS (SEP 17, 2009, DECCAN HERALD)

Every year during Ramzan, a temple in this village becomes the hub of activity. Muslims assemble in its premises, offer namaz and then break their fast with a feast prepared by their Hindu friends. The Sankatmochan temple dedicated to Lord Hanuman in this village in Chandauli district, about 300 km from the state capital Lucknow, is believed to be over 150 years old and has been witnessing this secular tradition since time immemorial, say locals. Naubatpur has a population of nearly 3,000 people, of which about 800 are Muslims.

"Serving Muslims during the holy month gives us a unique sense of satisfaction and, in a way, we also get associated with Ramzan that teaches spirituality, honesty, modesty, non-violence, patience and self-reformation," Indrajeet Pandey, a 48-year-old resident of Naubatpur, told reporters. "We really take pride to have such a temple in our village that displays the perfect blend of secular values," added a proud Alakh Narayan Singh, a social worker in the village.

Muslims come to offer the evening namaz at the temple gallery, which is outside the sanctum sanctorum but within the premises. The villagers - Muslim and Hindu - raise funds and contribute in their own little way to the Iftar gatherings held in the temple. "Most of the villagers voluntarily make contributions for arranging Iftar parties. While some villagers give cash for arranging the meals, others contribute by cooking delicacies like sewai, kheer and kachauri," said D K Singh, a teacher in Naubatpur.

The residents hope their inter-religious bond and social harmony inspires people outside their village too. "We want the message of this unique Hindu-Muslim friendship to be loud and clear…It should convey to society that when people are fighting in the name of religion, our village has a special Hindu-Muslim bond," said Assad Akhtar, who owns a tailoring shop. Added Shabi Haider, another villager: "We feel proud and privileged that our village is keeping the secular character of our country alive."

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/25776/a-temple-hindus-welcome-muslims.html

[Back to Top]

NEWS HEADLINES

MODI NEEDS TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED TO ARRIVE AT TRUTH, SAYS MANCH (SEP 20, 2009, THE HINDU)

Mukul Sinha, counsel for the Jan Sangharsh Manch, on Saturday said the arguments of the G.T. Nanavati-Akshay Mehta judicial commission, probing the Godhra train carnage and subsequent Gujarat communal riots in 2002, of lack of evidence for summoning Chief Minister Narendra Modi and others did not hold water. For, the stage had not yet reached for submitting evidence, but at least cross-examining them was necessary to "arrive at the truth." Counsel said the application for summoning them was made only after the State government in July 2004 expanded the terms of reference of the commission to include the offices of Chief Minister, his Council of Ministers and senior bureaucrats and police officers to inquire into their "roles" in the riots.

If the collective opinion of the State government was that the role and conduct of these persons, including the Chief Minister, required to be looked into by a judicial inquiry commission, "there is no justification for the commission to refuse to do so," Dr. Sinha said. On the Manch's allegation that prima facie Mr. Modi was in the "knowledge" of the riots, the commission said none of the arguments justified his summoning "at this stage." These fell short of proving any direct or indirect involvement of the Chief Minister or dereliction of duty on his part or that of the State police and administration, of which he was the head.

The commission, however, has not rejected the authenticity of two compact discs (CDs) containing the list of mobile phone numbers. Though the government pleader, questioning their genuineness and authenticity, wanted the data contained in the CDs "ignored completely," the commission did "not accept the suggestion in toto." Though it did not "justify issuing summons to the persons," the data, "if found not manipulated, is likely to help this commission in finding out the truth about involvement of these persons in the incidents of violence against the minority community." Pointing out that the government had already furnished relevant information through the affidavits of its officers, the commission said: "Only those persons against whom there is some material to show their involvement in the post-Godhra incidents should be summoned and that too at an appropriate stage."

The commission did not find any "alleged haste [in] and illegal manner" of conducting post-mortem on the bodies those burnt aboard S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express or that the bodies were handed over to VHP leader Jaydeep Patel for being brought to Ahmedabad to "instigate communal sentiments" under the "instructions of Mr. Modi," as alleged by the Manch. It disagreed that Mr. Modi paid a "secret visit" to Godhra soon after the train carnage, or that he and his political supporters "disturbed" any material evidence in the coach, or that the Chief Minister deliberately changed inquiry officers probing the train carnage to "sabotage" investigation, and transferred the police officers who did not allow the riots to spread in their areas. Quoting affidavits filed by the then top police and administrative officers, the commission said the Manch's reliance on the statement by the former Director-General of Police, R.B. Shreekumar, that Mr. Modi had directed the police to "allow Hindus to vent their anger" was not justified as none other officials present at the reported meeting corroborated such a statement.

The commission said the Manch was neither able to prove that the Chief Minister did not allow sanctions on some of the media for "incense reporting" of the events to flare up communal passion, nor could it find fault with Mr. Modi's statement about "pre-planned attack of terrorists" on the train. The Manch was also not able to prove that Mr. Modi "shielded" his partymen allegedly involved in the riots. On the contrary, the commission order said, the Manch had clearly changed its stand that the reason for the request for summoning these leaders was "not to prove [that they were] prima facie guilty of any misconduct or responsible for any criminal acts or omission." These submissions, it said, "have been advanced for the first time. It is contrary to what the applicant has stated earlier in its applications as well as written submissions filed in support of these applications as also the documents produced by it," the commission said. The order was issued nearly two months after the hearing on the application for summoning them came up before the commission.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/20/stories/2009092059250800.htm

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

BATLA HOUSE ENCOUNTER VERDICT CHALLENGED IN SC (SEP 18, 2009, REDIFF)

A petition was filed on Friday in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's order giving a clean chit to the city police in the controversial Batla House encounter case in which two suspected terrorists and a police officer were killed. The petition filed by an NGO 'Act Now For Harmony and Democracy' submitted that the high court has erred in accepting the findings of the National Human Rights Commission, which had refuted the allegation that it was a fake encounter. It pleaded that the high court did not go into the merit of the case and only relied on the finding of the Commission's report on the ground that it is a statutory body whose report cannot be questioned.

The petitioner argued an independent judicial inquiry is required in the case as serious doubts were raised by different groups of civil society on the conduct of the police officials in the encounter. It also contended that NHRC has failed to conduct a proper inquiry in the case as its officials did not visit the site of the encounter and only made a report by accepting the police version. The high court had on August 26 refused to direct a judicial probe into the encounter by accepting the Commission's report, which gave clean chit to the police. It rejected the NGO's contention that the NHRC has failed to conduct a proper investigation in reaching the conclusion that it was not a fake encounter.

The NHRC had on July 22 given a clean chit to the Delhi Police in the encounter case in which two suspected Indian Mujahideen terrorists and Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, an encounter specialist, were killed on September 19 last year. The NHRC, which had conducted an inquiry into the case on the direction of the Delhi high court, has in its report refuted the allegation that the encounter was fake and the police had fired on unarmed persons and inspector Sharma was killed as a result of rivalry within the police.

Challenging the findings of the Commission, the NGO, on whose plea NHRC was asked to conduct the probe, had contended that "the Commission has failed to do the basic things required in the investigation and the police version was not scrutinised." The NHRC, in its 30-page report submitted in the high court on July 22, had said there was no case made out against the Delhi Police for violation of human rights. "We are clearly of the opinion that having regard to the material placed before us, it cannot be said that there has been any violation of human rights by action of the police," the Commission had said.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/18/batla-encounter-verdict-challenge-in-sc.htm

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

ISHRATS MOTHER MOVES SC AGAINST STAY ON TAMANG REPORT (SEP 18, 2009, INDIAN EXPRESS)

Aggrieved by the Gujarat High Court order, which stayed Judicial Magistrate S P Tamang's report on Ishrat Jahan encounter case, Shamima Kausar, mother of the deceased, moved the Supreme Court on Thursday against the interim stay granted by the HC. Advocate Kamini Jaiswal, filing an appeal on behalf of Kausar, has contended that the HC had wrongly entertained the petition of the government as it lacked the jurisdiction. In his report, Tamang had described the incident as a "cold blooded murder" and held senior police officers responsible for "staging" the encounter, much to the annoyance of the Narendra Modi government.

The petitioner has reasoned that the report could not be stayed as the judicial magistrate had conducted the inquiry on the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, thus the stay order be set aside. Ishrat's mother also sought summoning of the records of the Tamang report to the apex court. The Gujarat High Court on September 9 had stayed Tamang's report on a plea by the state government, which contended the observations made in the report were beyond the jurisdiction of magistrate.

A single judge bench of Justice Kalpesh Javheri, while staying the report, had also ordered the appropriate authority of the High Court to look into the actions of Tamang and take necessary action. Tamang's report had said the encounter in which 19-year-old Ishrat and three others were gunned down in the outskirts of Ahmedabad on June 15, 2004 while allegedly plotting to kill the Chief Minister, was fake and executed in cold blood by police officers for selfish motives. The four deceased were Ishrat, Javed Ghulam Sheikh alias Pranesh Kumar Pillai, Amjad Ali alias Rajkumar Akbar Ali Rana and Jisan Johar Abdul Gani.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/518428/

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

SOHRABUDDIN: SG SAYS JOHRI GOT LAND FROM GOVERNMENT (SEP 18, 2009, INDIAN EXPRESS)

Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam alleged in the Supreme Court on Thursday that a senior IPS officer in Gujarat was allotted a plot of land by the state government after she took over the probe of the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. Subramaniam, who is an amicus curaie in the matter, told a bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam that Inspector General of Police Geeta Johri was allotted the land in Gandhinagar a few days after she took over supervision of the case. He presented an order purportedly issued by the Gujarat government on July 1, 2006, allotting a piece of plot to Johri.

According to Subramaniam, Johri had taken over investigations into the case on June 27, 2006, and the plot was allotted on July 1, 2006. The remarks drew protests from senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the Gujarat government, who described the charge as the "most unfortunate". Later, outside the court, Johri termed the allegations "ridiculous" and intended to "defame" her. "It was not just me. Every police personnel in the state, right from a constable, have been allotted land by the government. I and my husband, who is an IFS officer, have been allotted a 330-sq yard of land," she said.

Earlier, Rohtagi opposed any move to transfer the investigations to the CBI or any other investigating agency as demanded by Rubabuddin Sheikh, brother of Sohrabuddin, and Subramaniam. Interpreting Section 173(8) of the CrPC, he said the power to order further investigation vested with the magistrate concerned.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/518431/

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

MAN BEATEN UP BY COPS, DIES (SEP 14, 2009, THE TRIBUNE)

The police is in the dock after a man, whom cops from the Nagpur police post under the Ratia police in this district allegedly beat up during a raid to check the sale of illicit liquor, died on the spot at Alika village late last evening. Though the police has been maintaining that the man died of heart attack, the victim's son has demanded the registration of a criminal case against the cops, accusing them of killing his father. "Two cops from the Nagpur police post came to my shop at about 8.30 pm yesterday and tried to take me away on the plea that I was selling illicit liquor. When my father, Ishwar Chand (53), came to my rescue, he was beaten up by the cops, one of whom gave a ruthless blow on his chest. Ishwar Chand fell on the spot and seeing this, the cops escaped leaving us there," alleged the victim's son, Rajesh, alias Raju, who runs a barber shop in the village.

Rajesh alleged that he and other villagers took his father to the general hospital, Fatehabad, where doctors pronounced him "brought dead". He alleged that the police refused to record his statement at Fatehabad and it was only when a large number of villagers assembled in the hospital and threatened to start an agitation if they did not get justice, that the police recorded his statement. Meanwhile, the body of the victim has been sent to the PGIMS, Rohtak, for a postmortem. The police, however, maintained that Ishwar Chand had died of heart attack and it had no role whatsoever in his death.

"A police party from the Nagpur police post had gone to Alika village on a tip-off regarding illicit liquor and found seven bottles of liquor in the shop of Rajesh. When the police was taking the accused to the police post, his father came there and started pleading with the police to take away him instead of his son. The police party left without Rajesh, when Ishwar Chand started quarrelling with the police," maintained Ajaib Singh, SHO of the Ratia police station, who claimed that the victim was alright when the police party left the village and what happened to him later was beyond their control. He, however, added that statement of Rajesh had been recorded and the body of the victim had been sent for a postmortem. Action would be taken as per the law if anyone was found responsible for the victim's death, the SHO added.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090914/haryana.htm#1

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

SHOURIE ATTACKS BJP, ADVANI AGAIN (SEP 16, 2009, CENTRAL CHRONICLE)

Just when there was a lull in the stormy internal matters of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Arun Shourie has done it again. Shourie has attacked LK Advani in a newspaper column on the Kandahar issue. And the BJP for doubting Brajesh Mishra's version of the events.

He says: "Four members of the cabinet committee on security, excluding Mr Vajpayee all four other than Mr Advani, had called Mr Advani's version in question. There must have been a way to set the doubts at rest. But what did the spokesman do? Mr Mishra's statements are unfounded, unfortunate and politically motivated," declared one of the current spokesmen of the BJP.

"He is not a member of the BJP." What had the veracity or otherwise of Mishra's statements to do with his being or not being a member of the BJP? He was the national security advisor at the time as well as the principal secretary to the prime minister. He had participated in every single meeting and decision relating to Kandahar." Shourie had earlier, in a 'Walk the Talk' interview, attacked the BJP leadership, calling them Humpty-Dumpty and Alice in blunderland.

http://www.centralchronicle.com/viewnews.asp?articleID=14789

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

POLICE USE TEAR GAS TO CONTROL COMMUNAL CLASH AT MIRZAPUR (SEP 15, 2009, INDIAN EXPRESS)

The city police had to resort to tear gas shelling after a communal violence broke out near St Xavier's High School in the Mirzapur area of Ahmedabad late on Sunday. Five people were reportedly injured in the incident. According to the police, the incident occurred when a man, belonging to the Dalit community, was allegedly asked to pay extra money for eggs at a roadside stall by its owner, a Muslim. This ensued in an argument between the two.

After some time, the customer gathered some members from his community, who upturned the stall. This resulted into a clash between the members of the two communities. On learning about the incident, the local police rushed to the spot. Initially, they resorted to baton charge to control the situation, and then they fired 23 tear gas shells.

Investigation Officer Inspector K S Savani said, "There was heavy stone pelting and scuffle in the area. The situation was brought under control after some struggle."

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/517116/

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

DAY AFTER SC EDICT, MACHINES FALL SILENT AT UP MEMORIAL SITES (SEP 12, 2009, INDIAN EXPRESS)

A day after Supreme Court order to the Uttar Pradesh government to stop construction activities at all memorials in Lucknow, machines at the sites fell silent and bulldozers remained idle. The apex court had directed the Mayawati government to forthwith stop all further construction, repair and maintenance activities at the memorials for Kanshi Ram, B R Ambedkar and others in Lucknow. "After the SC directive, all machines were quickly pulled back and the construction work stopped by 7 PM yesterday itself. The sites have been cordoned off," a state government official said on Saturday. The court had pulled up the state government saying "you are playing with fire" and told it that its orders cannot be violated.

The construction sites virtually wore a deserted look with workers resting in their hutments. As per official estimates nearly 10,000 workers, mainly from Rajasthan and Bihar, were working at these sites. While around 5,000 masons and labourers were working at Ambedkar Memorial in Gomti Nagar alone, the rest were deployed elsewhere. "We were asked to stop work at all sites immediately and get the premises vacated. Labourers at these sites were driven away by security forces by late evening," the official said. The work at different sites including Ambedkar memorial, Kanshiram Smarak, Ramabai rally ground and Kanshiram Sanskriti Sthal was being supervised by Lucknow Development Authority and Rajkiya Nirman Nigam.

Taking suo motu notice of media reports that work on the Rs.2,600 crore memorial projects was continuing, the bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal and Aftab Alam had said "We feel that under the pretext of maintenance work, the undertaking is clearly violated." The bench had directed the state government to ensure that barring the watch and ward staff, no person shall be present in and around the sites after 7 PM on Friday. It had said the government cannot "fritter away" public money on such memorials. The Mayawati government had triggered a controversy by changing the land use of certain areas adjoining the 35-acre sprawling Ambedkar Sthal park green belt area by demolishing 30-odd public buildings to construct the memorials.

The Supreme Court direction has been hailed by opposition parties which have called for an appropriate action against the Mayawati government. While SP sought dismissal of the Mayawati government, the Congress demanded filing of a criminal case against the state government for continuing construction work despite giving an undertaking in the apex court that it will not do so. BJP said Mayawati government should resign on moral grounds.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/516314/

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

NEW TEAM TAKES OVER ARUSHI PROBE AFTER INITIAL CBI FLOP (SEP 10, 2009, INDIAN EXPRESS)

With joint director Arun Kumar leaving the Central Bureau of Investigation to join his parent cadre, the investigating agency on Wednesday transferred the double-murder case of teenager Arushi Talwar and domestic help Hemraj to its unit in Dehradun. Kumar had led the CBI team in Delhi that was investigating the case for the past 15 months. The probe had faced flak after the CBI failed to find the murder weapon, mobile phones of Arushi and Hemraj, and could not even file a chargesheet in the case. The transfer of investigation comes amid fresh revelations of alleged lapses in the probe, including a possibility that the vaginal swab sent to the forensic laboratory was not Arushi's.

The investigations have now been handed over to Superintendent of Police (Dehradun) Nilabh Kishore, who is also handling the alleged fake encounter in Dehradun of an MBA graduate from Ghaziabad. The probe would be under the overall supervision of Lucknow CBI joint director Javed Ahmad and additional director S C Sinha. CBI director Ashwani Kumar issued the notification about the case transfer today. CBI took over the case from Noida police on May 31, 2008. Led by Arun Kumar, the team conducted several tests, including lie-detection, brain-mapping and narco-analysis, on the three suspects - Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal -and on Arushi's parents Dr Rajesh and Nupur Talwar.

According to a source, the CBI director was unhappy with Arun Kumar's "line of investigation" ever since he joined last year. "The case was transferred to Dehradun since no development has emerged in the investigation even after all these months," the source said. "The forensic reports have also gone against CBI's line of probe. The agency wants to file a report in the case at the earliest since it now wants to finalise every probe within a year, the official said. The new team, the source said, would begin the probe anew after it has emerged that the vaginal swabs purported to be Arushi's were found misplaced, or not taken at all. "There was no semen, as alleged initially, in the slides sent to the forensic laboratory and corroborative testing revealed that the material was not drawn from Arushi," the official said.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/515264/

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

DALIT BOY TORTURED BY COPS MAY GET VISION BACK: DOCS (SEP 17, 2009, EXPRESS INDIA)

After more than a month of shuttling between hospitals and jail, Rohit, the 15-year-old Dalit who lost his eyesight after allegedly being tortured by Faizabad police in custody, was diagnosed with "cortical vision loss" at SGPGI on Wednesday. He later returned to Faizabad to stay with his family. Cortical vision loss is a condition where the brain does not perceive the images seen by the eyes. So far, Rohit's problem was described as "functional vision loss", which meant the cause was unknown. It took four visits to SGPGI and three Visually Evoked Response (VER) tests to diagnose the cause behind his loss of vision. "Rohit had come here on August 6, 15, September 6 and 15 for the same tests," said Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Circle Officer (CO) of Ayodhya. Rohit was being allowed to go home as according to the doctors, he can recover there, he added.

Dr Kumudini Sharma, a specialist in neuro-ophthalmology at SGPGI, said: "We have to call it cortical vision loss as twice we tested him for VER but got nothing. Cortical vision loss can be treated naturally with a nutritious diet." According to Sharma, the reason behind Rohit's condition could be a result of being hit at the neck. Lack of proper nutrition or dehydration and hysteria are other possible causes. Even though it's not intentional, the patient becomes so hysterical with fear that he refuses to accept that he can see. "Like a nervous child, Rohit kept repeating the same sentence again and again — about stealing mobiles and his father being beaten up by the police, during the tests," she added. Rohit was also taken to CSMMU's psychiatry department but the doctors found nothing wrong with him.

"The doctor there said we can take him back," said CO Pandey. Dr Prabhat Sitholey, Head of CSMMU's psychiatry department, however, said: "I referred Rohit back to the doctor who had sent him to me. I did not ask the police to take him back." Rohit looked weak and, with his shaking legs, seemed to find it difficult to support his body. He was in a worse condition when he came to SGPGI for a second round of checkup on Monday. Speaking in a loud voice, he alleged that he was hit time and again in his legs, near his neck and even on his forehead while in custody.

"They had hanged me upside down and beat me on the legs. While I was at the Faizabad hospital and here at the medical college, I was given injections to make me stand up and walk," he said. Rohit claimed that Sub-Inspector P P Pandey had threatened him to keep his mouth shut, or else he would be beaten to death. Five policemen have been suspended and a case lodged against them for torturing Rohit in police custody. Rohit was arrested in a case of theft of mobile phones.

http://www.expressindia.com/story_print.php?storyId=518065

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

OPINIONS AND EDITORIALS

HOW THE DEAD HAUNT - BY AJIT SAHI (SEP 26, 2009, TEHELKA)

On September 7, 2009, lawyer Mukul Sinha ran to a news conference he had called at sundown in Ahmedabad, excitedly clutching a copy of a report a local judge had signed minutes ago. The 247-page report, handwritten by Metropolitan Magistrate SP Tamang, would grab headlines nationwide, sending shivers down the backs of the BJP government in Gujarat with its unprecedented claim – that the "encounter" of "Lashkar-e-Tayyeba terrorists", Ishrat Jahan and three others, carried out early on the morning of June 15, 2004, in Ahmedabad, was the cold-blooded murder of innocent people. "We hadn't yet read the report, so we were as stunned as the journalists when we began reading it, translating from Gujarati," says Sinha, still marvelling that a three-week probe revealed what he has been fighting to uncover for years. Of course, the next day, Gujarat High Court judge Kalpesh Jhaveri stayed Tamang's report. He demanded to know why the magistrate had conducted a probe when Jhaveri was already hearing a petition by Shamima, Ishrat Jahan's mother, who has sought an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged encounter. At the time of going to press, Shamima was readying to move against the stay. "We are filing a petition in the Supreme Court to pray that the stay on Tamang's report be vacated," Supreme Court lawyer Vrinda Grover, who represents Shamima, told TEHELKA.

The High Court's stay certainly gave some political respite to the beleaguered Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi. This relief strengthened on September 14 when the BJP won the Gujarat Assembly by-election in five of the seven seats that polled days earlier. BJP leader Arun Jaitley quickly claimed that "siding with Ishrat Jahan" proved costly for arch-rival Congress party, which lost three seats it had won in the 2007 assembly elections. Ahmedabad-based political analyst Achyut Yagnik, however, dismisses the claim. "That's propaganda. The BJP wants to prove that the Gujarati middle-class and the people are with them," he told TEHELKA. "The fact is that the Congress lost this election because of overconfidence and the wrong selection of candidates rather than because the voters rallied for the BJP in view of any negative fallout of the Tamang report." … These troubles have only added to the political damage to his standing after the BJP's nationwide loss four months ago in the Lok Sabha elections, during which he was a star campaigner and projected as a future BJP prime ministerial aspirant. At the BJP's botched brainstorming at Shimla last month, Modi had kept an unusually low profile, not the least because the Supreme Court had ordered that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) directly investigate his role in the 2002 massacre of Muslims in Gujarat during his tenure. Tamang's report set the proverbial cat among Modi and his clutch of loyalist police officers, several of whom have allegedly acted as his henchmen from the time the police actively connived in or stood by and allowed the Muslim killings. Retired IPS officer RB Sreekumar, who has relentlessly fought to expose Modi's alleged complicity in the 2002 pogrom, says these police officers are now threatened by the likely exposure of their roles in fake encounters. Tamang has named 21 policemen, including top officers such as the then Ahmedabad police commissioner KR Kaushik (who later became Gujarat's Director-General of Police) and the then Crime Branch Joint Police Commissioner PP Pandey, for conspiring to murder Ishrat Jahan and the three others. "Some cops Tamang has named have conveyed to Modi that they won't keep quiet like Vanzara has," a source said speaking on the promise that he won't be identified. "They have threatened that if a court finds them guilty, they would not hesitate to say that killing innocent Muslims was a state policy."…

Meanwhile, things were moving fast at the High Court. On August 7, judge Jhaveri ruled that he would "explore the possibility of handing over the investigation to higher officer/s, that is, officer/s above the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, more particularly, from the cadre of Additional DG". He adjourned this decision to the next hearing on August 12. Shortly, the Union Home Ministry filed an affidavit in Jhaveri's court supporting the state's claim on the encounter. An aside to this affidavit. Sources say the Centre's lawyer in Ahmedabad, Assistant Solicitor General PS Chapaneri, first refused to back the affidavit when a Union Home Ministry official, VS Mani, brought it. The reason? During an earlier hearing in the case, Chapaneri had verbally told the judge the Centre would be willing to hold a CBI probe. (Ever scared of being politically outmanoeuvered by Modi, the UPA government is in a characteristic flipflop over the question: which side does it stand on? Chidambaram last week said an intelligence input is "no license to kill". This week, the Centre developed cold feet after deciding to appeal the Supreme Court against the stay on Tamang's report.) The second strategy was to hasten pending inquiries into the encounter. As it happened, a magisterial inquiry routinely begun in 2004 had never been completed. At that time, this inquiry was with an executive magistrate named Gaurav Prajapati, who was not a judicial officer. In 2006, following amendments to procedural law, the state government handed the inquiry to the judicial side. For three long years, this inquiry lay dormant, until the morning of August 12, the day Jhaveri was to rule on setting up a new probe. Jhaveri could take up the matter only on August 13, when he swiftly announced the setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), consisting of three top police officers of Gujarat with the mandate "… to consider all the aspects from every angle, which are relevant for the purpose of finding out whether the incident was a genuine encounter or a fake one." This SIT must file its report by November 30, the next date of hearing in the case.

It must be pointed out that the Gujarat government did not once denounce the formation of this SIT or insist that the Ishrat Jahan encounter was genuine, as it did after Tamang's report came out. Is it because judge Jhaveri chose the police officers for the SIT from a list submitted by Advocate General KB Trivedi? Big question: if the Gujarat government believes that the encounter was genuine, then why hasn't it approached the Supreme Court against the High Court order setting up the SIT? (A month later, the SIT hasn't started work because the Gujarat government is yet to issue relevant orders. The SIT includes at least one officer of dubious antecedent: Gujarat Police Inspector General JK Bhatt. Bhatt was one of the three officers whose investigation had claimed a conspiracy by Godhra's Muslims to set the Sabarmati Express on fire on February 27, 2002. The theory stands discredited, including by a TEHELKA sting operation. Earlier this year, the Gujarat High Court ruled that the now lapsed Prevention of Terrorism Act was wrongly applied to about 100 Muslims charged for the train fire as no conspiracy had been established.) No doubt the SIT's job is harder now. To find the encounter genuine it would have to trash Tamang's report, which really makes the encounter an open-and-shut case, based on the forensic examinations. "If there had been no Tamang report, the SIT could well have found the encounter genuine basing it entirely on the intelligence inputs," says a lawyer connected with the case. "But now, the SITwill have to prove that the forensic discrepancies Tamang has exposed are wrong if it wants to find the encounter genuine." But if the SIT upholds Tamang's findings - that the 21 policemen conspired to kill Ishrat Jahan and three others in cold blood and falsely pass them off as terrorists - it could create a legal and political Frankenstein for Modi, for this would be the second encounter after the Sohrabuddin case to be questioned as genuine.

And that begs the question: Were "fake encounters" of Muslims a state policy under Modi? Retired IPS officer Sreekumar, who headed the state Intelligence Branch (State IB) during April-September 2002, claims that the then Director General of Police of Gujarat, K Chakravarty, called him up on May 1, 2002, and told him that the state government wanted such encounters to take place. "Chakravarty told me that [the then Gujarat Chief Secretary] Subba Rao had told him that some Muslims should be eliminated," Sreekumar told TEHELKA in Gandhinagar. "I told Subba Rao that if there is an encounter, I will do an inquiry and speak out against my colleagues if I find the encounters are fake." Sreekumar says he began documenting such daily conversations in a diary, which he has put away at a secure place. Sreekumar was shunted out in September 2002. The first encounter took place the next month. Over the next four years, the Crime Branch killed some 17 alleged terrorists. In most cases, the police claimed that the terrorists had sneaked in with the purpose to kill Modi, BJP leader LK Advani and Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Praveen Togadia. Such encounters stopped after the arrest of Vanzara and several other police officers in the Sohrabuddin case. Modi's detractors have long admitted to his amazing political skills to overcome nearly all the legal troubles since the killings of Muslims, which made him India's most controversial politician. But with the Supreme Court-appointed SIT set to investigate the chief minister's role in the 2002 pogrom, and now the Tamang report calling the Ishrat Jahan encounter as fake, is it possible that the cat is about to use up its ninth life?

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main42.asp?filename=Ne260909coverstory.asp

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

FAKE ENCOUNTERS FEED TERRORISM - BY INDRANI BANERJEE (SEP 15, 2009, NAV HIND TIMES)

Once again the country has to suffer the humiliation of learning about the criminal acts of its custodians of the law. For long there has been suspicion that 19-year old Ishrat Jehan, her fiance, Javed Shaikh and two others were killed in 2004 by the Gujarat police, rather than being gunned down in an encounter. Now a magisterial inquiry has confirmed the fact that the four were killed in cold blood. One of the key attributes of a state-in contrast to institutions like corporations, foundations or, say, universities-are that it holds a monopoly of violence. But this is exercised through due process defined by the state's constitution and law. Nowhere does Indian law and Constitution give the police any authority to execute anyone, even terrorists. Even the prime minister cannot order such an execution and the army and police fighting insurgents can do so only by the authority of special legislation. The right to take a life-of a terrorist or criminal-is the exclusive preserve of the judiciary. As the record shows, it exercises this right through a fairly detailed legal process and even then applies the death sentence in the 'rarest of the rare' cases. Any killing outside these parameters is murder and should be treated as such.

Fake encounters belong to a special category: People are killed in 'cold blood' - executed illegally usually after they have been taken into custody. There are two kinds of fake encounters. In the first, the police kill known terrorists and criminals because they believe that they dispense better justice. The more monstrous kind of an execution is when completely innocent people are killed and passed off as terrorists and criminals. This is nothing but murder and, since it has been carried out by the custodians of the law, it should attract a much harsher penalty, than an act of murder by an ordinary citizen. One of the key markers of a fake encounter in India is when all the allegedly bad people are gunned down and the police party takes no casualties, despite dozens of bullets flying around. Almost every genuine encounter, especially one involving the highly trained Lashkar-e-Toiba, results in the death of one or more security personnel. And so it was in this case. The terrorists had an AK-56 and they sprayed the police party with it. The police fired back with Sten guns and service revolvers. But the forensic science laboratory found only AK-56 empties at the site, not a single Sten or revolver empty. The FSL also failed to find any trace of gunpowder or ammunition on the dead. Further, the FSL found that contrary to the police claim that they fired at the group who were in a car from some 60-70 feet away, the four had been shot at close range. There were other tell-tale signs which the incompetent policemen could not avoid-each of those killed seemed to have some identification on them. The alleged Pakistani Amjad Ali aka Salim, conveniently had a photo of himself in his pocket; Zeeshan Zohar had his identity card and nothing else; likewise Javed had his driving licence and nothing else and Ishrat had her college identity card taped around her neck. How convenient.

The key impulse for fake executions comes from politicians. They first mess up a situation and then they want the police to use strong-arm methods to resolve the problem. This was the background for the shameful illegal executions that marred the counter-terrorist effort of the police in Punjab in the 1990s, the anti-Maoist operations in AP and elsewhere. The same had happened in the case of fighting Islamist terrorism. Having created an enormous pool of angry Muslims in the wake of the 2002 pogroms in Gujarat, the Modi government depended on a bunch of killers in uniform for protection from vengeance. These policemen played on the fears of Modi and Co and took to gunning down innocent Muslims, claiming that they were involved in plots to kill the Gujarat CM. On March 2006, 4 Kashmiri youth, allegedly Lashkar-e-Toiba men were gunned down on the outskirts of Ahmedabad; in November 2005 Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kausar Bi and one other person were killed; in June 2004, Ishrat Jehan, Javed Shaikh and two others were gunned down; in January 2003, Sadiq Jamal was shot dead, allegedly while plotting to kill Mr Advani; in October 2002, Samir Khan Pathan was killed while trying to escape after his arrest allegedly plotting to kill Mr Modi. The BJP may be right in claiming that Modi could not be held responsible for everything that happened in Gujarat, but Mr Modi bears more than mere moral responsibility; he actively promoted and encouraged such police personnel and protected them when they were exposed.

During the last state assembly election campaign, Mr Modi used Sohrabuddin's killing to gather votes. According to the reports, Mr Modi asked the people gathered in a rally, "What should be done to a man who stored illegal arms and ammunition? You tell what should have been done to Sohrabuddin?" The people answered, "Kill him, and kill him". Even if by this twisted logic Mr Modi justified Sohrabuddin's killing, he did not explain why Kausar Bi, his innocent wife, was also murdered. Mr Modi, of course, is not the only political leader who has feasted on the death of innocent people. The moral compass has been found wanting in many Congress politicians as well. Lives are cheap in India, especially if they belong to the poor or 'other' minorities. There are also serious questions about the role of the Union government, especially the Intelligence Bureau in these killings. In many instances the executions have been sanctioned by the IB which is an intelligence organisation that operates outside the boundaries of the law, and unfortunately, the supervision of the union government and parliament as well. India is perhaps the only democracy where no oversight is exercised on powerful intelligence services.

The IB's goals are two fold. First they want to short-circuit the process of dealing with terrorists. But to allow an instrument of state to illegally arrogate such a key function of the state is to invite trouble. Second, the IB uses fake encounters to send messages to Pakistan. The executioners of the mainly Pakistani terrorists are the special cells of state police forces. But over time these executioners, glorified as 'encounter specialists', end up becoming criminals and resort to killing innocents for personal gain. One of the major causes of violent extremism aka terrorism, is a sense of injustice. Fake encounters and extra-judicial killings only help terrorist recruiting agents. Upholding the law should not be a matter of morality and legalism, but the pragmatic means of combating terrorism. Extra-judicial executions look attractive in the short-term, but are a recipe for long-term disaster. If you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind.

http://www.navhindtimes.in/opinions/3041-fake-encounters-feed-terrorism

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

THE SILENT RETURN OF KING NERO - BY TRIDIP SUHRUD (SEP 26, 2009, TEHELKA)

He was absent even from the hoardings; no longer did he speak to the populace about the golden, simmering vibrancy of Gujarat, the clean energy of CNG, nor did his image greet hundreds of thousands of pilgrims walking on their annual ritual to the temple town of Ambaji. He had remained stoically silent during the assembly session, even his party missed his wry humour and caustic remarks in the assembly debates. His administration was perceived to be losing grip; the resident doctors had gone on a prolonged strike, the unfortunate hooch tragedy had taken place but he preferred not to comment. His party lost a municipal election, failed to wrest control over the milk cooperative union of Amul. In Shimla, when his party was imploding, he chose to take a walk on the Mall. He steadfastly remained uninvolved - at least in the public - from the bloodletting in his party. He acted as if he were just another regional leader and not the man who had almost usurped the party campaign mid-way during the national elections, dealing the first blow to Advani's prime ministerial aspirations. Media, the opposition Congress and even his loyal voters whispered about the nervousness of Narendra Modi. The whispers became a murmur when he announced his decision to not campaign for his party candidates in the seven assembly seats that went to by-polls. It seemed that his 'moral luck' was finally running out. The Supreme Court had asked the Special Investigation Team to examine his role in the violence of 2002. The Gujarat High Court struck down the ban on Jaswant Singh's book as ill-conceived and lacking in thought. The civil society in Gujarat had asserted itself. Then the by-poll results gave his party five out of seven seats. He was quick to hail it as the victory of the party workers, and as a harbinger of times to come. Narendra Modi is back, we are told. But where had he gone?

Those who claimed that the tide had turned against him do not know either Narendra Modi or his voters, nor do they know the Congress in Gujarat. Modi is known not to like searching questions – be they about violence or his ambition. He is most eloquent only about Gujarat and his vision for it. Even his poetry sings the praise of Gujarat. Last few months were a time for accountability. His party colleagues were seeking answers, from themselves as also from him. His was a strategic silence at a time when his party colleagues had become verbose. His hold over Gujarat was not in question. He had in fact added a seat to his party's earlier tally and also managed to defeat his arch rival Shankarsinh Vaghela. What was under question was his efficacy in national politics and his resonance with voters outside Gujarat. By choosing to remain uninvolved he remained unsullied when reputations were crumbling within the BJP. He is a semiotic delight. He was quick to ban Jaswant Singh's book, not for what it had to say about Jinnah, but for his slur on Sardar Patel. Sardar Patel is one national leader who the BJP wants to claim as their own; not for his pragmatic politics, his earthy, iron-man image or his reconstruction of the Somnath temple, but as a figure who has suffered historic injustice at the hands of the Nehru-led Congress. He is one icon that Modi identifies with, as a man committed to his politics and his people, but vilified nationally by the Congress and the secularists. The ban on Jaswant Singh's book was an exercise in symbolic politics, legality of it notwithstanding. Modi had emerged as the defender of the Sardar legacy. The Gujarat Congress followed suit. A minister in the central council of ministers hastily asked for a nation-wide ban on the book, only to be spurned by the High Command. But the damage had been done. In debate after debate the BJP was quick to point out that this was an issue of Gujarat's pride. They bandied the call of the Congress minister as a character certificate. The ban has been lifted but the symbol has been captured. Modi also does not need to speak. His language has become a cultural currency in Gujarat. When we wear the masks that he gives and speak in his tongue the man himself can remain silent. We have surrendered the cultural space to Modi-speak.

To paraphrase a Gujarati saying, 'only those who have worshipped gods with pure devotion can get Congress as the opposition.' The contribution of the Gujarat Congress to the Modi magic is not insignificant. Here is a party that is even today firmly entrenched in the politics of Gujarat. But it lacks selfbelief. It is happy to see itself as a 'B' team of Modi. In 2007 elections it pegged its strategy on the BJP rebels, disappointing its party workers and its committed voters. It even sought to compete – as the book ban case illustrates – in terms of intolerance, alienating large sections of civil society that had opposed the culture of intolerance, be that a ban on a book or a film. We are told that the Gujarat Congress lacks a leader who can match Modi's charisma. What the Congress seems not to recognise is that leadership can emerge only through political processes within the party and in the realm of the political. It has to capture the oppositional space. The opposition space in Gujarat has been the responsibility of civil society groups. The civil society groups can fight legal battles, struggle for rights but the political opposition has to come from a political party. The Congress has been at best an indifferent bystander in the struggle for justice of those who suffered in the violence of 2002. It hopes that the civil society would defeat Modi legally; but appears ill-equipped to deal with him politically. Its political ineptitude was evident in the Ishrat Jahan case. The central government had filed an affidavit in the Gujarat High Court substantiating the state government's claim that she and her associates had terrorist links. When a routine and mandatory magisterial inquiry concluded that it was a case of 'fake encounter' the Congress sought political capital. The valid argument that an affidavit and intelligence reports do not licence 'fake encounter' seemed hollow, given the fact that the Congress as a party had not aided the legal struggle thus far. It allowed Modi to walk away with political advantage once again.

The assembly by-elections were not a test for Narendra Modi's BJP but for the Congress. It held six of the seven seats that went to polls. The Congress has unyielding faith in the idea that family is the principle of coherence in politics. Its choice of candidates was a reaffirmation of this. What the Congress needs to do is to converse with its own past, not only for what Shiv Visvanathan calls 'conspicuous austerity' but to understand what allowed it to be 'entrenched' in the political culture of Gujarat. It needs to go back to the decimated cooperatives and rebuild them; it needs to engage in local, neighbourhood issues; it needs to build bridges with civil society and can only then hope to fight Modi politically. Meanwhile, Modi has captured a new launch pad for his national ambition. It does not rest on victory in five assembly seats. On 14th September Modi was elected unanimously as the new president of the Gujarat Cricket Control Board. The heady mix of Bollywood, corporate ownership, cash-rich cricket bodies, that incidentally organise cricket matches, has a new force to contend with. "Cricket for Social Change!" is the new Modi slogan, even the most avid votaries of cricket would not have thought of that! Modi will re-affirm Gujarat's pride through an IPL team, to be called, what else but "Vibrant Gujarat".

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main42.asp?filename=Ne260909the_silent.asp

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

DROP JUSTICE DINAKARAN - EDITORIAL (SEP 16, 2009, THE TRIBUNE)

The President, the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India have a problem on hand. They have to face the unpleasant question how to deal with Justice P.D. Dinakaran, who has been tipped for joining the Supreme Court. Press reports have raised disturbing questions on how Justice Dinakaran, the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, has come to be recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court, particularly when questions have arisen about his integrity. Some of the most eminent jurists of the country as also members of the Committee on Judicial Accountability - Mr Fali S. Nariman, Mr Anil Divan, Mr Ram Jethmalani and Mr Shanti Bhushan - have urged the President, the Prime Minister and the CJI to institute a comprehensive inquiry into the allegations against Justice Dinakaran made by several members of the Tamil Nadu Bar to the Supreme Court collegium.

Since Justice Dinakaran's image is indeed under a cloud, it would be eminently sensible for the President to heed the legal luminaries' plea for "delaying" his appointment to the Supreme Court, pending a comprehensive inquiry. Significantly, Chief Justice of India Justice K.G. Balakrishnan has assured Mr Nariman and his colleagues that he would look into the complaint. Judges, especially in the higher judiciary, must be perceived to be incorruptible to the hilt: their dignity, moral force and the people's trust in the judicial process depend on their conduct in and outside the court. Unfortunately, allegations of corruption and misconduct against some high court judges at times have raised disturbing questions about the judges' selection process.

Parliament is already seized of the motion of impeachment of Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court who had indulged in financial misconduct. It may not like another such issue on its plate. In the light of the jurists' complaint, doubts arise in public mind as to how Justice Dinakaran was elevated to the post of Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. His proposed elevation to the Supreme Court stresses the need for making the screening procedures foolproof to ensure that those appointed to the judiciary are beyond reproach.

The President, the Prime Minister and the CJI should ensure that Justice Dinakaran is not able to enter the portals of the Supreme Court. Perhaps, it is the CJI who himself should initiate moves to shut the door against Justice Dinakaran to spare the President and the Prime Minister the pain of taking unpleasant steps that the unusual situation may demand. None in the higher echelons of the government wants to do anything that may look like interference in the judiciary, but there can come a time when even the unwilling highest of the land have to step in. However, it must be borne in mind that the judiciary's independence will ultimately depend on the respect it enjoys among the people and the quality of justice it dispenses. Both demand that only men of integrity and character sit on the Bench. This must be ensured.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090916/edit.htm#1

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

THE NITHARI VERDICT - EDITORIAL (SEP 14, 2009, THE HINDU)

Although described in some quarters as a shocker, the Allahabad High Court's acquittal of Moninder Singh Pandher is hardly surprising. When a special court in Ghaziabad sentenced in February the businessman and his domestic help Surinder Koli to death in one of the most gruesome Nithari killings cases, the verdict was greeted with a reflexive endorsement, even displays of public celebration. Lost in this unthinking eruption of joy was a simple question - was there enough evidence to establish Pandher's guilt? The Central Bureau of Investigation, which probed the killings after the cases were transferred to it from the Uttar Pradesh police, was fairly clear on this question.

Resisting public pressure and in the face of acute media scepticism, it did not chargesheet Pandher in the case, which relates to the murder and rape of 14-year-old Rimpa Haldar. The businessman was summoned as an accused by the special court, using its powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the court eventually passed a judgment that seemed influenced more by public sentiment than by the dispassionate requirement of the law. In acquitting Pandher of murder and rape, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has drawn attention to obvious facts (for example, Pandher was not even present in the country when Haldar was killed) and refrained from extravagant hypotheses (such as the special court's contention that his "hedonistic lifestyle" created the environment for Koli to commit murder).

What does the High Court ruling mean for the other Nithari cases? The Bench has made it clear that it will not affect decisions, at the trial court level, in other Nithari cases, of which Pandher is a co-accused in five. But it would be hard to ignore the reasoning of the High Court, which took into account facts such as Koli's confession, which did not implicate Pandher at all. Or for that matter, the cell phone records in the possession of the CBI, which indicate that Pandher was not present in his Noida residence when 16 of the gruesome murders took place. Few crimes in this county have been marked by such inhumanity as the Nithari killings, a story of abduction, rape, murder, and necrophilia. That news of the killings was greeted with gross public revulsion and subject to acute media scrutiny is understandable. But the demands of criminal law require that cases be dealt with objectively and that guilt is determined not on the basis of public sentiment or inspired leaks but on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This applies to horrific Nithari killings as well.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/14/stories/2009091454960800.htm

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]

NO SHORT CUT TO SUCCESS - BY PRAKASH SINGH (SEP 18, 2009, TIMES OF INDIA)

The Naxal theatre seems headed for a bloody conflict. There are indications that the army may also be pulled into the comprehensive operations that are planned to be launched against the Naxals in the near future. The CRPF is already there; units of the BSF and ITBP are also likely to be deployed. Union home minister P Chidambaram recently admitted that the challenge of left-wing extremism had been "underestimated" by the government. The Naxals, on the other hand, appear to have underestimated the strength of the Indian state. It is indulgent, has enormous patience, and it gives a long rope to political dissidence. But once it realises that enough is enough and decides on firm action, the strongest of oppositions is decimated. This is what happened in Punjab in the 1980s. The People's Liberation Guerrilla Army of the CPI (Maoist) may be a ragtag formation compared to the terrorists of Punjab, or the LTTE of Sri Lanka, but its geographical spread is daunting. As stated by the home minister himself, various Naxal groups have pockets of influence in 223 districts in 20 states across the country.

What is particularly disturbing is the qualitative change in the pattern of Naxal violence. Earlier, their violence was directed at individuals who were considered class enemies. These included landlords, moneylenders, police informers and right-wing elements. Now, the violence is directed against the state and its apparatus. High-profile targets are chosen: there was an attempt to assassinate the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh and, lately, Naxals had the audacity to threaten even the prime minister, Congress president and the home minister. Police stations are attacked, the district armoury is looted, jails are broken open, trains are detained, and security personnel ambushed with a frequency which erodes the credibility of the state. The Naxalites' objective essentially is to capture state power. The recent stepping up in the tempo of Naxal violence is part of a calculated plan. The politburo of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) aims to "aggravate the situation and create more difficulties to the enemy forces by expanding our guerrilla war to new areas on the one hand and intensifying the mass resistance in the existing areas so as to disperse the enemy forces over a sufficiently wider area". They are also keen to exploit "the worst ever economic crisis" by recruiting new members, and undertaking daring counter offensives. The government, as conceded by the prime minister, has "not achieved as much success as we would have liked in containing this menace".

A militaristic approach to the problem would nevertheless be unwise and is bound to prove counterproductive in the long run. The security forces may be able to shatter the Naxals' armed wing and there may be a large number of surrenders also, but the success thus achieved would be temporary and illusory. The problem would resurface after a few years - unless we address the causes which aggravate discontent against the establishment and make people gravitate to the Naxals. We must also remember that we are dealing with a movement which is basically indigenous and has in its ranks large segments of poor people and a sizeable number of tribals who have been alienated for a variety of reasons. We cannot declare war against them. It would be a blunder and amount to seeking a short-cut solution to a problem which requires a comprehensive strategy over a long period. It would be akin to saying that we are incapable of modernising the police force, of going through with police reforms, and that, therefore, we shall employ paramilitary forces and the army to crush the Naxal movement. It would also amount to saying that we cannot alleviate poverty, that we cannot introduce land reforms, that it is not possible to improve governance beyond the present level, that corruption is pervasive and we have to live with it, and so the easier option is to eliminate the Naxals.

The home minister was right when he outlined the Centre's two-pronged policy police action and development. He could have added mobilising the support of the people and the political option of dialogue if and when the Naxals agree to it. As far as police action is concerned, it needs to be emphasised that the state police holds the key. It would, of course, need to be reinforced by paramilitary forces. Andhra has been able to cut the Naxals to size. Tripura has successfully contained tribal insurgency. There is no reason why their successes cannot be replicated in other states. Is the political leadership up to the challenge? The army is likely to face formidable challenges along the borders with China and Pakistan in the foreseeable future. Its strength should not be frittered away on internal security duties apart from the fact that any deployment in the Naxal-affected areas would be wrong in principle.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5023620.cms

SEE ALSO: 

[Back to Top]
Indian Muslim Council–USA is a registered non-profit 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization. Tax ID: 05-0532361 6321 W Dempster St. Suite #295, Morton Grove, IL 60053-2848 Phone: 800.839.7270 Email: info@imc-usa.org


Designed & Developed By Managefolio IT Division