IMC-USA Weekly News Digest – August 2nd, 2010

by Publisher on August 2, 2010

In this issue

News Headlines

Opinions & Editorials

News Headlines

CBI grills Amit Shah on directives given to CID (Jul 29, 2010, Times of India)

In the first round of questioning on Wednesday, the CBI unleashed
several salvos at former Gujarat junior home minister Amit Shah, asking
him about the directives he gave to CID officials during a meeting
convened at the Gandhinagar Circuit House in December 2006 following
Sohrabuddin’s encounter. The questioning took place in the Sabarmati
Central Jail’s Tilak Kholi where Shah has been lodged. The CBI has time
till Friday to question Shah. The CBI team headed by SP Amitabh Thakur
grilled Shah for nearly eight hours in three different sessions and
questioned him about the exact timing as to when the former home
minister came to know about the killings of Sohrabuddin and his wife
Kauserbi. He was also questioned as to when exactly he told CM Narendra
Modi about the encounter.

Shah reportedly had very few answers to
offer to the CBI, which had gone armed with a set of 32 questions for
day one. Shah was arrested on Sunday and has been lodged at the
Sabarmati Central Jail. The investigating agency felt the need to
question him only after a key witness and former CID chief, G C Raiger,
explained the minister’s role on Monday. The CBI query as to when Shah
came to know about Sohrabuddin’s killing is significant because Shah and
his political mentor, Gujarat CM Narendra Modi, are trying to distance
themselves from the alleged encounter.

CBI has records of 32
rounds of phone conversations between Shah and the policemen who
allegedly killed Sohrabuddin. The high volume of calls, prima facie,
appears unusual. However, Shah’s defence has been that, being the "hands
on" home minister, he was required to be in touch with cops across the
state. The question about timing is meant to find out inconsistencies in
Shah’s defence by tallying his replies with other evidence that CBI may
have. CBI’s questions were also focussed on whether Shah had tried to
influence CID officials involved in the probe. Shah was asked how many
times he had met CID officials in connection with the Sohrabuddin case.
Shah was also asked about the killing of Kauserbi. This is significant
in the light of Gujarat government’s attempt to justify the killing of
her spouse by pointing to a whole range of cases, particularly the
recovery of a deadly cache of weapons including AK-47s from the couple.

Shah
replied to most questions with monosyllables: ‘yes’ and ‘no’. At other
times, he preferred to say "I don’t know," "I don’t remember" or "I was
not at the site so I don’t know." Shah was also asked about the exact
sequence of events from the time he came to know about the encounter
till the time he took action as a responsible minister after questions
were being raised about the encounter.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6230608.cms

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

CBI wants to question Narendra Modi too (Jul 29, 2010, Times of India)

The CBI team, which has sent former minister of state for home Amit
Shah behind bars, is likely to seek permission from its headquarters
soon to question CM Narendra Modi who is also holding the home
portfolio. Another special investigation team (SIT), which is probing
the Gulbarg Society massacre of 2002, had questioned Modi for nine hours
on March 27 this year.

The finger of suspicion in the
Sohrabuddin-Kauserbi killing is pointing at Modi because he signed the
transfer orders of then CID chief G C Raiger around midnight of February
3-4, 2007, while he was holding a ‘Chintan Shivir’ at Karai Police
Academy on the outskirts of Ahmedabad.

Modi has held these
two-day camps on numerous occasions in the past, holding ministers and
top officials captive and giving them his broad vision of the way
forward for Gujarat. These ‘shivirs’ are normally organized in places
where there is enough accommodation for almost 100 or more participants
to spend one-two nights together. This was the first ‘shivir’ for IPS
officers – the previous ones had involved bureaucrats and ministers.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6230626.cms

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Amin, Amit Shah spoke 32 times in week before Sohrab killing (Jul 27, 2010, Times of India)

A day after he was arrested for murder and conspiracy in the
Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, Gujarat chief minister Narendra
Modi’s close associate Amit Shah suffered a serious setback with two
policemen agreeing to help CBI nail him. Former DSP N K Amin, a
co-accused in the case who fell out with Shah and is believed to have
loads of information which could be dangerous for the former Gujarat
home minister, told the CBI court of his decision to turn approver. In a
similar development, G C Raiger, former Additional DGP, turned a CBI
witness after a session with officers of the central agency where he
passed on "explosive information" to them. Raiger looked after the CID
probe into the Sohrabuddin case before Supreme Court handed over the
inquiry to CBI. Amin’s lawyers moved an application in the CBI court
seeking pardon for him and for shifting to another jail for safety
reasons. A testimony by the former DSP, who featured in several
encounters and acquired the reputation of a tough cop, incriminating
Shah could severely undercut the former home minister’s protestations of
innocence.

What Shah and his colleagues should be particularly
wary of is a statement confirming CBI’s charge that Sohrabuddin’s
encounter was a fallout of Shah’s alleged involvement in an extortion
syndicate comprising Gujarat cops. A corroboration of the accusation by
Amin and other cops would undercut Modi’s attempt to portray Shah as a
victim of political frame-up and his assertion that Sohrabuddin was
eliminated purely because he was a dreaded gangster wanted for several
heinous crimes in many states.

Amin and Shah had telephone
conversations 32 times during the week preceding the twin killings of
Sohrabuddin and his wife Kauserbi in November 2005. BJP has claimed that
the high frequency of calls does not prove anything by itself since
Shah’s job as a "hands-on" home minister required him to be in touch
with cops handling sensitive assignments. CBI is hamstrung by the fact
that it does not have details of what transpired between Modi’s close
associate and Amin. The former DSP, however, can turn the screws on him
by helping the agency fill in the gaps in its case against Shah.
Moreover, Amin was tasked with probing the fake encounter case. Though
his role as investigator ended with his arrest in the same case, he
obviously knows a lot, including about Shah’s role.

The CBI knew
it had hit bulls-eye when, during the search of Amin’s home earlier this
year, it found an audio recording of a conversation which has become a
critical evidence against Shah. Amin, it is suspected, has more such
documented evidence against plotters and executors of the plan to
eliminate Sohrabuddin, Kauserbi and Tulsidas Prajapati. Amin’s move does
not come as a surprise. His estrangement with other accused in the case
has been evident since 2007 when he was was sent to jail. Appearing to
resent his imprisionment when other "culprits" remained free, Amin
hinted on a number of occasions that he could turn approver. In fact, in
an affidavit filed before a sessions court in 2009, he had threatened
to "expose people who were not named in the case so far". He had claimed
to have enough evidence in form of voice recordings to nail people who
were involved in the murder.

This suggests that his move on
Monday was well thought-out and that he had fully factored in
consequences, including retaliation by the co-accused. "There is a
threat to Amin’s life from the other accused as all are lodged together
in Sabarmati central jail here. So we have decided to move an
application for jail transfer," Amin’s advocate Rajesh Modi said.
Additional chief judicial magistrate A I Rawal has fixed a hearing for
Tuesday afternoon. A doctor by profession before he joined the Gujarat
police, Amin was a close friend of VHP leader Pravin Togadia, as the two
studied medicine at around the same time in Ahmedabad.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6221105.cms

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Chargesheet filed against IPS officer, others in Prajapati case (Jul 30, 2010, Indian Express)

Gujarat CID filed a chargesheet against seven policemen, including an
IPS officer, in the 2006 Tulsiram Prajapati encounter case, in a court
in Banaskantha district. IPS officer Vipul Agarwal, who was the SP of
Banaskantha when the encounter took place, is among those chargesheeted.

Prajapati, a key witness in the 2005 fake encounter of
Sohrabuddin Sheikh and alleged murder of his wife Kausar bi, was killed
in an encounter in Chapri village near Ambaji in Banaskantha in December
2006. The over 1000-page chargesheet includes statements of 137
witnesses too.

In May this year, the agency had arrested Agarwal,
who was posted as Dahod SP from Ahmedabad, constables Jathubha Solanki
from Patan and Vinod Limbachiya from Palanpur. Three other constables -
Karansinh Sisodia, Kanji Kutchi and Kiransinh Chauhan – were also
arrested subsequently from Siddhpur in Patan.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/653873/

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Sohrab case: CBI to grill top cop Geetha (Jul 29, 2010, Indian Express)

The CBI on Thursday issued summons to Geetha Johri, the investigating
officer in the fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and killing of his
wife Kausarbi, and asked her to appear before the agency by August 10.
Johri, who had headed the probe in the case while she was with state
CID, is currently posted as Police Commissioner of Rajkot city is
expected to return on August 6. The CBI, which began investigation into
the encounter case following the Supreme court order in January, has
already questioned Johri twice before. She is under the scanner for
having tampered with the evidence, which is a charge having extremely
serious consequences.

The apex court, while transferring the case
to CBI, had minced no words in expressing displeasure at the failure of
the state police’s Special Investigation Team, headed by Inspector
General of Police Johri, to identify the seven Andhra Pradesh police
personnel who assisted the local police in the fake encounter. Johri is
in Britain at present and is expected to come back on August 6. The
Supreme Court had also come down heavily on the Gujarat police for
failing to conduct impartial investigations and attempting to "mislead"
the apex court by filing conflicting Action Taken Reports (ATRs) in the
case.

It had further said that while one of the investigating
officers V L Solanki was proceeding in the right direction, Johri had
not been carrying out the investigation in the right manner. The court
has said in its January 12 order that Johri had not made any reference
to the second report of Solanki, and was not forwarded to this Court.
The court observed that Johri mentioning the criminal background of
Sohrabbuddin and the discussion among the accused officers concerning
Sohrabbuddin was meant to obfuscate the enquiry. The CBI had yesterday
summoned former state DGP P C Pandey and asked him to appear before it
on August 11. Pandey was the DGP when the state CID was investigating
the fake encounter case. There have been allegations that some police
officials of Gujarat had tried to influence the investigation into the
incident.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/653360/

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Move Sohrabuddin case outside Gujarat: CBI (Jul 31, 2010, Times of India)

The CBI on Friday sought the transfer of the trial of the accused in
the Sohrabuddin "fake encounter" to a court outside Gujarat, telling the
Supreme Court that it needed to investigate people higher than former
home minister Amit Shah – a euphemism for chief minister Narendra Modi -
in the killing of the alleged gangster. In its status report on the
encounter case to the apex court, the agency has said that, with its
investigation pointing towards those placed higher than Shah in the
Gujarat power hierarchy (read Narendra Modi), it would not be possible
to hold a fair trial in the state. To back up its argument, the agency
has pointed out that, under the rules of executive business in Gujarat,
Shah, who was just a minister of state, could not have decided postings
of officers accused of killing Sohrabuddin, Kauserbi and Tulsidas
Prajapati.

The status report accompanied by nearly 2,000 pages of
documentary evidence was submitted in a sealed cover to Registrar
Judicial T Shivadasan by the CBI team in compliance with the SC’s
January 12 order taking over the probe from Gujarat’s SIT to assign it
to the central investigation agency. Though the report does not mention
Modi by name, the team has referred to the orders signed by Modi who had
the overall in-charge of the home department. CBI is likely to have a
session with the Gujarat chief minister after it has examined senior
Gujarat cops, former DGP P C Pandey and Geeta Johri, head of the CID
when it arrested police officers for Sohrabuddin’s killing. The agency
sought three months to finish the probe, saying that the recent arrest
of the owner of the farmhouse where Kauserbi had been kept before being
killed, has thrown up fresh clues.

The agency has also said that
it should be allowed to examine the murder of Tulsidas Prajapati, an
alleged criminal and a former associate of Sohrabuddin who took the cops
to the latter. Prajapati was eliminated because he, just like Kauserbi,
was a witness to the "fake encounter" of Sohrabuddin. Significantly,
the Gujarat CID on Friday filed a chargesheet into Prajapati murder
case. During the three months it has sought from the top court, CBI said
it will file a supplementary chargesheet against Shah and others based
on the questioning and statements of other police officers recorded
after Shah’s arrest. The trial of the case can be conducted outside
Gujarat after which the agency is likely to request for transfer of the
accused persons including Shah to another state’s prison, said sources.

The
CBI team headed by DIG P Kandaswamy and S P Amitabh Thakur, which
submitted the report to SC on Friday evening, flew back to Ahmedabad. In
its action taken report, the agency is believed to have told the apex
court that Sohrabuddin, his wife, Kauserbi, and Tulsiram Prajapati were
all killed by the Gujarat police, on the orders of Shah. The CBI claimed
before SC that the deaths of Sohrabuddin, Kauserbi and Tulsiram suggest
a careful conspiracy – stretching from planning and execution of murder
to the elaborate cover-up. The report also said that senior Gujarat
cops were coerced into defending their colleagues guilty of corruption,
kidnapping and murder. Those who did not are now witnesses for the CBI,
the report is likely to have mentioned.

The report detailed the
links between those who actually carried out the fake encounter – top
cops D G Vanzara, Dinesh MN and Rajkumar Pandyan – and those who
scripted the gory tale of killing and burning of Sohrabuddin’s wife
Kausarbi and later fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati. Mentioning the
telephonic conversations between the accused persons and reporting to
the higher-ups in the police hierarchy, the CBI said that these
informations needed to be cross-checked with the higher-ups, including
the then DGP P C Pandey. It also said that the loose ends in the role of
Andhra Pradesh police needed to be tied up. It sought to strike a close
link between the killings of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi in 2005 and the
fake encounter killing of Prajapati, who allegedly was the third person
abducted along with Sohrabuddin and his wife by the Gujarat and
Rajasthan police joint team on November 23/24, 2005.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6238566.cms

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Six acquitted in Gujarat terror conspiracy case (Jul 29, 2010, Rediff)

A local court in Ahmedabad on Thursday acquitted six persons accused
of hatching terror conspiracy to avenge the 2002 communal riots. Firoz
Ghaswala, Maohammad Ali Chippa, Vakil Ahmad, Umar Farookh, Anisul Bari
and Muhibul Bari were arrested by the state Anti Terrorist Squad in May
2006 on charges of having links with Lashkar-e-Tayiba and
Harkat-ul-Jihadi-Islami. The ATS was then headed by D G Vanzara, who is
presently behind bars in connection with the fake encounter of
Sohrabuddin Sheikh and killing of his wife Kausarbi in 2005.

Principal
District Judge G N Patel while acquitting the six persons observed that
the investigating agency was not able to prove their case that the
accused had taken terror related training in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The agency also could not prove any link between the accused and the
banned organisations LeT and Huji, as it had contended, he said. Illyas
Pathan, one of the lawyers representing the accused, said his clients
were falsely implicated in the case by the ATS. They were charged of
hatching conspiracy to destroy Kandla port, Somnath temple and Sabarmati
over-bridge in Ahmedabad city, he said.

The ATS had also accused
them of sending Muslim youths from Gujarat to Pakistan and Bangladesh
for getting trained in carrying out terror activities. For this purpose
they got support from one Azam Chima, the ATS had said. This was done to
avenge the 2002 riots in which many persons of the minority community
had died, Pathan said.

The ATS has also used phone call records
showing that the accused were in touch with one other, to establish that
they were involved in a conspiracy, he said, adding that the court
rejected these arguments. They were booked under the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act. Of the six, Firoz, Mohammad Ali, Anisul and Muhibul are
also accused in another case registered in Delhi. While Vakil Ahmed and
Umar Farookh hail from Ahmedabad, Firoz and Mohammad Ali are from
Mumbai. Anisul and Muhibul are from Bangladesh.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jul/29/six-acquitted-in-gujarat-terror-conspiracy-case.htm

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Summons to CM: Gujarat HC directs JSM to move Nanavati panel (Jul 24, 2010, DNA India)

The Gujarat high court has asked the Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM) to
move the Nanavati commission probing the 2002 riot cases with regard to
the petition filed by it. The petition sought quashing of the
commission’s order earlier and issuance of summons to chief minister
Narendra Modi and three others for cross-examination in connection with
the riots.

The high court also observed that the commission should
decide on the plea of JSM. The Nanavati Commission in September last
year disposed off JSM’s plea to summon Modi and three others including
former home minister Gordhan Zadafia, minister Ashok Bhat and DCP RJ
Savani. The commission had observed that the allegations made by JSM
that Modi government had aided and abetted the 2002 riots were based on
wrong assumptions.

JSM then approached the Gujarat high court
where a single bench dismissed the petition on the ground that the
commission has not completed its enquiry in the matter yet. The bench
also cited the ground that the commission still had powers to
investigate to summon Modi under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.

JSM
then moved a division bench on the issue. During proceedings in the
case, the bench also asked the government to furnish a status report on
Nanavati commission. The Gujarat high court passed the aforesaid
direction today. It should be noted that the Special Investigation Team
(SIT) constituted by the Supreme Court to probe the 2002 post-Godhra
riot cases called chief minister Modi and questioned him for at least
nine hours in connection with the post-Godhra riot cases.

http://www.dnaindia.com/dnaprint910.php?newsid=1413824

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

NIA to probe Samjhauta Express blast case (Jul 29, 2010, Times of India)

With no breakthrough in the over three-year-old Samjautha Express
blast case, the government has decided to hand over its probe to the
National Investigation Agency (NIA) to unravel the conspiracy. "The
Samjhauta blast case has been handed over to the NIA," Special Secretary
(Internal Security) in the Home Ministry Utthan Kumar Bansal told
reporters on the sidelines of a function here.

Sixty-eight people
were killed when bombs were set off in two coaches of cross-country
Samjhauta Express, running between Delhi and Lahore, around midnight on
February 18, 2007 at Diwana near Panipat, 80 kilometres north of Delhi.
The case was being handled by Harayana Police which had failed to make
any headway after its probe led to a tailor at Indore who had prepared
the cover for the suitcase in which the bombs were planted.

Investigators
probing Samjhauta Express blast case have reportedly gathered evidence
that points to a finger of suspicion at a Hindu right wing extremist
organisation. They have been claiming that there was a link between the
Ajmer blast in Rajasthan and Mecca Masjid blast in Andhra Pradesh’s
capital Hyderabad.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6233265.cms

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

NRI woman alleges police assault over property dispute (Jul 18, 2010, New Kerala)

A senior citizen staying in south Delhi’s posh Defence Colony alleged
she was brutally assaulted by some police officers at the behest of a
local property dealer over a property dispute. Sixty-four-year-old
Manjula Krippendorf alleged that on Saturday night the Station House
Officer (SHO) of Defence Colony Police Station and a sub-inspector
assaulted her and her daughter. Police said they are conducting
investigations into the matter and are yet to register a case in this
connection.

According to Kripendorf, the matter is related to a
disputed property in Defence Colony. She said that the issue began in
1995, when she gave her house, B-56, to a builder to refurbish. "I have
been trying to get back my house for the last five years. The builder we
gave it to, did a whole lot of illegal construction. The MCD then
sealed the ground floor of the house. After a long court battle, we were
able to get the house de-sealed," said Manjula, who stays in Germany.
Manjula alleged that when she and her daughter Sonya went to the
disputed house to get it desealed, "We saw 25 men, along with Sunil
Goel, who manhandled my daughter and attacked me and tried to drag me
out of the house. Then the SHO started hurling abuses at me and told me
to get out of the house."

Ajay Goel, Sunil Goel’s brother, both
property dealers, rubbished all allegations against his family. "She
kept on abusing us; her daughter slapped me but we still kept quiet. I
was the one who called the police. The matter is sub-judice, so how can
she stake claim on the property?" said Ajay. Ajay claimed that in 1995
Sunil Goel, along with Manjula, gave the house to Vijay Dikshit, a
builder, to refurbish it.

"The basement and ground floor was
supposed to be hers and that we would own the first and the second
floor. She took Rs. 25 lakh from us as deposit. In case the work was not
completed on time, the whole amount would be forfeited. The house was
rebuilt on time but when we asked for our money, she refused. After
that, the matter has been in court." Police have asked its Vigilance
Department to investigate the allegations leveled by Manjula.

http://www.newkerala.com/news2/fullnews-2228.html

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Opinions and Editorials

Close encounters – By Samar Halarnkar (Jul 28, 2010, Hindustan Times)

When the powerful fall, they never go quietly. And so it is as
Gujarat Minister of State for Home Amit Shah enjoys his home-cooked
khichdi in Sabarmati Central Jail, where a certain Mahatma Gandhi was
once incarcerated. Outside, Shah’s BJP noisily accuses the government of
being, at best, partisan; at worst, unpatriotic. Let’s address the
allegation of partisanship first. If history is any indication, the BJP
is not far off the mark. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has
displayed enough servility to fit the BJP’s derisive abbreviation -
Congress Bureau of Investigation. This time, the CBI’s officers are
reporting to the Supreme Court, and their 30,000-page chargesheet
against Shah reveals a sordid world of corrupt builders, rich marble
traders, rogue police officers, shadowy politicians and extortionists -
each dependent on the other in an intricate dance of greed and power. In
the coming days, we will know if cellphone records, depositions from
Shah’s imprisoned former police associates, and a sting video of
builders planning to fix evidence prove the CBI’s allegations.

Let’s
take a look at the BJP’s other argument: that Sohrabuddin Sheikh, the
extortionist-who-grew-too-big-for-his-boots and was allegedly bumped off
by the police on Shah’s orders, was a ‘terrorist’. Sheikh was Muslim,
and there appears to be no evidence he was anything more than a
criminal. The BJP makes no such allegation about Sheikh’s partner,
Tulsiram Prajapati, also allegedly slain by the police. In any case, the
BJP line continues, is the life of an extortionist and ‘terrorist’ more
important than the careers of ‘patriotic’ police officers, some of them
decorated, and a minister? Asked BJP president Nitin Gadkari: "What
kind of a nation have we become?" Indeed, what kind of a nation have we
become? We are now a nation sliding inexorably towards becoming a police
State, where torture and extra-judicial killings are virtually accepted
as crime-fighting techniques and to settle private scores. The Amit
Shah affair is an unholy mix of these imperatives.

The Indian
euphemism for police executions is the gentler ‘encounter killings’.
When I was in college, I was so ignorant of such executions – despite a
father in the police – that I always pictured a criminal wildly firing
at brave officers, who reluctantly returned fire. I did wonder at the
precision with which such criminals were taken down, usually with no
injury to the police. But my blind faith in the police as an institution
helped obscure such questions. It is a blindness that threatens Indian
democracy. As most police officers – even the honest ones, and there are
many – will tell you, we may feel horror at torture and extra-judicial
killings, but if my home has been burgled, or my son killed, I want the
suspect to pay, never mind if he’s hung upside down and administered
electric shocks or burned with cigarette butts. We want justice; we just
don’t want to see how it’s achieved. It is a blindness that impedes
emerging India’s forays into the first world. No nation that aspires to
greatness can continue with a criminal justice edifice built on torture
and execution.

Too often have we seen ‘encounter specialists’, as
usually feted and decorated officers who specialise in executions are
called, sink so deep into a quicksand of immorality that there is no
hope of extrication. In March this year, eight officers of the Special
Task Force (STF) of the Haryana Police were arrested and the STF
disbanded after some of them were caught on a closed circuit camera
robbing a Panipat jewellery store. The Haryana officers were
particularly brazen, but their downfall followed a now-familiar pattern.
Handpicked for their intelligence and bravery under fire, such officers
usually get the freedom to create specialised units, in which case they
become ‘encounter specialists’, or are amalgamated into STFs or ATSs
(Anti-Terror Squads). In most cases, they are, unofficially, sanctioned
to go beyond the law. Sometimes, India has benefited from the twilight
zone. Punjab rid itself of terrorism in the 1990s largely because a
systemic, often brutal, police action against terrorists and their
families. Mumbai freed itself from the underworld’s grip this decade
because of the terror spread by its ‘encounter specialists’, officers
immortalised in movies with titles like Ab Tak Chhappan (Until now, 56).

But
most officers who ran such campaigns of executions soon crossed the
thin, grey line into extortion and contract killings. Nearly all of
Mumbai’s ‘encounter specialists’ have been dismissed or arrested.
Delhi’s Assistant Commissioner Rajbir Singh, once a public hero for
killing criminals, was killed in suspicious circumstances in a property
dealer’s office. Gujarat’s ATS, headed by Deputy Inspector General D.G.
Vanzara, the man who allegedly shot Sheikh and his wife Kauserbi (and
burnt her body), supposedly did it to earn promotions, bestowed by
minister Amit Shah, who the CBI says was using Sheikh to extort money
before it all went bad. Local cesspools of official criminality are one
reason the Maoist insurgency has become what it is today. If India is
to break such chain-links of criminal behaviour created by its
law-enforcers, it might want to follow the examples set by many Latin
American countries that were once dictatorships. Peru, Brazil, Chile and
Argentina were once notorious for extra-judicial killings. As they
became democracies and prospered, they realised they could not truly
enter the civilised world and retain their police states. India – save
for the shameful two years of Indira Gandhi’s Emergency – has always
been a democracy. It must now arrest its slide towards a police State.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/579163.aspx

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Barking up the wrong tree – Editorial (Jul 27, 2010, The Hindu)

The loud protests by the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership and Chief
Minister Narendra Modi over the charge sheet against former Gujarat
Minister of State for Home Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh-Kausar Bi
murder case carry little conviction. Allegations that the charge sheet
is fabricated and that Mr. Shah is a victim of political conspiracy
won’t wash. That the Gujarat administration had a hand in the 2005
killings of Sohrabuddin, who allegedly ran an extortion racket and had
been convicted in 1994 for transporting assault rifles and grenades, and
his innocent wife, Kausar Bi, is not contested.

In early 2007,
the State government admitted before the Supreme Court that Sohrabuddin
was killed by the State police in a fake encounter and Kasur Bi murdered
and her body burnt to eliminate evidence of the crime. It was around
that time that a slew of policemen, including two senior Gujarat IPS
officers, were arrested in the case. There has been suspicion that the
murders were masterminded at the political level and Mr. Shah’s name has
been dragged into the controversy more than once. While his innocence
must be presumed unless and until he is found guilty, he has behaved
most inappropriately. As Minister of State for Home, Mr. Shah should
have been upholding the law rather than dodging summons and delaying the
inevitable arrest.

It is common knowledge that the CBI has often
been pressured and put to political uses, especially by the Congress or
Congress-led regimes at the Centre. But in this case, the agency was
directed to take up the investigation by the Supreme Court, which has
been closely monitoring the progress. Under these circumstances, the
BJP’s allegation that Mr. Modi and his government are being politically
targeted lacks credibility. More importantly, such allegations deflect
attention from the central issue: the need to unravel the full truth
about these extra-constitutional killings. To cover up the atrocity,
some Gujarat police officers falsely claimed at one point that
Sohrabuddin was a Lashkar-e-Taiba operative. What is germane here is not
what he was but the fact that he as well as his wife were murdered in
cold blood by those entrusted with the duty of enforcing the law.

Fake
encounters – which have been strongly alleged in the case of the
killings of 19-year-old student Ishrat Jahan and three others and more
recently of CPI (Maoist) leader Cherukuri Rajkumar (alias Azad) in
Andhra Pradesh – controvert the very principles on which the criminal
justice system rests. The idea that the security forces can liquidate
people so as to sidestep the demanding legal process is abhorrent and
has absolutely no place in a civilised society.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/27/stories/2010072752690800.htm

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Acid test for Modi – Editorial (Jul 26, 2010, The Tribune)

There is no mistaking the fact that the charges of murder, extortion,
abduction and criminal conspiracy filed by the CBI against Gujarat’s
just-resigned Minister of State for Home Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin
Sheikh fake encounter case will have far-reaching political
consequences. The Congress, which has been in the wilderness in Gujarat
for long, is banking on this case to settle scores with the
controversial but charismatic Chief Minister Narendra Modi whose protege
Shah is. The party reckons that while the Sohrabuddin case will drag on
in courts for years, it will put an end to Modi’s dream of making it
big in Central politics. The BJP in turn has gone on the offensive,
hoping to make a martyr out of Amit Shah by projecting him as a victim
of CBI’s hounding at the behest of the Congress. Mr Modi’s comment to
the media in New Delhi on Saturday that "there is an atmosphere of war
against the state" is a signal that he is preparing to play his
long-tested ‘Gujarati pride’ card.

Since Amit Shah has been one of
Narendra Modi’s closest associates, it would be difficult for Modi to
stave off a sense of outrage particularly in the intelligentsia across
the country. Predictably, Left and the non-UPA parties would distance
themselves from the BJP in the ensuing Parliament session on the
Sohrabuddin issue and that would hit the index of Opposition unity,
which cannot but be a comforting thought for the Congress. But, at the
State level the Congress in Gujarat is so weak that it may fail to
capitalize on the issue against the demagoguery of Modi.

Another
key aspect of the politics of the case is that the CBI itself has
pointed out in the chargesheet against Amit Shah that Sohrabuddin was an
extortionist. To that the BJP has added that he was a Lashkar e Tayiba
operative. This could give the party a handle to beat the Congress with
in seeking to justify the fake encounter as a necessary evil. While this
may cut some ice in communally-polarized Gujarat, it is unlikely to
make much of an impression in the rest of the country. All in all, a
fresh round of dirty politics lies ahead.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100726/edit.htm#1

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Militant route to Hindu Rashtra – By Venkitesh Ramakrishnan (Jul 31, 2010, Frontline)

The recent revelations about Hindutva terror strikes in various parts
of the country have added a new dimension to the political and
organizational crisis faced currently by the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh
(RSS)-led Sangh Parivar. A senior Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader
with a penchant for flaunting Marxian terminology in his individual
interactions described the situation as follows: "For the past five
years or so the RSS has tried to develop concrete organisational
mechanisms to fight revisionism in the ranks of different Sangh Parivar
organisations, particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But the
revelations in these so-called Hindutva terror cases do indicate that
the Sangh Parivar as a whole needs to keep a watch on sectarian
tendencies too in a section of the rank and file. That has indeed added
to the burden of our tasks in the short, medium and long term." The VHP
leader’s assessment is at variance with the official statements of the
Sangh Parivar leadership on the Hindutva terror cases ranging from the
Malegaon blasts of 2006 to the Goa blasts of 2009. Leaders of the
various outfits of the Hindutva combine, including RSS sarsanghchalak
Mohan Madhukar Bhagwat and BJP spokesperson Ravishankar Prasad, have
maintained that the Sangh Parivar has nothing do with any of the terror
attacks. Both Bhagwat and Prasad went to the extent of stating that
Congress governments at the Centre and in many States had falsely
implicated Sangh Parivar activists in these cases as part of a
"deliberate and malicious political ploy" to equate Hindutva
organisations with jehadi outfits.

This difference in the public
postures of the RSS and BJP top brass with the privately expressed
assessment of the Sangh Parivar leadership comes as no surprise to
observers of the Sangh Parivar’s political and organisational methods.
The art of multi-speak is built into the very structure of the Sangh
Parivar. The different outfits and their leadership have practised this
as an effective tool in their political and organisational strategy
since the mid-1980s, the period when the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation in
Ayodhya peaked. The strategy was put to telling use during the lead-up
to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992, when the then
BJP government of Kalyan Singh in Uttar Pradesh promised to protect the
structure and then feigned helplessness as armed kar sevaks of the Sangh
Parivar demolished the masjid. The so-called extremist wings of the
Sangh Parivar, such as the VHP, then claimed victory in the demolition
while some BJP leaders, including Lal Krishna Advani, maintained that
they were saddened by it. The multi-speak has generally been nuanced and
orchestrated, but there have been occasions when the expression of
divergent opinions has gone out of its structured parameters. Such
"straying" has happened even on the question of sectarian influences
within the Hindutva combine. One striking example of this can be found
in the letter written by B.L. Sharma alias Prem to Advani in 1997, when
he resigned as the BJP’s Lok Sabha member from East Delhi. Sharma
accused the BJP of forsaking the core principles of the Sangh Parivar
and seeking power through unacceptable compromises, even with
pro-Islamic elements. Sharma went on to visualise deliverance to the
Hindu community through an insurrection in the armed forces.

Similarly,
the VHP’s current international general secretary, Pravin Togadia, made
bold in 2001 to criticise the internal security policies of then
BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government at the Centre. In
the wake of the attack on Parliament House in December 2001, Togadia
announced at a VHP conclave in Mathura that the organisation would form
groups of vigilantes across the country to keep tabs on suspicious
activities and people on the lines of the civil society vigilantism
Israel practises with the active collaboration of Mossad, its
intelligence agency. Sharma’s proposal of "army intervention" or
Togadia’s Mossad-style civil society vigilantism was never formally
followed up by the Sangh Parivar. However, these ideas find expression
in the activities of the Hindutva terror groups. Investigations by
national and State-level agencies into the activities of organisations
such as Abhinav Bharat, the Rashtriya Jagran Manch and Sanatan Sanstha
reveal that former or serving army officers, fascinated by the ideology
of Hindutva, have played a major part in rearing and organising these
outfits. The organisations and their leaders, such as Major Ramesh
Upadhyay (retd), Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit and Swami Dayanand
Pandey, have also tried to promote civil society vigilantism as
propagated by Togadia. Investigation records show that they actually
cultivated international organisations with Israeli and other
connections.

A key piece of evidence in this regard came through
the recordings in Swami Dayanand Pandey’s laptop. The recordings
revealed not only the planning that went into the 2008 Malegaon blasts
but also the fact that Abhinav Bharat’s leadership was in talks with
groups based in Nepal and Israel to achieve the goal of establishing a
"pure" Hindu Rashtra. Obviously, none of this was sanctioned formally by
the Sangh Parivar or its leadership. But the fact remains that these
groups were inspired by and were literally following some of the ideas
raised by some senior Sangh Parivar leaders. The VHP leader who admitted
to the presence of "sectarian tendencies" came up with some reasoning
too. In his view, a number of "revisionist" ideological aberrations had
contributed greatly to the rise of these tendencies. Hence, the Sangh
Parivar’s primary battle in this regard should be against the root
cause, he opined. For many VHP leaders, all the problems that have come
to afflict the Sangh Parivar, especially the BJP, arose during the
six-year stint in power from 1998 to 2004. The VHP leader said these
years and the run-up to them marked a phase of compromises on issues
relating to ideology and political practice, such as the construction of
a Ram temple in Ayodhya, abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution,
and advocacy of a uniform civil code.� In fact, the VHP has
consistently highlighted the issue of corruption within other
organisations, especially the BJP, in the Hindutva combine. VHP leaders
such as Togadia have been openly critical of even Gujarat Chief Minister
Narendra Modi, who is widely considered to be an aggressive Hindutva
leader on account of the 2002 genocide against Muslims in the State.
Modi is rated by Togadia and his supporters as a person who has
compromised with industrialists and big business houses. Leaders such as
Togadia and Ashok Singhal have stated repeatedly that the political
philosophy of Hindutva is aimed at helping the "conventionally meek
Hindu community to overcome this meekness and match it with the
aggression of minority communities like Muslims". Togadia holds the view
that "when leaders of Hindutva organisations give up this historical
position, we have no option but to oppose it". Clearly, the hard-line
Hindutva positions of leaders like Togadia, too, have encouraged the
adventurism of those like Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Shrikant
Purohit.

Significantly, in 2004, a document aimed at correcting
ideological aberrations was formulated under the direction of the RSS
and presented at the Mumbai national executive of the BJP, held from
June 22 to June 24, 2004. That 42-page document, titled "Tasks Ahead:
Immediate and Long-Term", claimed to have formulated "the main tasks
before the party in fulfilment of its resolve to re-energise itself in a
comprehensive manner, in order to be able to successfully deal with
both the immediate and long-term challenges before the party". The
thrust of this document, too, was on correcting the so-called
revisionist tendencies. There was no mention at all of possible
extremist or sectarian deviations from the Hindutva cadre and
leadership.� The document went on to state that there had been "an
erosion of commitment" to the principles of collective leadership,
cooperation and commitment at various levels of the party.
"Individualism, lack of consultation and coordination, and absence of
camaraderie are taking root, diluting the effectiveness of the party’s
activities." It also said that there was a "rapidly gathering impression
that acts of indiscipline will be condoned and that even serious cases
of anti-party activities will be overlooked" and that this "has done
immense damage to the health of our organisation". The document pointed
out that promoting individual commitments within the party at the cost
of larger political and ideological interests had become widespread and
that this had encouraged negative tendencies such as sycophancy,
nepotism and corruption.� However, the widespread impression within the
rank and file of various Sangh Parivar organisations and among serious
observers of the Parivar is that even top leaders of the RSS, including
sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat, will not be able to give Gadkari too long a
rope. "The context created by the revelations about the so-called
Hindutva terror attacks and the extremist tendencies they signify
underscore this impression," said Lucknow-based political analyst Indra
Bhushan Singh. He is of the view that the present context makes it
imperative for Gadkari to act fast, at least to create the impression
that he is taking steps to advance the interests of the saffron party
politically and organisationally. This would essentially involve an
assertion of Hindutva in one way or the other. In actual terms, says
Indra Bhushan Singh, this will be directed more against the so-called
revisionist tendencies, highlighted both by the VHP leader and in the
2004 document, and less against the so-called sectarian tendencies,
which in a way are only a continuation of the original thrust of
Hindutva politics.

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2716/stories/20100813271600400.htm

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Mines and Ministers – By Ravi Sharma (Jul 31, 2010, Frontline)

Troubles have haunted Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa ever
since he led the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to its first major
political victory south of the Vindhyas in 2008. The leader, who has
spent over 35 of his 40 years in public life on the Opposition benches,
is finding it a lot more difficult to run a government even with a good
working majority. In October 2009, dissident activities from a section
of the party legislators, spearheaded by the influential Reddy brothers
of Bellary, almost toppled him. He shed tears in public, yielded to
pressure and reached a compromise to stave off the crisis. Yeddyurappa’s
battle of one-upmanship with the Reddy brothers – G. Janardhana Reddy
(Tourism Minister), G. Karunakara Reddy (Revenue Minister) and G.
Somashekara Reddy (a Member of the Legislative Assembly) – and their
confidant, Health Minister B. Sriramulu – is no secret. That he is
powerless to rein in the brothers, who enjoy a huge political clout and
are financially powerful, is also no secret. The Opposition parties have
called illegal mining of minerals in Karnataka "the biggest scam of the
century" and demanded a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry
and the removal of the Reddy brothers, who are facing charges of illegal
mining, and Sriramulu from the Cabinet. Yeddyurappa gave a clean chit
to the brothers claiming that there was no evidence against them and
even ruled out their removal from the Cabinet. The timing of the defence
of the iron-ore barons is ironical since on July 19 the State
government issued a notification directing the Karnataka Lokayukta
(ombudsman), Justice N. Santosh Hegde, to inquire into the allegations
of illegal mining and the export of iron ore between 2000 and July
2010.The latest challenge before the Yeddyurappa government is the
illegal extraction and transportation of iron ore contravening forest
rules, and its export, mainly to China, through ports in Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Goa. That the Bellary mining lobby has in
recent years been dictating the direction of politics in Karnataka is
obvious, but under the BJP government its power and reach has become
more overt. It has also been instrumental in "disturbing" the markings
of the Bellary Reserve Forest and the boundary of two ore-rich villages
that lie on either side of the Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh boundary.
Further, the lobby, which stands accused of intimidation or finding its
way out of every statutory requirement of the Forest, and Mines and
Geology Departments, is also alleged to have staffed the district’s
administration with officers loyal to it. A senior forest official who
has knowledge of the illegal mining activities said: "It is very
difficult to mark the area accurately, whatever is done can only be a
compromise. Field notebooks of the survey numbers concerned are there,
but many are incomplete. Also, while the outer boundary of the
particular survey number is there, the internal markings indicating
which reserve forest land or village/revenue land can be mined is not
available. This has helped the mafia to mine illegally. We have to
re-establish the boundary with either the help of the British survey map
of the region drawn in 1896 or the topography sheet of the mid-1970s.
Once the Survey of India demarcates the boundary, we can find out where
the encroachments are."

Officials in the Survey of India say that
they can demarcate a boundary only as per the drawings provided to them
by the Revenue Department. According to them, revenue records in areas
where mining is done on the Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh border are either
missing or are vague or predate the formation of the States or, worse
still, are doctored. They say that in many areas a ridge line indicating
the border is no longer visible on the ground since the ridge itself
has disappeared thanks to illegal mining. Can the BJP afford to
antagonise the Reddy brothers, who are believed to have bankrolled the
campaign of a few BJP legislators in the May 2008 election, especially
those from the districts of Bellary (where the BJP won eight of the nine
seats), Raichur and Koppal, and even further afield in Bagalkot and
Chitradurga. While it is true that the Reddys and Sriramulu neither own
nor operate any mines in Karnataka (they do own four mines in Andhra
Pradesh), their meteoric rise both politically and financially has
raised questions about conflict of interest. During the much-touted
Global Investors Meet in May, the biggest project (worth Rs.35,000
crore) to be cleared was that of the Reddys. A company owned by them
plans to set up a steel and power plant with a capacity of six million
tonnes per annum in Bellary district. It will be bigger than Mittal
Steel or Posco’s Precious Limited. Janardhana Reddy sees no conflict of
interest in pursuing his mining interests and his ministerial duties. He
even cites a Supreme Court ruling, which he claims supports his stand.
But Governor Hans Raj Bhardwaj certainly does not agree. On receipt of a
complaint from Congress legislator K.C. Kondiah seeking
disqualification of the Reddy brothers and Sriramulu from the Cabinet
for conflict of interest, Bhardwaj sent a notice to them seeking
explanation.

The Reddys did not turn up at the Raj Bhavan and
instead sent their advocate, who failed to convince the Governor.
Bhardwaj then referred the complaint to the Election Commission (E.C.),
explaining that under both the Constitution and the Mining and Minerals
Regulation Act no Minister could use his office to make competitive
profits. The E.C. has issued a 150-page notice to the Reddys asking for
an explanation. The latest round of troubles for Yeddyurappa began on
June 23 when Santosh Hegde resigned from his post (14 months before
completing his term), accusing the government of being indifferent to
the Lokayukta institution. He cited a series of reasons for his
resignation – the government not heeding his plea to fill up the post of
Upa Lokayukta, its inaction over his report (submitted in December
2009) on illegal mining and the Chief Minister reneging on his assurance
that officers suspended on the Lokayukta’s recommendation would not be
reinstated. The last straw, he said, was a Minister’s recommendation to
suspend one of his "honest" officers. On July 3, at the intervention of
senior BJP leader L.K. Advani, Hegde withdrew his resignation. In
January, during a tour of Karwar, Hegde had received complaints from the
public about illegal mining. He asked one of his senior officers to
investigate the matter. In the last week of February, the officer
conducted raids and seized 99 trucks with illegally mined ore and 40
sacks of forged documents near the Belekere port. The Lokayukta informed
the Mines and Geology Department of the seizure, but no action was
forthcoming.

Hegde then asked the Deputy Forest Officer of Karwar,
R. Gokul, to seize the ore from the Belekere port and file a first
information report. The forest officer, during his raid, found that 8.5
lakh tonnes of ore, purchased for export by 11 companies, had arrived at
the port without valid permits. The companies filed a writ petition in
the High Court questioning the seizure. But even as the High Court was
deciding on the matter, around 6 lakh tonnes of ore was shipped out.
Strangely, Minister of Ports and Ecology Krishna Palemar suggested that
Gokul be placed under suspension. This angered the Lokayukta, and he
submitted his resignation. Under pressure, the State government on July
10, within a week after Hegde withdrew his resignation, granted suo motu
powers to the Lokayukta to investigate all cases of corruption,
favouritism and nepotism involving public servants. Earlier, the
Lokayukta had lacked suo motu powers to investigate bureaucrats earning a
monthly salary of Rs.20,000 or more. But the government stayed short of
equipping the Lokayukta with suo motu powers to investigate the
administrative misconduct by the political class, including the Chief
Minister, Cabinet Ministers, legislators, and chairmen and members of
boards, corporations, government companies and cooperative societies
nominated by it. Hegde’s resignation catapulted the illegal mining issue
to centre stage and galvanised the Opposition and, interestingly, the
Governor to take on the illegal mining lobby. Bhardwaj, after calling on
President Pratibha Patil, told journalists that he had, without naming
the Reddy brothers and Sriramulu, asked Yeddyurappa to take action
against three Ministers who were indulging in illegal mining and
amassing huge profits. The Governor said: "It is a big issue of
integrity and probity of those in high office. The Chief Minister is a
person who realises the problem. I told him to take action against them.
He said he was aware that natural resources were being looted but that
he needed time." Bhardwaj also called on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
and Home Minister P. Chidambaram and apprised them of the illegal mining
activities in Karnataka.

Although the Governor defended his
decision to make an issue of illegal mining saying that his
constitutional obligations compelled him to draw the attention of the
Central authorities, many constitutional experts call it a case of
gubernatorial overreach and impropriety. The BJP was quick to react to
Bhardwaj’s "interference". It accused the Governor, who is a
self-confessed Congress loyalist, of trying to "destabilise a
democratically elected government at the behest of his Congress
masters". Yeddyurappa’s attempt to stonewall the demand by the Congress
and the Janata Dal (Secular) for a CBI inquiry created unruly scenes in
the Assembly. BJP and Congress members virtually came to blows, and for
five days and four nights, the Opposition staged a protest inside the
Assembly. The MLAs climbed on tables and slept in the well of the House
and under the treasury and Opposition benches, munched biscuits, ate
biryani and sipped cups of tea. The Congress plans to organise a 320-km
march from Bangalore to Bellary to expose illegal mining. The monsoon
session of the legislature was curtailed as the Opposition did not take
part in the proceedings. Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister S.
Suresh Kumar lamented that 18 pieces of legislation and a budget of over
Rs.70,000 crore were approved without the participation of some
legislators. The Opposition says it will not rest until a CBI probe is
ordered. Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee president R.V. Deshpande
said: "We have full faith in the Lokayukta. But even after the farcical
recent amendments to the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, it does not allow the
Lokayukta to take suo motu action against Ministers/legislators. Also,
with Yeddyurappa admitting that the export of illegal ore took place
from ports even outside Karnataka, what jurisdiction does the Lokayukta
have to go there? Can he go abroad? And, as per the recent amendments,
the Lokayukta will have to seek the State government’s permission before
he approaches any Central agencies for help. Given this situation, how
can there be a fair inquiry?" Deshpande does not agree that a CBI probe
into the illegal mining activities would meet the same fate as a similar
probe conducted in Andhra Pradesh, which has made no progress even
after seven months.

http://flonnet.com/fl2716/stories/20100813271602600.htm

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

A Stitch In Time Saves Nine – By Amitabh Thakur (Jul 7, 2010, Countercurrents)

29th June 2010 must be considered an important day in the history of
Indian judicial system. Not that some new law was promulgated on that
day nor was any new judicial body set up. There was not even a major
judicial structural change as well. Yet, what happened that day is
something that would go a long way in restoring our faith in Indian
socio-political structure. At the same time, it would help redeem the
respect of Indian populace for our judicial system. It is on this date
that in Kandhamal district Orissa in, an important judgment was
delivered that went on to sentence the powerful local politician and MLA
from an important political party in matters related with communal
riots. What is even more heartening is that the judgment was delivered
by a fast-track court within a span of 2 years of the happening of the
incidence. Manoj Pradhan, the influential leader of Kandhamal and a
present-time MLA was supposed to be close to Swami Laxmanananda. It was
August 2008 that the murder of an important Hindu religious leader Swami
Laxmanananda Saraswati and four of his aides had trigged a massive and
highly damaging riot which went on for days (which has been alleged by
many as being a result of the deliberate laxity on the government’s
part). The end result was what always happens in every riotous
situations- the poor and the have-nots bore the brunt of the attack.
While thousands of Christians were forced to leave their houses, the
heat was equally felt by the poor Hindu tribal communities. It is
alleged that Manoj Pradhan played a major role in instigating the riots
and led it from the front, taking part in arson, murder and other
heinous offences during the riots. Pradhan later got arrested and
subsequently got his bail.

Meanwhile the matter came for trial
before the Fast Court Track in Kandhamal district. Nearly two dozen
cases were registered in different police stations in that period. In
fact 17 cases were registered against Manoj Pradhan himself. So far
decision in 12 cases related to him have come and he has been absolved
in 11 of them. In the latest judgment he has been found guilty along
with Pafulla Mallik and 14 others on charges of rioting, causing
grievous hurt by dangerous weapons and arson. They have been given 7
years of rigorous imprisonment each. Thus five cases are still pending
before him. The judgment has been received by different people in
different ways. There is a group that says that the punishment has been
too less and lenient considering the heinous nature of the crime. They
would have been satisfied if the maximum prescribed punishment were
imposed on the accused. The other group has an exactly opposite view and
openly claim that Manoj Pradhan was falsely implicated in the matter
and he is completely innocent. They say that an appeal will be made in
the Orissa High Court which shall help bring forth the truth. There are
also the sufferers and the poor people who are too frightened to
articulate any opinion in any way and for whom the only thing that
matters is that such things don’t repeat again.

For a person like
me and you, it would neither be prudent nor legal to comment on the
judgment per se and give our own opinion, it still being in the judicial
process. But one thing that really gives me immense satisfaction is the
fact that justice (whether as acquittals or as convictions) is being
delivered in these cases in a relatively fast manner, that too
considering the fact that this is a highly contentious, political and
religiously charged and emotive issue. "Justice delayed is justice
denied" they say but due to so many reasons this is exactly what is
happening in our country in many cases. Look at the SPS Rathode case in
Haryana. In incidence took place in 1990 and the judgment was delivered
in 2010. What meanings do such judgments have for all the concerned
parties? Many a times the accused and the victim are dead and gone, at
other times they are too old, helpless or weak as to suffer or rejoice
the verdict. In short, it becomes a mere mockery and some kind of
ritual. I recently read of a judgment related with Shibu Soren, the
ex-Chief Minister of Jharkhand who was found not guilty in a murder case
that related to late 1970s. So after more than 30 years it is found
that Shibu Soren had not caused that murder. What relevance does such
judgements have- in the eyes of the public, for the accused, for the
victims, for the prosecution and even for the Judge who is delivering
it?

What even pains more is that even Judiciary seems to have got
affected by the Media bug or the Media pressure. An apt example would
again be the same Ruchika case, where after 19 years, 40 adjournments,
and more than 400 hearings, the court finally pronounced Rathore guilty
under Section 354 IPC (molestation) and sentenced him to six months
imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000. But the moment there was a huge
uproar across the Nation, another Court could deliver the judgment in
less than 6 months sentencing him to one and a half years of rigorous
imprisonment. But to me, the Kandhamal case carries much more importance
than Ruchika and Jessica Lal and all such cases because these are the
crimes that are related with individuals while a riot is one which the
general public has to face and suffer. Thus a judgment in one of the
crimes related with riots has a much higher relevance and impetus to the
masses and has much more message to convey. In such circumstances, if
the crimes related with riots (religious, political, caste-based etc)
are not decided in a swift manner, it gives a very bad message to the
society and acts as a huge bolster to the other rioters. If there is not
enough evidence against a person, leave him/her for good.

Otherwise
convict the person to the equitable punishment that seems to be
deserving. But to choose a middle path (which Lord Buddha would never
have advocated) of lingering the matter for years in nothing but akin to
becoming a party to the crime itself. If a Sikh riot of 1984, the
Ayodhya events of 1992 or the Gujarat riots of 1992 are still pending in
Courts, with no near chances of their getting decided (either way) then
don’t they act as potential precursors of future riots, giving such
criminal mindsets an example to emulate and follow? I sincerely believe
that judgments in all such riot related matters must be delivered in a
timely manner and swift (and correct) decisions must be arrived at in
the minimum possible time, even at the cost of some criticism here and
there (which any judicial pronouncement is bound to face anyway, because
of vested interests and varying perspectives).

http://www.countercurrents.org/thakur070710.htm

SEE ALSO:

[Back to Top]

Related posts:

  1. IMC-USA Weekly News Digest – August 9th, 2010
  2. IMC-USA Weekly News Digest – August 16th, 2010
  3. IMC-USA Weekly News Digest – August 23rd, 2010
  4. IMC-USA Weekly News Digest – August 30th, 2010
  5. IMC-USA Weekly News Digest – August 3rd, 2009

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: