Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
INDORE: In a shocking
incident, two teenaged schoolgirls were allegedly raped by at least 15
men in broad daylight in a deserted farm at Betna, near Indore. One of
the accused is the son of a corporator in the local municipal council.
The incident took place on February 10, but the girls revealed it to
their parents only on Saturday, following which the families approached
the police.
A secret meeting that one of the girls had fixed up
with one Javed sparked the ordeal that is bound to haunt them their
entire life. Javed reportedly persuaded the girl to meet him,
threatening to consume poison in front of her house if she failed to do
so. Panicking, the girl decided to meet him at an isolated place, but
took her cousin along. Javed and the girl then decided to go elsewhere
for a chat, and as they were leaving, a gang of ten men intercepted
them. According to police inspector D S Baghel, the men dragged the
hapless girls to a deserted field nearby where they took turns to rape
the two. And Javed, who has since been arrested, too joined in the act.
The ordeal of the girls, who come from very poor families and are
students of a local government school, didn't end there. Some men
working in neighbouring fields landed up at the farm on hearing the
commotion. And instead of rescuing the duo, they too allegedly raped
them. Baghel said they were still to ascertain if more than 15 men were
involved in the brutal incident.
According to the girls, some
of the men also took pictures of the act on their mobiles and warned
them not to the reveal anything. For a week, the traumatized victims
remained mum, but on Saturday morning, they gathered enough courage to
tell their parents about the shocker.
Betma SSP A Sai Manohar
confirmed to TOI that one of the accused was the son of a local
municipal counsellor, but asserted that "no matter how influential, we
will see to it that they are all tried".
What is the need of having a guiding force in a government, society...even a small group as a family? The authority is given to the highest earner, or the oldest person or the one regarded as the wisest. Why is it done that way, why aren't everyone given the power to declare amendments? Simple reason, to maintain sanity and peace among the group. We idolize a God for more or less the same reason. When things go out of hand, you have something to hold your faith to. Thats all together a different issue. But Every country memorizes its leaders, dedicates their achievements as a part of national integrity. The reason, to give people a hope, and to assure them that patriotism still prevails in us. Gandhi is regarded as the Father of Nation. It wasn't any reality show title that people were fighting for or even nominated and shortlisted. It was a title awarded to him. Everyone were awarded titles due to their efforts in creating a free India. Iron Lady, Chachaji, Baba Saeb. This isn't a race, a post which should be made a public issue. The present scenario f the country isn't promising and yet people are behind digging an old issue and ridiculing it. These claims people made and are still making about Gandhi, whether true or not, do not help in anyway improvise the present pace of government. When we stick to something, first thing we're gonna see is 'Is it going to prove something?'. Its a Boolean situation, either these claims are true or they aren't. Lets look at the possibilities of aftermath in each case
Claims are True:
1. People would be shattered by knowing, the one they respected the most ended up a regular old guy. Trust in other leaders is inevitably reduced. Making them Heroes to Humans.
2. Political Chaos. Parties supporting Gandhi end up creating the opposition taking the other side. Quarrels, Arguments, Press Releases, Comments, Allegations. This leads to the phase when each party picks p the prominent leaders of the other and mocking their personal failures.
3. Media engages in creating separate sections dealing with individual agendas such as 'Reporting the Assembly Discussions', 'Voting for the next Mahatma, Father of Nation', Taking Public Interviews, Debates with Educators and Scholars on the subject...in short, a mini carnival of news that interests the whole nation.
4. Strikes due to disagreement among people, delaying the existing work schedules.
5. Some final judgement on keeping the position vacant or declaring someone based on majority of support or chaos that would be reduced most. In the former, the chaos continues. Opportunists crave for such a situation.
Claims are False:
1. People who likes, shared the present discussion of Gandhi's activities, woul perform the same for posts reflecting his victory!
2. Government might be taking an action on those who took such allegations, people who support these allegations mock the government for hiding the 'truth'.
3. A little less carnival of opportunists, still a media movement or some other post like this one might reflect their opinions more frequently.
4. People shift to other problems and open up new options to ridicule the government or decisions made by it.
Baseline, though i might've missed a couple of points in either section, Chaos prevails. And after all this involvement by public, they end up transforming at other issues, a sense of responsibility ignites in them..which forces them t search for next movement to show their support for, mostly people create their own campaigns. But the question remains the same 'what did we achieve by this?'
Certainly not Truth. What helped us achieve by proving a decision or decision made 60 years back wrong? Practically, people are undisturbed why whoever is the Father of Nation. How is it going to change us. Its not a king we're electing! We're not trying to argue upon re-inclusion of Pakistan or Burma...or a decision on Corruption, we're hitting at a target that isn't even there. We need a person above us to look up for. If individuals do not accept the person as the guiding force, its best to keep their opinion to themselves. Driving frustration on random events into the decision of choosing a Father of Nation isn't a wise decision. Gandhi united the masses, acted as a proper force between people and leaders. Thats what we need to notice. Even now old and young wet their eyes on speaking the death of Gandhi and say 'People like him are no longer there' Its a belief that we nurture in Gandhi. Seeing him standing at the junctions and Assembly with a shaft and plain dress gives us a sense of respect towards the country. If we don't respect our house, we could seldom change it! The worst part is, people commenting on this post as 'Gandhi was a rouge!' Its just giving away years of belief we nurtured at a random post that claims its facts by an individual writer. Is it worth it? We have a hell lot of problems lying in front of us. How many of us are taking a stand. How many are giving it a notice. How many are switching of their lights and fans when not in use. Such simple steps are not being implemented, which should be the driving elements taken the present scene.
Respect Our Nation, Respect Our Freedom Legends, Move Forward. Build UR India
Excerpt from Interview with Pranav Mistry, Inventor of Sixth Sense, SPARSH
How did you come up with SPARSH?
Technology constantly evolves over time. Right now, we are on the verge of an era where information is going to change its medium again — the way static mediums such as books gave way to dynamic mediums such as computers. I believe every industry at its maturity looks for human touch. Companies like Apple no longer just sell their products; they sell their designs, which call for better customer experience. I dream constantly. There are crazy questions which go on in my head — things like why can’t we see through the wall? I try and find a solution to these.
Inspired by science fiction, are you?
(Laughs) To be very honest, science fiction does not impress me at all. You will be surprised to know that I draw a lot of inspiration from Indian mythology, like the Mahabharata. For me, the epic is a great piece of science work. How the arrows sparked before colliding with each other. The architecture was drawn long back; we are just bringing in the technology.
How has the journey from Palampur to MIT been?
Exciting. In fact, for me India was also a journey and a great learning experience. I studied in a very inspiring school — VidyaMandir. I was lucky as my school syllabus and structure was not very exam-oriented. I moved to Ahmedabad, then Mumbai. I also worked in Microsoft, moved to MIT… The journey helped me learn different things and apply my knowledge accordingly. I believe that one technological innovation cannot be applied to everyone across the board. A shared tractor for villagers will be more useful than a shared computer.
Are you looking at starting your own firm?
No. The fact that I am able to voice my opinion freely is because I am not tied or answerable to any company. I am not interested in making money. I want to be the voice of people, want to make stuff people actually need. Apple can continue making new versions of iPhone and some people may spend their money buying these, but how relevant is it to a villager in India?
But, how relevant are your products for the masses in India?
See, India is very unique in this sense. We skipped the computer age and jumped to mobile era. There are many in India who did not use a computer but are quite comfortable using a mobile. So, it is very much possible to introduce these people to new devices. As for solving India’s problems with technology, we need to go beyond the notion of technology being all about computers.
How would you rate Indian IT firms in terms of innovation?
To be honest, I can’t think of any company in India which is innovating enough. Companies like Infosys and Wipro are great, but what they are doing is selling their services to other countries. People talk about innovation and hold seminars on it. But no innovation in the world has come through brainstorming sessions. You can refine a product by discussions, but cannot come up with something new sitting in meetings.
Excise officials were taken by surprise on Tuesday when they found
105 Scotch bottles hidden in suitcases filled with ladies undergarments
and other clothes. In the run-up to the BMC elections, the excise
department had tightened their vigil, in an attempt to avoid any alcohol
smuggling. However, during one of their raids, they found the expensive
alcohol in the bags of four people returning to the city from Goa.
The incident occurred on Tuesday when officials decided to carry
out a check on a luxury bus returning from Goa at the Mankhurd check
post. "We decided to check luxury buses on February 15, 16 and 17 as
they have been declared as dry days for the elections. This is the time
when most people try to sneak in illegal alcohol into the city and sell
it at a higher price," said BK More, inspector, excise.
While checking the passengers' luggage, they came across four
bags that on first look only had ladies undergarments but during a
thorough check, the bottles were recovered. "The liquor seized was worth
Rs 49,075. However, the amount is the selling price of alcohol in Goa
and in Mumbai that would be double. There are chances that the alcohol
was bought in order to resell at a higher cost," explained Vijay
Shardul, deputy superintendent, suburb (Excise).
The accused identified as Hemant Jain, Sayyed Anwar, Regimose
Fernandez and Valentino Fernandez were caught on the spot and produced
in court for illegally possessing alcohol. When the alcohol was found,
the four gave an excuse that they were going to Gujarat from Goa via
Maharashtra and showed a Goan drinking permit.
More added, "The paperwork shown by the four was simply drinking
permits. However, that is not enough. We are investigating if they have
any connection to a political party or any bootlegging group."
Hackers, allegedly belonging to a Chinese group called Evil Shadow Team, struck at www.microsoftstore.co.in on Sunday night, stealing login ids and passwords of people who had used the website for shopping Microsoft products.
While it is troublesome that hackers were able to breach security at a website owned by one of the biggest IT companies in the world, it is more alarming that user details - login ids and passwords - were reportedly stored in plain text file, without any encryption.
Following the hack, the members of Evil Shadow Team, posted a message on the Microsoft website saying "unsafe system will be baptized". The story was first reported by www.wpsauce.com.
Later, the website seemed to have been taken offline by Microsoft. We advise the users at Microsoft India Store to change the password as soon the website comes online. Also, if they have used the same password or login id on any other web service, they should change it immediately.
Last year, hacker groups like Lulzsec had carried out several-profile high profile break-ins, putting focus on the security measures companies put in place. Sony allegedly suffered several security breaches and hackers stole user ids and passwords of customers from its network.
In a message posted on a website called Pastebin, Lulzsec claimed the group was bringing attention to the web security. "Do you think every hacker announces everything they've hacked? We certainly haven't, and we're damn sure others are playing the silent game. Do you feel safe with your Facebook accounts, your Google Mail accounts, your Skype accounts? What makes you think a hacker isn't silently sitting inside all of these right now," the group wrote.
But the incident at Microsoft Store on Sunday hints that lessons have not been learnt. Just like Sony, which later revealed that user ids and passwords were not encrypted at the time of security breach, Microsoft too seemed to have been casual about handling the user details by storing them in a plain text file.
Commenting on the security breach, a Microsoft spokesperson said, "Microsoft is investigating a limited compromise of the company's online store in India. The store customers have already been sent guidance on the issue and suggested immediate actions. We are diligently working to remedy the issue and keep our customers protected."
Utopian Revolution is meant to be Voice of the people abiding the principle of being 'Soul of the Nation' ignited by Indian Soul. To make the voice of people hear, we need people to take a stand and make their voice heard. Choose your area of interest that also fits the best interests of the country. Take a stand to make Unheard Stories spoken loud, Unsung Glories heard. Utopian Revolution gives creative freedom to all those who can build a whole new country that runs under the true norms of Truth and Just.
If you're a writer who can put UR views into words, pictures or videos, that affect an entire nation.
If you've the nerve to take a stand and address an issue that concerns the country.
If you can abide to put public view ahead of personal views.
Utopian Revolution respects you and welcomes you to make UR voice heard.
How to Apply:
Send one of UR best pieces, be it article, photography or video to revolutionforutopia@gmail.com
We will get back to you the moment we go through your work.
Note : We understand the privacy a creative mind expects. None of your work would be published without informing you. So you can trust us with UR views.
Quick Intro:amicus curiae is friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest; e.g., civil rights cases. They may be filed by private persons or the government.
In the past week the media has been reporting that the SIT has filed a closure report that gives a “clean chit” to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on the grounds that there is no prosecutable evidence against him.
However, Tehelka has now scooped amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran’s explosive confidential report that had told the Supreme Court that Modi should be chargesheeted and prosecuted for serious criminal offences like promoting religious enmity, doing acts prejudicial to national integration and maintenance of harmony and deliberately and wantonly disobeying the law with intent to cause injury. Ramachandran recommended criminal prosecution against Modi under different cognizable and non-cognizable offences with some of them carrying a maximum imprisonment for three years.
Importantly, Ramachandran, a senior Supreme Court lawyer who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by the three judge bench of the Supreme Court in November 2010, had made these recommendations based on the SIT’s own probe reports. It appears the only gap is in the conclusions that SIT Chairman RK Raghavan and the amicus curiae came to, based on what the SIT had found.
Raghavan had claimed in his concluding remarks that there was no “prosecutable evidence” to chargesheet Modi and direct him to stand trial. However, after carefully studying statements of witnesses and accused recorded by the SIT and other documentary evidence collected by the probe agency and also his own interactions with several key witnesses, Ramachandran came to a different conclusion and, in a hard-hitting report, told the Supreme Court and the SIT that Modi needed to be chargesheeted on several counts and to draw any other inference or legal action like dropping the charges altogether as proposed by the SIT was illogical and legally untenable. Ramachandran had placed his report before the court in May 2011 after over eight months of perusing several SIT reports which recommended that the case against Modi should be closed as there was no prosecutable evidence against him.
Over the last week, media reports have been speculating about Ramachandran’s recommendation, with some publications going to the extent of claiming that Ramachandran and SIT Chairman RK Raghvan had completely concurred on all the conclusions drawn by the SIT and had together recommended the closure of the case against Modi.
Now that Tehelka has got first hand access of Ramachandran’s report, it finds far from dropping the case, the amicus curiae had, in fact, recommended criminal prosecution against the Gujarat Chief Minister for his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots under sections 153A, 153B, 166 and 505 of Indian Penal Code. Conviction under these sections carry a jail term of between one and three years.
Ramachandran’s recommendations if followed would have had an unprecedented impact on the Indian criminal justice system which often sees the powerful being let off either because of sloppy investigation or dilatory legal proceedings. The amicus’s report demolished the core argument put forth by the SIT for not pressing charges against Modi, which is lack of prosecutable evidence. He first defined the relevant sections applicable to Modi, laid down their legal scope and then cited several Supreme Court case laws before emphatically concluding that Modi should be sent to trial.
Though there were also many points on which he concurred with SIT Chairman Raghavan the main point of concurrence was that, on the basis of material gathered by the SIT so far, there was not enough ground to charge Modi of conspiracy. However, he held that dropping all other criminal charges against Modi was legally untenable. His report demonstrates that the impediment in the course of justice for the riots of Gujarat 2002 is neither lack of evidence nor lack of law. If anything, the problem lies with a disturbingly selective application of law.
These are the sections under which Ramachandran recommended Modi should be chargesheeted and tried:
Section 505 IPC lays down the punishment for making statements which promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes and prescribes punishment which may extend to imprisonment of three years.
Section 166 IPC prescribes a maximum imprisonment of one year for those public servants who knowingly disobey any direction of law, as to the way in which he is to conduct himself s such public servant, intending to cause injury to any person. SIT itself has chronicled several instances where Modi’s conduct was divisive and prejudiced against the minorities and thus against his constitutional duty of protecting the life and property of every citizen of the state. SIT Chairman RK Raghavan had noted on page 13 of his report dated 13 May 2010 give to the SC that Modi’s statement “accusing some elements in Godhra and the neighbourhood as possessing a criminal tendency was sweeping and offensive coming as it did from a chief minister, that too at a critical time when Hindu-Muslim tempers were running high.
Section 153A IPC lays down maximum imprisonment of 3 years for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. The SIT report had stated on page 69 that, “In spite of the fact that ghastly and violent attacks had taken place on Muslims at Gulberg Society and elsewhere, the reaction of the government was not the type that would have been expected by anyone. The chief minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”
Similarly, Section 153B lays down a maximum imprisonment of three years for making imputations or assertions prejudicial to national integration.
He also underlined the fact that his conclusions were based on the material collected by the SIT and placed before him. Since he was merely an amicus he had no powers or authority to carry out any independent investigation into the charges against Modi and his officials. The maximum he could have done was to carefully study the material put together by SIT and draw just, reasonable and legally sound conclusions. The fact that a mere reasonable interpretation of the SIT’s own probe has thrown up evidence of Modi’s culpability shows that SIT’s repeated insistence of dropping the case against Modi is highly questionable and perhaps a matter of an investigation by itself.
Here, in detail, are the key Recommendations of the Raju Ramachandran’s Report:
1. The SIT probe against Modi and his government was ordered by the Supreme Court in 2009 while hearing a petition filed by Teesta Setalvad's Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Zakia Jafri, widow of slain Congress leader, Ehsan Jafri, who along with dozens of other Muslims was hacked and burned to death during the riots. Zakia had made 32 specific allegations against Modi and other BJP functionaries, bureaucrats and police officers. The most serious allegation was that Modi had given instructions to the then DGP, chief secretary and other senior officials to allow Hindus to freely vent their anger at the Muslims for the Sabarmati carnage. This instruction was allegedly given at a meeting held at the chief minister’s bungalow in Gandhinagar on 27 February 2002 after Modi’s visit to Godhra.
According to SIT probe officer AK Malhotra, a retired CBI man, the meeting lasted for about half an hour. Sanjeev Bhatt, an IPS officer of 1988 batch, who was posted as DCP (Intelligence) at the time, told the SIT that he too was called to be present in the meeting. Bhatt told the SIT that Modi asked the assembled officers to adopt a partisan stand during the impending riots. “There is a lot of anger in the people. This time a balanced approach against Hindus and Muslims will not work. It is necessary that the anger of the people is allowed to be vented.” These, according to Bhatt, were the incendiary words Modi had spoken at the meeting. But SIT in its report had told the court that Bhatt’s presence in the meeting was not corroborated by other officials and hence subject to be discarded.
But Ramachandran in his report has disagreed with SIT’s conclusions and said that it was unreasonable on the part of the probe agency to disbelieve Bhatt. He said that contrary to SIT’s stance, facts were seemingly loaded in Bhatt’s favour. Ramachandran has said that Bhatt’s presence in the meeting gets probablised by various crucial facts, mainly:
a) Even before the 27th meeting, Bhatt was considered to be close to Modi. Bhatt told the SIT that he had had first interaction with Modi way back in 1997 when Modi was a senior BJP functionary stationed in Delhi. “In 1997 Shanker Singh Vaghela had become the CM and he was seeking election from Radhanpur constituency in Banaskantha. Vaghela had formed a new party named Rashtriya Janta Party and a faction of the BJP MLAs had defected and joined him. At that time the entire BJP machinery was working overtime to somehow defeat Vaghela. I has served as SP, Banaskantha in 1995 and had a good understanding of the constituency. In 1997 when Vaghela was contesting I was posted in State Intelligence Bureau. Modi rung me up and sought some information. Then in 2001 when Modi became the CM a meeting of all police officers (DCP and above) was called to meet the CM. When I got up to introduce myself Modi immediately recognized me and we started getting along quite well. At that time I was posted as DCP (Intelligence) in the IB. Before the riots I must have had several one-to-one meetings on many issues. One issue on which he sought my inputs was his own election from Rajkot. I had also been a DCP in Rajkot and I shared crucial inputs with Modi with regard to his election from Rajkot,” Bhatt has told the SIT. Ramachandran told the court that Bhatt’s proximity with Modi further probablises his presence in the crucial ‘law and order’ meeting of 27th February. The main objection of the SIT was that Bhatt was a relatively junior officer and could not have been probably present at a high-level meeting chaired by the CM himself.
b) On 27 February the chief of State Intelligence Bureau GC Raigar was on leave. It was only natural that after Raigar, the senior most officer from Intelligence Bureau, which happened to be Bhatt, would be expected to attend the meeting and brief the chief minister about the intelligence collected pertaining to the Godhra incident and the ensuing communal situation, Ramachandran has noted.
c) There is no evidence to contradict Bhatt’s presence in the meeting chaired by Modi. In other words there is no evidence to show that he was not present in the meeting and instead present somewhere else.
d) And the last but the most crucial fact that of Modi’s unsolicited rebuttal of Bhatt’s presence made by him during his examination by the SIT lends further weight to Bhatt’s assertions. On 25 March 2002 when Modi was questioned by Malhotra, he made a curious slip. He first admitted that he had called a law and order meeting at his residence on 27 February 2002, after his return from Godhra where he had gone to inspect the Sabarmati carnage. Malhotra then asked him about who was present in the meeting. In his reply, Modi named the seven officers, apart from himself. However, without further prompting from the inquiry officer, he went on to assert, “Sanjeev Bhatt, the then DC (Int.) did not attend, as this was a high-level meeting.” The inquiry officer had asked him about who was present, not about who was not. Also this was the stage when the inquiry was still on and Modi was not supposed to be aware of the witnesses who had been examined in this matter (Bhatt had already been examined before came to record his statement before the SIT). Clearly, somebody had alerted Modi about Bhatt’s statement and he had come prepared to contradict and discredit Bhatt’s version even when the question posed to him by the SIT officer had no reference of Bhatt. Ramachandran has underscored the slip made by Modi and concluded that Modi’s anxiety and puzzling keenness to discredit Bhatt further lends credibility to Bhatt’s testimony.
2. Evidence is weighed and not counted. Bhatt is a crucial witness and his statement is a direct piece of evidence and carries a lot of weight in the eye of law, said Ramachandran. The fact that other bureaucrats present in the meeting have not acknowledged his presence doesn’t reduce the legal value of Bhatt’s testimony. The veracity of Bhatt’s revelations could only be ascertained by conducting a criminal trial. To take any other stance at the pre-trial stage would amount to pre-judging the case.
3. According to the SIT, apart from Modi there were seven other confirmed participants in the meeting. If Bhatt is also presumed to be present the total number of attendees would be nine. The SIT also conceded in its report that none of the seven participants were willing to tell the truth because of one vested interest or the other and were thus unreliable. In a highly conflicting report, the SIT has used the same unreliable witnesses to disbelieve Bhatt’s testimony. The primary reason the SIT has not believed Bhatt is because his presence was not confirmed by other participants (whom the SIT has otherwise called interested parties and hence unreliable). According to Ramachandran this was a highly conflicting and illogical stand. If you add to this the fact that Modi without being asked about Bhatt asserted that Bhatt was not present further probablised the presence of Bhatt in the meeting.
4. Amicus has noted in his report that he was aware of the fact that Bhatt had revealed these facts after almost seven years of the incident and that is creating anxiety to the SIT. He also noted that he was conscious of probable limitations of Bhatt’s statement in view of this delay. But Bhatt’s explanation that he had never before been asked by any statutory body or an investigating agency about the incident and was thus under no legal obligation to reveal the truth is legally and logically tenable. Bhatt’s explanation gets further strengthened by the fact that in the first statement recorded as part of the preliminary enquiry by the SIT, he had not disclosed the full details of the meeting on the ground that since it was merely an enquiry and not an investigation under Criminal Procedure Code, he as an intelligence officer would not be able to reveal the details of the meeting.
5. Amicus has also noted that he is further conscious of the loose but unsubstantiated allegations that Bhatt was now having some kind of a truck with certain Congress leaders. However, these allegations have no bearing on Bhatt’s credibility as a witness because: a) they are unsubstantiated and b) even if found to be true they are related to post-event circumstances.
6. SIT’s assertion that there is ‘no’ prosecutable evidence to proceed against Modi is contrary to the facts. There may not be overwhelming evidence but there is ‘some’ evidence. The only logical step that an agency could take under these circumstances is to prosecute the accused on the basis of the evidence thrown up during the investigation.
Another important point of difference between the SIT and Ramachandran was with regard to two senior police officers who had fled from the Gulberg Society and had thus allowed the rioters to carry out carnage with impunity. Ramachandran has underlined the fact that the SIT itself had discovered that the two senior officers in question –PB Gondia and MK Tandon—had malevolently abandoned Meghani Nagar where Gulberg Society was situated and instead got bogus FIRs of communal violence registered in other areas which were otherwise free of any kind of trouble to justify their absence from Gulberg Society, and still the agency wanted to only recommend departmental action. The only logical action that could be taken against these officers is sending them for a criminal trial, Ramachandran has concluded.
The SIT found in its probe that Tandon, who was the joint commissioner of police of Sector 2, Ahmedabad, deliberately didn’t respond to distress calls from Gulberg Society and Naroda Gaon and Naroda Patiya, where some of the most gruesome massacres were underway. Instead, he got bogus cases registered in other parts of Ahmedabad to justify the presence of himself and his police force in those areas rather than Gulberg and Naroda. The SIT also found that Tandon was in telephonic contact with Jaideep Patel and Mayaben Kodnani — the architect of massacres at Naroda Gaon and Naroda Patiya.
PB Gondia, deputy to Tandon, was DCP Zone IV at the time. In his report, Malhotra had stated: “In my view Gondia virtually ran away from Naroda Patiya at 1420 hours when the situation was very serious and virtually uncontrollable and also did not reach Gulberg Society despite the distress calls.” The SIT also found that, like Tandon, Gondia was in regular telephonic contact with Kodnani and Jaideep Patel.
But despite Ramachandran’s recommendation of launching criminal prosecution against Tandon and Gondia, the SIT told the court that it was not keen on pressing the charges against the two. To buttress their claim, the probe team got a favourable legal opinion from a Mumbai based lawyer.
The custodial interrogation of these two officers could have led to a deeper insight into what was the real motive behind their deliberate dereliction of duty. Were they acting out of their own volition or was it the consequence of the alleged tacit signal sent by Modi in the meeting of 27th? Is it possible that two senior officers would enter into a conspiracy at their level without any intervention from the top? Is it possible that these two senior officers would not have kept the political leadership in the loop about the explosive situation at Gulberg and Naroda? These questions could only have been answered if the two were investigated and sent for criminal trial.
Ramachandran also wrote in his report that many points like those mentioned above need to be further investigated. He said that once the SIT submits its report along with the amicus’ report before the magistrate, the later could take cognizance of the suggestions made by amicus and order further investigation.
What is really baffling is the SIT’s decision not to apply the strict rule of thumb of criminal prosecution which is that at the investigation stage, the probe agency’s aim is to look for some credible evidence of criminal culpability. It is only at the trial stage that the accused gets the benefit of doubt, if any. However, the SIT seems to have given Modi the benefit of doubt at the investigation stage itself, given that, as Ramachandran has pointed out, if there is ‘some’ evidence of criminal culpability, the accused should be sent to trial. In Modi’s case Ramachandran has noted that there is enough evidence to warrant prosecution. It is only after all the relevant evidence is adduced in a court of law, witnesses are allowed to depose and be cross-examined by defence and relevant facts judicially examined that a conclusion of guilt or innocence could be drawn.
The SIT was constituted by the Supreme Court after a prolonged legal battle, spanning over 6 years, between the victims and civil society on one hand and the Gujarat state machinery on the other hand. The odds were staked against the victims from day one. It was a Herculean task for any agency to dig up evidence of an alleged criminal act which had occurred six years ago and was allegedly orchestrated by a chief minister who had been in power all along. The SIT itself has underlined the fact that all the senior bureaucrats who were privy to the events of Feb-march 2002 were given lucrative post-retirement assignments and were thus obliged to Modi. Still the SIT could find enough evidence of malfeasance to conclude that the State had acted in a communally partisan and prejudiced manner while appointing public prosecutors in riot cases, transferring and posting police officers on key positions and while conducting criminal investigation into major riot cases. There is enough evidence of negligence of constitutional duty to protect citizens and derailment of criminal justice system. The moot point before the SIT was whether enough material could be put together to show that there was a deliberate malice and criminal intent behind the negligence of duty, first to protect innocent lives and then miscarriage of justice.
“The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belonged to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then break down and lose credibility with the community,” were Supreme Court’s words in the case of State of Rajasthan v.Yusuf. The story of Gujarat 2002 is not just about holding Modi responsible for his alleged criminal acts. There is something far more fundamental which is at stake here. It is the very idea of India founded on the principles of justice and equity. Those responsible for the 2002 carnage need to be brought to book, not merely for retributive justice, but for restoring the eroded embankments of our constitutional democracy.
Indians are the largest depositors in banks abroad with an estimated 500 billion US dollars (nearly Rs 24.5 lakh crore) of illegal money stashed by them in tax havens, the CBI director said on Monday.
India, in particular, has suffered from the flow of illegal funds to tax havens such as Mauritius, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, British Virgin islands etc.
"It is estimated that around 500 billion dollars of illegal money belonging to Indians is deposited in tax havens abroad. Largest depositors in Swiss Banks are also reported to be Indians," CBI director A P Singh said speaking at the inauguration of first interpol global programme on anti-corruption and asset recovery.
He said getting information about such illegal transactions is a time taking process as investigators have to peel each layer by sending judicial requests to the country where such deposits have been made.
"53 per cent of the countries said to be least corrupt by the Transparency International Index are offshore tax havens, where most of the corrupt money goes. The tax havens include New Zealand which is ranked as the least corrupt country, Singapore ranked number five and Switzerland number seven," Singh said.
He said there is a lack of political will in the leading tax haven states to part with the information because they are aware of the extent to which their economies have become "geared to this flow of illegal capitals from the poorer countries."
I know I'm not the first one writing about this highly debated issue of our democracy. Reservation. Nobody is against reservation, truth be told. Putting aside endless mockery, ridicule and hype created by our politicians, people from the non-reservation part of society are not bugged about the facility of reservation, uplifting those in need, but what bugs the most is the fact that this isn't being reached to the actual needy people.
It was way back about a century that the situations demanded a need for unbiased ruling. And in those times almost 75% of Indians were illiterate. People who were illiterate mostly belonged to all parts of the country. So when development is a requirement, the well-off Indians could afford education facilities while others just have to keep regretting on their financial backdrop, in order to avoid this, reservation was a need and still is. But unfortunately, most of the poor belonged to the lower casts. It was a simple definition ‘If you belong to a lower cast you are most likely to be financially handicapped’. So Late Mr. B.R.Ambedkar took the action by providing reservation to the lower casts. Some say, he suggested the reservation be carried for a certain amount of time and then removed. But present bureaucrats are extending this time period. As I said, this is one of the rumors and no fact authenticity is being claimed by me.
But times changed. Not because of reservation, but because of the fact that population, demand, occupations, modernization and other factors came into play through this time. And now, there are poor in all castes equally. There are considerably well settled citizens in lower castes as there are financially handicapped in higher castes. Now, for a student to get into IIMB through CAT in general category requires 98 percentile. The same for SC, ST is 55 and for OBC is 75. Its completely unjust to discriminate in admission to a crème institute in as basic element as Entrance Test! Most of the students studying in a simple English medium (which is the case in most urban areas) could expect a decent 55 percentile in CAT with a good math and beginner English. So, in this case, a GEN category student, whose financial condition is more deprived is left aiming at the bulls eye, while his peer being from reserved category could manage it with ease! People are never against Reservation, as long as it is given to those who deserve and in a way that is just. Financial liberation could be expected, a lenience of 10 percentile could be expected…or even more.
Living in a country that claims to be Secular, Democratic and a mixture of other socio-governances existing, it is absurd to think that the very threat of Castism is unknowingly being groomed by our own Government in the name of reservation. There are only two real classifications in a society, Haves and Have-nots. We have provided a nation where people struggle to get into the elite Haves or suffer as the Have-nots or end up complaining the Haves for eating up the Have-nots. So it is either struggle, suffer or ridicule….whereas it was supposed to be struggling to exceed alone. If a real development is in the agenda, the reservation should be modulated, not ruled out. Keep it based on the financial status of a citizen. Government did allow a facility of having a limit as to any reservation expecting individual has a family income of 4,50,000 p.a., doesn’t deserve the benefits. But no one speaks about the GEN category citizens whose annual income hardly exceeds 1,50,000! They still need to battle for the highest targets irrespective of the very limitations they face financially which led to the inception of Reservation considering backward castes.
Castes are to be eliminated, Reservation is to be given as a financial aid to the poor not a short-cut to them irrespective of their financial status. For this we need Bureaucrats, people who are up for a change, to build a society that could feed all. Take a step. Build UR own Country.
This reminds me of how the system works at present. It is a straight answer to all the superstitions, the tensions and melancholies we are surrounded by. A stereotypical process of governance we follow. We didn't update the system when it needs to be. Still reservation persists in places when not needed and those who actually need it are still deprived of it. Like these monkeys, none of us ever raise a voice strong enough to get to the tip of solution. Others push us for what we do and we, helplessly surrender.
How many times did we all think 'this needs to be changes!' but never felt the responsibility to take a stand. There must've been a moment in everyone's life when they quote 'politics is ruining.....we need efficient leaders!' the thing is, presently foolish monkeys are stopping us from taking the banana, but we are not forming a strong enough force to oppose these monkeys and keep a powerful and Just monkeys who could be smart enough to distribute the banana to all. So who's to be blamed? the monkeys who oppose from having the banana or the monkeys who are not brave enough to take a stand against them instead of compromising!
Ever wondered why Indian Stuff never brought India where it stands compared to the Corporates that our country produced. Tata, HCL, Infosys, Reliance, Wipro, Maruti-Suzuki, Bajaj…You name it, Corporate mode of working facilitates a systematic way of work with some boundaries. You mess up, you get kicked out. Nobody’s contacts, acquaints could help you rule in corporates. They might give you an opportunities. Unlike political system we have at present where people are directly selected based on relations. If a candidate is well known to the head, when time comes he’s given the throne…to any position available at that moment. Whereas people with real values and skills are left behind. It happens It does. And only one way to stop politics work the way they’re working right now. Work s an organization. We need leaders. Leaders don’t always stay as in movies, running around. fighting for causes no matter who comes in way and stuff. Its impractical. What a leader needs is a strong will to serve, innovative approach towards society, intelligent and efficient decision making capability and the strength to stand up for a cause against all odds. This isn’t usually done in the present scenario of politics. An NGO no matter what remains an NGO. It’s not Government. And parallel governance maybe a temporary resolute but never a solution. There’s a system written in our constitution that people are following. No matter how hard you try to change it sitting in your office, protesting, other than a revolt it brings nothing. If it does, it becomes only a result of an aggressive movement lasting for a certain period disturbed. The politics is bad, so change it. To change the system, you gotta be in the system. That’s what we’re aiming at. There is facility of becoming a leader to any commoner in our constitution. So take the chance. We all come together for a common cause To get back the Glory of the nation. We need things done, and before some World War III ends up at our doorstep, we gotta be ready to open the door instead of running into the basement praying for mercy. Before we see China get more and more close to rising to its monarchy we should be in a position to be self-sufficient, ready to challenge for our safety, our respect, instead of relying on the neighboring allies. All this Utopian Environment could be achieved only if we start quick and start now.
Every now and then we see a lot of people working for good, go beyond their capabilities both financially and morally to achieve what is good for mankind. When we have people like them, ready to keep their life at stake for what they believe, why should the opportunity of having such people in the system should be given to someone who reached the position and doesn’t love his job rather loves the job title. Its Insane of us to elect such people. I’m not against all the people. But places where irregular and inefficient governance prevails and if able capable people are there in the same locality, they should be given the chance to stand up against them. But the simpler it seems, the harder it is practically. Many factors come into consideration while taing such moves. Finance, Public Support, Unproven Talent, etc., To find a solution we need your help. For the same we started Utopian Revolution. Its UR Country. Build UR own Utopia....
Abhi Indian Soul <!-- Place this tag in the <head> of your document --> <link href="https://plus.google.com/115308164484316128422" rel="publisher" /><script type="text/javascript"> window.___gcfg = {lang: 'en'}; (function() {var po = document.createElement("script"); po.type = "text/javascript"; po.async = true;po.src = "https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();</script>
<!-- Place this tag where you want the badge to render --> <g:plus href="https://plus.google.com/115308164484316128422" width="300" height="131" theme="light"></g:plus>
