the gujaratis are after all the demonized ones. they have no right to protect themselves. UPA-ruled maharashtra does.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kanchan
Kanchan Gupta/New Delhi
With a 600-km long border with Pakistan and a coastline that stretches across a whopping 1,600 km providing innumerable landing spots for craft carrying explosives, arms and terrorists, Gujarat is a prime target for jihadis who have already drawn blood at Godhra and Akshardham, and carried out bombings and other assaults.
Yet, Gujarat has been disallowed the right to have a law that empowers its police to intercept chatter, carry out pre-emptive strikes to prevent death and destruction, and prosecute terrorists in a manner that they get their just desserts.
This is in sharp contrast to neighbouring Maharashtra where the ruling Congress-NCP alliance, armed with the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, popularly known as MCOCA, can fight back terrorists and criminals by bringing them to justice.
Acknowledged as an effective instrument to combat organised crime, MCOCA was made applicable in Delhi through a Home Ministry order of February 1, 2002. But Gujarat has been denied a mirror law to fight terror.
The salient features of MCOCA, which make it a tough law to bust tough criminals, are missing from The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act of 2004 that was brought in by the UPA Government after repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
For instance, unlike the Central law brought in by the Congress-led Union Government, which has to be followed in the absence of a State specific law to fight terrorism, MCOCA disallows suspects access to easy bail, provides for special courts for their trial and qualifies statements given to the police as admissible evidence.
While pushing The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act through Parliament, the Government argued that a tough law by itself is no protection against terrorism and given examples of how terrorists had struck despite POTA. As part of its policy of appeasement, the UPA scrapped POTA and left the police in States like Gujarat to fight terrorism with a law that is weaker than laws meant to tackle hoarding and drug peddling.
Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, addressing an anti-terrorism meeting in Mumbai last Monday, pointed out the fallacy in the UPA's argument by stressing that "while it is true POTA did not always prevent terrorists from striking, for instance at Akshardham, but it helped the police to successfully prosecute and punish those behind such attacks". The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act does not allow even this much.
He also disclosed how the Union Home Ministry has not cleared the Gujarat Control of Organised Crime Bill, modelled on MCOCA, for the past two years despite several reminders and requests. Modi's usual detractors slammed him the next day, saying he wants to arm himself with a "draconian law".
But the Bill passed by the Gujarat Assembly is no different from MCOCA. There is no reason why Congress-ruled Maharashtra and Delhi can have such a law while BJP-ruled Gujarat is disallowed the wherewithal to combat terrorism.
Apart from providing for harsh penalties, including death sentence, for committing acts of terror, the Gujarat Bill allows the setting up of special courts to deal with cases in a time bound manner, empowers the police to intercept, record and produce as evidence any electronic or verbal communication, allows statements made to the police to be presented as admissible evidence and makes bail provisions more stringent than those in the CrPC. In Maharashtra and Delhi, all these provisions are already applicable under MCOCA.
Asked why Gujarat needs the Centre's approval for its proposed law despite its passage in the Assembly, a senior official explained, "Public order is a State subject on which the State Government is competent to enact a law and the Governor has the power to give assent to it. However, since the proposed law overrides certain provisions of the Evidence Act, IPC, CrPC and the provision relating to the jurisdiction of various courts, approval of the Government of India is necessary."
After detailed correspondence between the State Government and the Centre when the NDA was in power, the Control of Organised Crime Bill, already passed by the Gujarat Assembly, was amended to exclude three clauses. The amended Bill was once again passed by the Assembly on June 2, 2004, and re-submitted for Presidential approval through the Union Home Ministry on June 16, 2004.
Since then, the Bill has been gathering dust in North Block in spite of several representations, official communications and a non-official resolution passed by the Gujarat Assembly. On April 4 this year, Member of Parliament Pushpadan Gadhvi wrote to Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil, requesting immediate action on the Bill. Three days later, Mr Patil wrote back, saying the "matter was under the consideration of the Government of India".
Three days after the Mumbai bombings left 200 people dead and hundreds of others injured, Modi wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, seeking his intervention to secure Presidential approval for the Bill lying with the Home Ministry. The request has been met with silence.
Obviously, the Congress is in no hurry to empower Gujarat's police so that it can crack down on organised crime. By allowing personal animus and political bias to dictate its duplicitous policy, the Congress has chosen to wilfully endanger life and property in that State by sending a clear message to criminals: If it's a choice between protecting Gujarat and emboldening terrorists, the Union Government under its tutelage will not opt for the former.
3 comments:
Rajeev & folks!
This one is interesting to look at. The Atlantic has a story on the use of the Internet in terrorism.
Also the Indian Express carries an interesting little snippet .
Amongst the people arrested are a couple of - you guessed it - software engineers ... (from the South too Rajeev - so much for your ranting about BIMARU States ... you can tell I am from Delhi:-) ).
So much for the theory of misguided unemployed youth - or revenge for Gujarat et al.
On a final note. At least the Jihadis are smarter than Arjun Singh with his "disembodied brains" thesis . LOL
Rajeev,
You are from Kerala and you can add your outrage and voice to this debate - this is mockery of democracy at its worst. Elections and voting doesn't make a democracy. See how "lawmakers" in Kerala, mostly the pseudo-seculars are trying to get a terrorist out of jail
"Terror accused Mahdani most valuable ally for Left, Cong" - http://www.indianexpress.com/story/9248.html
Here's someone who at least has seen the light of the day...found it on Sulekha (from Rediff)..not sure when (or if) the second part is going to appear on Rediff.
This guy, Pradhan was one of the lawyers defending the 93 Mumbai bomb blast accused...
Also, look at what he had to say about the media darling and IMO, one of the most over-hyped (if u can call him one) actors: SRK...
..Tell me, is this the same Shah Rukh Khan who refused to touch the feet of Lata Mangeshkar saying his religion does not allow him to touch someone's feet? How much money has he paid to Kashmiri Hindus? Has Shah Rukh Khan defended Feroze Khan for what he said in Pakistan?...
---
Also, its a bit off-kilter, but I was just wondering the other day as to how the Sikh community never tires of letting the non-Sikhs (read Hindus) know as to how they (Sikhs) have defended India and Hindus against atrocities and invasions (and I am in no way undermining their contribution), but I was thinking as to what it might have to say about one of the most incompetent and sucker PMs India ever had, who also co-incidentally happens to belong to the Sikh community and one who in fact is touted as an illustrious sons of India...just wondering :-)
Moreover, Sikhs way back in 93 or 94 readily accepted apologies for Op Bluestar from Italian Bardancer (the operation for which no apologies should have been forthcoming) and nobody shed a single tear for the soldiers (Sikhs as well as non-Sikhs) who took part in that operation, whereby they had to fight with their backs against the wall and laid their lives and also for which Gen Arun Sridhar Vaidya (Army Chief at the time of Op Bluestar) had to sacrifice his life (when that two bit crook-turned-terrorist Jinda killed him in Pune) ...is it that IB is a 'White' person and as such India's obsession with anything gora makes us so oblivious to their mistakes that we can throw caution to winds...
----
'My country doesn't deserve this'
July 24, 2006 | 17:11 IST
Niteen V Pradhan is an angry man. One of India's leading criminal lawyers, he has mailed a letter to the 18 core accused in the March 12, 1993 bomb blasts case, telling them he will not fight the case for them any more.
In conversation with Sumit Bhattacharya, Pradhan says July 11, 2006 was a "day of reckoning" for him, and he felt he was "defending the wrong cause."
The first instalment of a two-part interview.
You have defended people like Abu Salem and some of the accused in the stamp scam case. Why did you decide not to defend the 1993 blasts accused anymore?
There is a bit of a history. Initially some other lawyers were appearing for the bomb blasts accused. Those lawyers expressed their no-confidence in the then presiding officer of the court. The accused retracted and said, 'We want this judge.' The judge directed that these lawyers should not come within the precincts of the court.
There were 48 prime accused. The series of charges against them included smuggling RDX (Research and Development Explosive), transportation of RDX, hatching conspiracy in Dubai, having conspiratorial meetings in India, storage of RDX, preparing vehicular bombs, planting those bombs and detonating them on March 12, 1993.
These 48 persons were left high and dry by the order of the judge.
The judge appointed me and Mahesh Jethmalani as amicus curae (friend of the court, who assists the court to come to the right conclusion) in July 1994.
The day after, representatives of three Muslim organisations met me. They said, 'We don't want you to appear as amicus curae. We want to pay your fees and we want you to act as a professional defence counsel.'
I was reluctant. I made enquiries.
They (the community leaders) said, 'We don't want Mahesh Jethmalani because his father was vice-president of the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party).'
I apprised the learned judge of the meeting. The judge said, 'I don't have any objection.'
In the first meeting, I asked them, 'Why do you want the community to pay?' -- they said my fees would be paid by the community. I asked them, 'Why is the community trying to identify with those who are accused of killing people mercilessly with vehicular bombs?'
It was the first time something like that had happened in India, and I was surprised (with the community identifying with the accused).
They said the community is offended because of the application of Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code -- which means waging war against the country. Under English law, it meant the offence of treason.
They said, 'We are not traitors. And if our community has been accused of being traitors, we feel the entire community has been accused of being traitors.'
I agreed with them. Because according to me, the bomb blasts had nothing to do with waging war against the government. The bomb blasts had something to do with the Ayodhya issue, December 1992 riots and the January 1993 riots (in Mumbai). It was arising out of the communal frenzy.
I felt this community is not a traitor. They love India like any other person. It is not that Hindus love India more than the Muslims, or the Christians, or the Sikhs, or any other community or religion in India.
I defended them. My submissions were accepted by the judge and the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) also. M Natarajan, the senior advocate appearing for CBI, made a bold statement. He said that I am legally correct in my submissions. Ultimately he conceded that this charge of Section 121 should be dropped. The matter (case) went on.
Finally these 18 persons, the core accused, I defended them as a matter of professional duty. I was told the money for my fees was being collected during the Friday sermons. After my appearance in 1994, when I came out of the matter in 1995, several bomb blasts took place in Bombay -- Ghatkopar, Vile Parle, Gateway of India, etc.
The biggest one was the recent one -- July 11. I was extremely perturbed because (despite) whatever I had been told by the so-called leaders, those leaders have not come out against these bomb blasts, or the carnage of tourists in Srinagar. They have not come out in support of the Kashmiri Pandits living in refugee camps.
At least one Muslim leader should come out and say, 'I don't stand by the so-called jihad, so-called pious duty they are talking about. That Islam they are talking, that Islam they are preaching, that Islam they are executing, that is not my Islam. I feel ashamed if they belong to my community, my religion.'
Nobody said this. Nobody came out. I am not talking just about the leaders who came to meet me. I am talking about community leaders from the film world, the industry, from the commercial establishments, from educational institutions, from politics. None of them came out saying that 'I want to collect money for Kashmiri Hindus. I want to come out in support of these victims.'
After 1993, Bombay is by and large calm. There is no communal frenzy here. The loss of faith in each other, which happened in 1992, has been now retrieved. What is the occasion for all these bomb blasts, particularly July 11?
The 1993 bomb blasts -- I am not justifying it, it is no doubt beyond justification -- were the aftermath of the Ayodhya issue, the December 1992 riots and January 1993 riots (in Mumbai). What has happened now? Who has committed atrocities, even allegedly?
I am convinced now that all these terrorist activities, all these bomb blasts are aimed against Hindus. They want to kill Hindus at random and as many as possible.
This is the same impression I have mentioned in my letter to the accused. I said, 'My community and my country do not deserve this. My community and my country, despite being ruled by Muslims for a thousand years, despite the atrocities, have accepted them as brothers.'
But we have seen people like Shah Rukh Khan condemning the blasts.
Tell me, is this the same Shah Rukh Khan who refused to touch the feet of Lata Mangeshkar saying his religion does not allow him to touch someone's feet? How much money has he paid to Kashmiri Hindus? Has Shah Rukh Khan defended Feroze Khan for what he said in Pakistan?
How many of them have defended Feroze Khan, who told the truth -- that Pakistan is a failed State; that minorities in India are far better treated than the minorities in Pakistan? Did Shabana Azmi support him? Did Javed Akhtar support him?
Post a Comment