Saturday, May 31, 2014

India gets a new hero, a new ideology - By Bobby Naqvi - GULF NEWS

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/india-gets-a-new-hero-a-new-ideology-1.1338302

India gets a new hero, a new ideology

The ‘Muslim’ attacks on Parliament, Godhra and Akshardham temple led to the emergence of a Hindu right. The hero of this political story was Modi


  • By Bobby Naqvi | Special to Gulf News

  • Published: 16:53 May 25, 2014
  • Gulf News


When a democracy makes an ideological shift towards the right, there are three likely outcomes: a majoritarian election verdict, or a reduced representation of minorities, or both, each posing a threat to the nation’s social fabric. On May 16, India elected Hindu nationalist leader Narendra Modi, a first for his right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party to get majority on its own since independence. Also a first, Muslims have lowest representation in Parliament, only 4.05 per cent of 543 members are from this community that accounts for 150 million in a nation of 1.25 billion. The state of Uttar Pradesh that elects 80 lawmakers and has highest concentration of Muslims, has no Muslim member. Moreover, 21 states and union territories have not elected a single Muslim.


It is important to understand how a right-wing party won a landslide victory in India where secularism and inclusiveness are enshrined in the constitution. Emergence of a new political ideology is a historic moment and the crowning of a king is a culmination of a long, slow and gradual process — a churning that often goes undetected and unnoticed for years. Similarly, marginalisation of a community does not happen overnight, it takes years. It takes a sustained campaign and a protracted vilification.


On September 24, 2002, two gunmen jumped the fence of Akshardham, a pink sandstone monument in Gandhinagar, and opened fire. The temple complex, an architectural marvel dedicated to a 17th century revered Hindu saint Swaminarayan, was soon surrounded by police and commandos. In a battle lasting over 12 hours, the two gunmen killed 30 and injured 80 others, including 27 cops and two commandos. The gunmen, found dead behind a bush, were later identified as Murtuza Hafiz Yasin and Ashraf Ali Mohammed Farooq. India was outraged, it was an attack on one of the most popular Hindu temples in northern India. Modi, who was the chief minister of Gujarat, and India’s home minister L. K. Advani next morning posed before the bodies of the two assailants. They sent a clear signal, India will deal with terrorism with an iron hand and a steely resolve. Soon, Gujarat police arrested six people, promptly identified them — all Muslims — and swiftly charged them under a draconian Prevention of Terrorist Act or Pota, a law enacted by Advani.

Their names were published by the media even before a trial began. In July 2006, a court condemned three to death and others got life sentence, a fitting climax to a dastardly act that shook the nation.

Akshardham was preceded by attack on Parliament in December 2001 and the burning of Sabarmati Express train in February 2002 in which 59 Hindu pilgrims were killed in Gujarat’s Godhra town. All these attacks happened under the rule of a coalition led by Modi’s BJP. In all these incidents, Indian state acted swiftly and resolutely — immediate arrests, draconian charges, a swift trial and harsh sentences. After all, these attacks had shaken India’s conscience.



While these attacks were different in nature and form, prosecution and sentencing of suspects in all these cases followed a similar trajectory. In the Parliament case, four suspects — again all Muslims — were arrested, charged and sentenced in a record six months. Three suspects, including a university lecturer, were sentenced to death and the fourth, a woman was acquitted of terrorism. A higher court later discharged the lecturer and the woman, a verdict challenged in India’s Supreme Court which upheld the acquittal and commuted the death sentence of the third. However, in a controversial ruling, the Supreme Court said: “…there is and could be no direct evidence amounting to criminal conspiracy. The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.” One offender, Afzal Guru was hanged in secrecy last year. He maintained his innocence.


In Godhra, a court in 2011 convicted 31 suspects and acquitted 63 others, all Muslims. The court accepted the prosecution’s argument that the burning of the train was a terror conspiracy, a theory first coined by Modi but widely contested by many who said it was an act of spontaneous violence. Ironically, while accepting the terror conspiracy angle, the judge acquitted two people prosecution said were main conspirators – cleric Maulana Umarji and politician Bilal Hussain Kalota.


Around the time these attacks by Muslim ‘conspirators’ happened, by coincidence or by design, a new political story was being scripted, a new political idea was being formed, a new leader was capturing the imagination of Indians. The ‘Muslim’ attacks on Parliament, Godhra and Akshardham temple had led to the emergence of a Hindu right. A nationalist sentiment had begun to sweep India. The hero of this political story was Modi, the new poster boy of the Hindu right. The villain always was the Muslim ‘terrorists’. The media played a major role in this story, promptly splashing names of Muslim suspects on the front pages and on TV after every attack. Never mind these were just suspects, not yet tried in a court of law. Overnight, Muslims of various social and economic backgrounds were becoming ‘terrorists’. Poor vendors, petty criminals, engineers, small time politicians, mosque imams were labelled as terrorists. By extension, an entire community was coming under suspicion, an entire community was becoming the enemy of India.


After winning state elections in 2002, 2007 and again in 2012, the hero made a natural progression from state to national politics and catapulted himself to the centre stage of Indian politics. Today, he will become India’s 15th prime minister, a perfect ending to a carefully crafted script. However, even a perfect script can have unexpected turns and twists. On May 16 when elections results were announced, India’s Supreme Court read out a verdict that in any other society would potentially destroy tall edifices. Not here though. The court acquitted all the six Muslims who were convicted in Akshardham temple attack case. Remember, the six included three who were sentenced to death by a court in Gujarat. The verdict slammed investigators and prosecutors. It was Modi who had approved their prosecution.


The media in general ignored this verdict. After all, on such a historic day, acquittal of six Muslims is only a minor detail. We Indians love happy endings, our cinema industry thrives on films ending with hero’s victory over the villain. So how could this story be any different? On Tuesday, a day after his release, one of the six Muslim suspects, Mohammed Saleem, told Indian Express that Gujarat police had given him the “choice” of being implicated in Godhra, Akshardham or Haren Pandya murder case. Pandya, a minister and political rival of Modi was murdered in 2003. His wife accused Modi government for his killing. Saleem’s chilling statement and the disturbing fact that six innocent Muslims spent 11 years in jail can, at best, be part of an insignificant epilogue, certainly not the story itself.


Journalist Ashish Khetan, who investigated Godhra tragedy, wrote: “What happened to the Sabarmati Express on 27 February 2002 will always be a blot on the nation’s conscience… That there was a conspiracy afoot in Gujarat those years is undoubtable. But as this story shows, it was a conspiracy of a different kind… a conspiracy by State machinery to blacken one community’s name. And declare them the enemy.”


Today, India has elected a strong leader. Never mind we Indians are clueless who conspired to attack Akshardham, who planned Godhra or who are the masterminds of Parliament attack. The march of the victor has begun and India has a happy ending.


Bobby Naqvi is the Editor of XPRESS, a sister publication of Gulf News.


----- ----- ----- ----- ----

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

ALL INDIA MUSLIM ELECTION COUNCIL

ALL INDIA MUSLIM ELECTION COUNCIL

This is in response to Mr. Mohammed Adeeb's message posted by Mr. Pasha Patel on NRIndian google group.



Wednesday, May 28, 2014


Friends, ASAK


Mr. Muhammad Adeeb's very timely and emotional account of despair should come out with some positive steps if we focus on unity and a non-self-appointed leadership.

I propose a democratic organizing of the 25 crore Indian Muslims, or at least the registered Muslim voters, as per records with the Election Commission.

An 'ALL-INDIA MUSLIM ELECTION COUNCIL’ be formed, preferably by  young Muslim IT professionals, granting all Muslims an open membership of the Council --- on one person one vote basis.

Let all Muslim registered voters be listed on an open publicly available data-bank.

The choice of  IT based organisation is to save cost, opt for transparency and usher in young blood into the mainstream of political mobilization.

The Council shall have conveners at all block level constituencies, who will first monitor the membership registration drive. A FREE membership, like AAP membership, is promoted, though by definition all Indian Muslims will be considered general members of the Council.

With the help of our internet resources, we can have nationwide referendum, to elect National Executive members. That exercise should cut across all existing leadership conglomerates and open a real democratic opening to a new leadership based on local grass-root mobilization.

All convening team members of the Council, would pledge to be neutral and not be partial to any stakeholders for leadership team.
Widest numbers of National Executive membership aspirants would be encouraged to place their names for being voted by the membership.

That National Executive elections are not held till at least a sizable percentage of members is registered on the Council Website and are fully identifiable and verifiable.

The IT team should be highly motivated and committed to the idea of forming a democratic leadership of 25 Crore Indian Muslims that may eventually take up the mobilization of a political cadre as well as aspirants of elected posts.

Those who are interested, may as a start contact me at the following address and contact numbers with preferably their contact details.
It may be clear from the outset, that we will not form a Muslim Political Party. Instead we will encourage forming a Muslim led secular party that will be most inclusive.

Sincerely,

Ghulam Muhammed Siddiqui

IDRAAK / MASHWARA

Temporary internet contact: <ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

601, Seacroft, Shirly Rajan Road,

Bandra West

Mumbai - 400050 . INDIA

Phone: 918286930388


 
===== ==== ==== ==== ====

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Forget Kejriwal - By Gautam Bhatia - Outlookindia.com

Kejriwal is fighting for an issue much bigger than Kejriwal
outlookindia.com

Forget Kejriwal

It's not about AAP but about a law that allows a man to be put in prison because he called a politician “corrupt”. The debate about India’s criminal defamation laws is long overdue.

Web | 23 May 2014

Gautam Bhatia

Should an open, democratic society jail people for what they speak or write? Ultimately, it is that issue which we must confront in the wake of Arvind Kejriwal’s recent imprisonment. While the immediate cause for his being dispatched to Tihar Jail under judicial custody was his refusal to pay a bail bond, we must not lose sight of the fact that this case arose, ultimately, because a political opponent took exception to being called “corrupt”, in public. And the case was made possible because of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 499 defines “defamation” to include statements written or published, that are made with the intention of harming the reputation of an individual, or with the knowledge that they are likely to harm his reputation. Section 500 prescribes the punishment for defamation to be imprisonment for two years, or a fine, or both.

Defamation is one of the few offences that find a place both in civil law and in criminal law. If you defame me, I can sue you and claim compensation for my injured reputation. If the Court finds that you have indeed defamed me, it will order you to recompense me. This is defamation in its civil law form. If, on the other hand, I file a criminal case against you, then Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC get involved and the consequence— as we have seen above— can be imprisonment.

Yet why should the same act be subject to two different penalties under two separate legal regimes? The answer is that when defamation was first established as an offence, many hundred years ago in England, the two remedies served two distinct purposes. Defamation as a civil offence was meant to compensate a person for the loss that he might have suffered due to his damaged reputation in his community. Defamation as a crime, on the other hand, was closely linked to the propensity of defamatory statements to cause a breach of the peace, or of public order. Notably, it was not necessary to demonstrate that a particular statement had indeed caused a breach of the peace, or led to violence. If, in the opinion of the Court, it had a general tendency towards threatening public order, that was enough to impose criminal penalties.

We have come a long way since the days of 18th century England, and it is abundantly clear now that criminal defamation laws are an anachronism. After a disastrous experiment with criminalizing “seditious libel” in the 1790s, the United States has never gone back to that position. Defamation exists, but as a civil wrong, and under strictly circumscribed conditions, which are designed to avoid stifling free speech. The very country of its birth, Britain, expressly passed a law to abolish it in 2009. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights called criminalizing peaceful expression as one of the most reprehensible practices employed to silence people and… a serious violation of human rights.”

There are at least three good reasons why criminal defamation laws are arguably unconstitutional. Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions upon this right, in relation to— among other things— defamation. A reasonable restriction must, at the very least, achieve a degree of proportionality between the degree to which speech is being restricted, and the goal that is sought to be achieved. It is difficult to see how, when civil remedies are already available, imprisoning people for what they might speak or write, is a proportional remedy. 

Unlike a civil suit, a criminal prosecution has the potential of directly depriving a person of their liberty. Furthermore, unlike a civil suit, a criminal prosecution places upon the accused a mark of public disapproval and social stigma that sticks for life. One only has to look at the frequently expressed concern about the number of parliamentarians accused of crimes, to see how true this is. Lastly, there is a broader concern with criminal defamation that goes beyond the case of Kejriwal: it is a particularly potent weapon to silence independent and critical journalism. A civil defamation suit will often be directed at newspapers, which have deeper pockets, and will often be able to settle a case without financial ruin. A criminal case directly attacks the writer, and threatens him with imprisonment or a heavy fine. Consequently, criminal defamation laws are far more likely to cast a chilling effect on speech, leading to self-censorship, than civil laws. When we place this in the context of the importance of free speech to any functioning democracy, as a tool of dissent and critique, something our Supreme Court has held many times, it is difficult to see how criminalizing defamation is a “reasonable” restriction upon our Article 19(1)(a) rights.

Secondly, one historic exception to criminal defamation laws, in pre-democratic England, was parliamentary privilege. Parliamentarians were exempted because it was felt that the public interest in having free and unfettered discussion, without threat of prosecution, among the lawmakers, was vital to the functioning of the State. This view, however, rests upon a notion in which the supreme authority within a polity rested in the body of the Parliament. Free speech was restricted to the proceedings of the parliament in the belief that effective governance ought not to be impeded. That theory, however, was superseded when we adopted a democratic Constitution after our independence. Under a democracy, ultimate governing authority lies not in Parliament, but in the people. Consequently, insofar as free speech is to be protected because of its governing importance, that protection must no longer be restricted to Parliament, but extended to the people as a whole. If, then, criminal defamation was inapplicable to Parliament, for the reasons described above, there is good reason now to hold it inapplicable at large, in a democracy.

Lastly, as argued above, civil and criminal defamation laws existed separately because they were understood to serve two distinct purposes. The purpose of criminal defamation laws was to preserve public order and prevent breaches of the peace. Under our Constitutional jurisprudence, however, the Supreme Court has adopted a stringent test for when speech can be regulated on public order grounds: there must be a close and direct connection between the speech and the public order disturbance, a relationship that the Court has colloquially described as a “spark in a powder keg”. A classic example is inciting an enraged mob to immediate violence. The reason for this is obvious: public order is the first blunt instrument that governments reach for when they want to stifle speech. 

Consequently, there must be a clear showing that there is an immediate and tangible threat, and the burden of showing that lies upon the State.

Sections 499 and 500, however, do not require any such test of public order: they are blanket laws that justify imprisonment purely on the basis of harm to reputation. But that objective is already served by the civil law. Consequently, insofar as the purpose of criminal defamation is to protect reputation, it is both superfluous, and an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(a). Insofar as its purpose is to preserve public order, it fails the Supreme Court’s test by some distance.

Arvind Kejriwal’s imprisonment puts the question firmly in the spotlight. Instead of spending our energies on questioning the merits or demerits of his decision not to pay the bail bond, and turning this into a Pro-AAP/Anti-AAP argument, we should all be asking ourselves this basic question: what do we think of a law that allows a man to be put in prison because he called a politician “corrupt”? The debate is long overdue.


Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and presently an LLM student at the Yale Law School.  He blogs about the Indian Constitution at http://indconlawphil. wordpress.com



----- ----- ----- -----

Friday, May 23, 2014

My tweets of today - Friday, May 23, 2014 : Ghulam Muhammed

My tweets of today - Friday, May 23, 2014: Ghulam Muhammed

Tweets

  1.  
     
    What Hafiz Saeed is to Pak, Modi has been to India, at least in loud talk. People choosing Modi has challenged Pak people to project Hafiz.

  2.  
    Just because Modi is now designated PM of India, not everybody is ready to forget and/or forgive what Modi had stood for in the past.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Can Modi control this anarchy. Police torture against accused from Christian and Muslim minorities. Read Mumbai Mirror



Can Modi control this anarchy. Police torture against accused from Christian and Muslim minorities. Read Mumbai Mirror

This is how India's police treat minorities by taking law in its own hands. Can Modi control this anarchy?
LangingImage

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/cover-story/They-beat-me-till-I-fell-unconscious--When-I-woke-up-it-began-all-over-again/articleshow/35398407.cms








They beat me till I fell unconscious... When I woke up, it began all over again

By Yogesh Sadhwani, Mumbai Mirror | May 21, 2014, 12.28 AM IST

They beat me till I fell unconscious... When I woke up, it began all over again
Leonard Valdaris, whose son Agnelo (inset) died in police custody, and Agnelo’s friends who were sexually abused by cops
Friends of custodial death victim, picked up for minor theft, reveal horrific torture in the custody of Wadala railway police

The Government Railway Police has initiated a departmental enquiry against 12 policemen following a complaint of sexual abuse and torture by three robbery suspects, including a minor.

The three were detained by the Wadala railway police on April 15 along with Agnelo Valdaris, 25, who died in custody three days later. While the police said Valdaris was run over by a train while trying to escape, his father alleged the cops murdered him in cold blood. The state CID is investigating that case of custodial death.

The police detained the four friends to get information about a gold chain worth around Rs 60,000 they had allegedly stolen from a senior citizen. They were picked up within minutes of each other from their Reay Road homes on April 15.

In their May 12 complaint about the torture, the three have also levelled detailed accusations of how Valdaris was tortured in front of them. They have demanded the policemen be booked for murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, assault and tampering of evidence, among other charges. The 12 policemen are of the ranks of constables up to senior inspector, including a woman officer.

One of the complaints was identified as Sufiyan Khan, 23.

Valdaris, whose father is a clerk in the port trust, and Sufiyan, son of a mechanic, worked as drivers with transporter companies. The minor is class 8 dropout. The fourth youngster is unemployed.

Mirror is withholding the names of the other two - both alleged victims of sexual abuse. This correspondent spoke in person to the three complainants. Mirror is in possession of a copy of their complaint.

"(Constables Ravi) Mane and Kamble stripped me naked and put me on a table," one of them has said in his complaint. "Mane assaulted me with a belt and Kamble with a baton. They hit me so hard I fell unconscious. They poured water on me. After I regained my senses, the torture started again. This time I was forced to perform oral sex on Agnelo and the minor. When I refused, I was threatened with more beatings. Left with no option, I did as asked. They later hanged me naked upside down and assaulted me again with belts and batons."

This complaint said an officer who was identified only as Ganya tried inserting a stick in his anus. He said the police threatened to pour petrol into his anus as the stick was too thick. The complaint also lends credence to the allegations that Valdaris was tortured to death by giving details of how he was also tortured in asimilar manner.

"When Agenelo complained of chest pain and fainted, the police did not provide him any medical attention," said the complaint. "They then took us to the court two days later. They threatened us not to tell the magistrate anything about the torture. They did not bring Agnelo with us as he was badly injured. In these two days, we were forced to eat the leftovers from the policemen's meals."

According to the complaint, the police on April 18 sent the minor to a juvenile home and remanded the other two were remanded in custody. That was when the police told them Valdaris had died while trying to escape.

"That is just not possible," the complaint said. "We saw how badly Agnelo was beaten. There was no way he could run with his injuries. The police are trying to cover up their torture using the false claim that Agnelo tried to escape."

The three were let off on bail on April 22. After the GRP commissioner ordered an enquiry based on the complaint, the three were, to their horror, asked to visit the same police station where they were allegedly tortured and collect their summons.

"When I had gone to collect the summons, constable Ravi Mane threatened to frame me in more criminal cases if I pursued the case," said one of the three youngsters. "He said that the police will hound me forever."

GRP Commissioner Prabhat Kumar told Mirror, "CID is investigating the custodial death case. We have asked a DCP to probe the departmental lapses. But she can't reach any conclusion as the CID is seized with the investigation."

Advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry, who is representing the trio, said Maharashtra has witnessed the highest number of custodial deaths in recent years as policemen are seldom brought to justice. He advocated the installation of CCTV cameras in all rooms of police stations and stringent punishment for errant policemen as a solution.

"These victims of police brutality are now being threatened to take back their complaint," said Chaudhry.

"This is nothing but tampering of evidence. They are able to go on unabated because no action has been initiated against them so far. This is the worst case I have come across so far. It is not only about murder but also about deviant sexual abuse and ruthless torture of the accused."

----- ----- -----

PS. All victimised accused are from Christian and Muslim minority.

 

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Boeing technology, what goes up must come down — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/boeing-technology-what-goes-up-must-come-down-dr-mahathir-mohamad

Malay Mail Online

Boeing technology, what goes up must come down — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad


May 18, 2014


 
WHAT goes up must come down. Airplanes can go up and stay up for long periods of time. But even they must come down eventually. They can land safely or they may crash. But airplanes don’t just disappear. Certainly not these days with all the powerful communication systems, radio and satellite tracking and filmless cameras which operate almost indefinitely and possess huge storage capacities.

I wrote about the disabling of MH370’s communication system as well as the signals for GPS. The system must have been disabled or else the ground station could have called the plane. The GPS too must have been disabled or else the flight of MH370 would have been tracked by satellites which normally provide data on all commercial flights, inclusive of data on location, kind of aircraft, flight number, departure airport and destination. But the data seems unavailable. The plane just disappeared seemingly from all screens.
MH370 is a Boeing 777 aircraft. It was built and equipped by Boeing. All the communications and GPS equipment must have been installed by Boeing. If they failed or have been disabled Boeing must know how it can be done. Surely Boeing would ensure that they cannot be easily disabled as they are vital to the safety and operation of the plane.

A search on the Internet reveals that Boeing in 2006 received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a pre-determined landing location.

The Flightglobal.com article by John Croft, datelined Washington DC (1st December, 2006) further mentioned “The ‘uninterruptible’ autopilot would be activated – either by pilot, by on board sensors, or even remotely by radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of the flight deck”.

Clearly Boeing and certain agencies have the capacity to take over “uninterruptible control” of commercial airliners of which MH370 B777 is one.

Can it not be that the pilot of MH370 lost control of their aircraft after someone directly or remotely activated the equipment for seizure of control of the aircraft.

It is a waste of time and money to look for debris or oil slick or to listen for “pings” from the black box. This is most likely not an ordinary crash after fuel was exhausted. The plane is somewhere, maybe without MAS markings.

Boeing should explain about this so-called anti-terrorism auto-land system. I cannot imagine the pilots made a soft-landing in rough seas and then quietly drown with the aircraft.

Someone is hiding something. It is not fair that MAS and Malaysia should take the blame.

For some reason the media will not print anything that involves Boeing or the CIA. I hope my readers will read this.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was the fourth prime minister of Malaysia.

This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.


MORE ON MMOTV