Following Ahsan Jafri's death at the hands of a mob, his widow's fight for justice is now a fight for all India's hate crime victims.
When the mob swarmed around his housing colony in Ahmedabad on 28 February 2002, the former Indian MP Ahsan Jafri made more than 100 phone calls, desperately pleading for help, over his neighbours' fearful cries and the mob's chants for blood. Eyewitnesses allege that Jafri called the local police station, imploring them to protect his neighbourhood from the threat that was closing in on them. The accusation is that the police stood on the sidelines and watched.
Neighbours crammed into Jafri's home seeking refuge. Little did they know he was the main target. In the late afternoon, when Jafri ventured out, begging the attackers to stop, they burned him alive. About 69 people were killed in the attack on the housing colony. Women were gang raped. Not even young children were spared. The Gulbarg Society massacre was part of a wave of violence against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002.
For almost 10 years, Jafri's wife, Zakia, has been fighting for justice. The frail, ailing 72-year-old has taken on one of India's most powerful politicians, Narendra Modi, the chief minister of India's most prosperous state, Gujarat. Modi aspires to be the Hindu rightwing BJP's candidate for prime minister in next year's elections. He is the darling of Indian industry, commended by Ratan Tata and Mukesh Ambani, the country's richest billionaires, and Amitabh Bachchan, Bollywood's biggest star. But critics allege that Modi stood by during a spate of violence that left more than 1,000 people dead. In Gujarat, the perception is that bringing a case against the influential is almost impossible.
Yet, India is shining. It is considered the world's largest democracy, a rising economic force. Its ugly record on communal violence is swept under the rug. Hate crimes are not normally associated with India. But thousands like Zakia have suffered, and their voices remain unheard, and the powerful leaders who allegedly abetted the crimes remain unscathed. Modi has consistently denied the accusations of his role in Gujarat's pogrom and has condemned the violence.
Years of struggle through a labyrinth of police stations and courts to file a case of alleged criminal conspiracy in the Gujarat violence against Modi and 61 other state officials has left Zakia back where she started.
On 12 September this year, the supreme court verdict sent Zakia's case back to Gujarat's district court. Before passing the verdict, the supreme court had appointed a special investigation team to look into the charges against Modi and the 61 others. After the team submitted its report, the court asked an amicus curiae (a legal expert appointed to assist the court) to make an independent assessment of it. Last month, the amicus curiae's report was leaked to the Indian media. The report allegedly states that there is enough evidence to file charges against the chief minister and several state officials. This gives Zakia and Citizens for Justice and Peace, a human rights group that is co-petitioner in Zakia's case, a glimmer of hope. But will the district court act on it?
Recently, the Gujarat police arrested Sanjiv Bhatt, a senior police officer who testified against Modi, giving evidence of Modi's role in the riots of 2002. Recently, he said he had attended a meeting of senior police officers a day before the Gulbarg attacks began. He attested that the chief minister told them to let the mobs vent their anger. The Gujarat police arrested Bhatt on charges that he forced a junior officer to make a false testimony against Modi. Though out on bail, he still fears he may be killed.
Communal violence is often used as a political tool in India. The BJP, the largest opposition party in India, whose Hindutva ideologues drew inspiration from fascist beliefs , according to scholars such as Christophe Jaffrelot and Marzia Casolari. The BJP and its many fraternal organisations together form the Sangh Parivar (pdf) (Family of Associations), a brotherhood that keeps Hindutva alive and kicking in India today. Gandhi's assassin, Nathuram Godse, was allegedly an activist for the Sangh Parivar. Besides the Gujarat pogrom, the Sangh has allegedly had a hand in several communal massacres, including the demolition of the historic Babri Masjid and the violence that followed across India in 1992-93.
Some of the ruling Congress party leaders were allegedly complicit in the anti-Sikh pogrom that followed the assassination of the former prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1984. Though hundreds of cases are pending in court, none of the politicians who were in power when the deaths occurred have been held to account. Should the frail yet crusading Zakia hope for anything different? Will India ever own up to its violent record on hate crimes? For Jafri and other victims, there's no one left to call, no more doors left to knock on.
Source: http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/2011/nov/22/zakia-jafri-india-narendra-modi?code=AQB23HK-6q4j0wOJFgMmI4JUTlf0QqK5WDGGVeG9YEONqDZFwkTT6_vBri0F3dlY-TeNLiMKr_UXTJrX3HURY_knlMc-_rn0CFb3woAXwbm5jnyHQXWWmp81HRxn_Rm6QVEvD41iYpiojmK666tdKiaHsyvGMADWeta56XiPs_uzQNOvtom4XcZdkqzk2QW48WU#_=_
Monday, November 28, 2011
2002 Gujarat riots: Nanavati panel chief's son to represent Narendra Modi government in HC, SC
In a clear case of conflict of interest, Maulik Nanavati, the son of retired Justice G.T. Nanavati, who heads the Nanavati Mehta Inquiry Commission probing the 2002 Gujarat riots, has appeared for the Gujarat government in the high court and the Supreme Court as an empanelled lawyer of the state.The Gujarat government had appointed Justice Nanavati on May 21, 2002 as the chairman of the inquiry commission to probe the Sabarmati Express carnage at Godhra and the subsequent riots in Gujarat. Maulik's appointment as additional public prosecutor (APP) followed three years later, in 2005.
Maulik represents the state in the Central Administrative Tribunal against the senior IPS officer Kuldeep Sharma, who was targeted by the Narendra Modi government for not following instructions in sensitive matters like the Sohrabuddin fake encounter.
It is learnt that Maulik spends two days every month representing the state government in the Supreme Court. For each appearance he is paid a hefty fee.
Maulik's brother, Dhaval, had appeared for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in a few cases before the Gujarat high court.
Senior high court lawyer Anand Yagnik said this was a classic case of conflict of interest.
"How can the government of Gujarat appoint Maulik as its representative when his father is supposed to give a report in favour or against the state government depending on the evidence emerging out of the riot probe?" he asked.
Yagnik added that Dhaval, the other son of Justice Nanavati, was earlier empanelled as a Central government lawyer when Justice Nanavati was probing the anti-Sikh riots of 1984.
Justice Nanavati refused to comment on the conflict of interest. "No comments," he said.
Maulik Nanavati rubbished the allegations. "These allegations are baseless and have been floating for quite some time. I have been representing the government of Gujarat for a while now," Maulik said.
He explained that APPs are appointed by the state government based on the recommendations of the high court.
But, senior high court lawyers said APPs are appointed by the state government. "The proposal for these appointments comes from the advocate-general to the state government's legal department, which is subsequently ratified," said a senior advocate who did not want to be named.
What has raised eyebrows in legal circles here is the timing of Maulik's appointment as APP - it comes close on the heels of Justice Nanavati's appointment as chairman of the inquiry commission.
"Maulik was earlier practising in Delhi and post 2002, he started representing the state in the apex court," said a senior lawyer. "However, he moved to Ahmedabad and started practising around 2005. That was when he was appointed as an APP," he said.
Gujarat law minister Dilip Sanghani did not see a conflict of interest in Maulik's appointment as APP. "The panel includes several lawyers and it is up to the departments to hand over a case to a particular lawyer. Our job is only to make the panel," Sanghani said.
Asked if Maulik's inclusion in the panel itself was a conflict of interest, Sanghani avoided a direct answer. The minister said Maulik had been on the panel before he took over as the law minister. Sanghani was appointed law minister after the 2007 Gujarat assembly elections.
The Gujarat government had appointed Justice K.G. Shah on March 6, 2002 to the commission of inquiry to probe the train burning incident. Subsequently, the commission was expanded to comprise two members. Justice Nanavati was appointed on May 21, 2002 while Justice Akshay Mehta was appointed after Justice Shah's death in 2008.
The Nanavati-Mehta Commission has so far submitted only the first part of its report, which was on the burning of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra.
While the initial terms of reference of the probe commission was to look into the burning of the Sabarmati Express, the government expanded the scope of inquiry on June 3, 2002 to include the incidents of violence that rocked Gujarat till March 30, 2002.
Later in 2004, after the fall of the NDA government at the Centre, the commission's terms of reference were broadened once again on July 20, 2004. These terms of reference included the role and conduct of the then chief minister and/or any other Gujarat minister and police officers in the riots. The scope of inquiry also included the incidents of violence that had taken place till May 31, 2002.
Incidentally, despite several representations from the victims, the commission has so far not called chief minister Narendra Modi to depose before it.
The commission came under fire from the legal fraternity after the special court's verdict in February this year.
Eminent lawyer Mukul Sinha had described the Nanavati Commission as a "political eyewash" after the verdict adding: "What is more interesting is that while the special court and Justice Nanavati had the same set of confessions and documents, their conclusions were so different?"
Source: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/narendra-modi-gujarat-riots-nanavati-mehta/1/161605.html
Witness in Sanjiv Bhatt case goes missing
AHMEDABAD: A witness in the Sanjiv Bhatt case, Shrenik Shah, who stays in Chandkheda, has been missing for the past two days.
Shah was allegedly with Bhatt when police constable K D Pant filed the affidavit. Pant had initially filed an affidavit which was used by Bhatt to support his claim that he was present at a meeting conducted by the Gujarat chief minister right before the communal riots of 2002.
Later, Pant filed a police complaint against Bhatt. Pant said in his complaint that Bhatt had forced him to file the affidavit.
When Pant had filed his affidavit to support Bhatt's claim, Shah was with them. After Pant filed the complaint with the Ghatlodia police which is investigating the case, Shah had become a witness and his statement was recorded under 164 CrPC. A statement made under this section, before a judicial magistrate, is difficult to go back on. Any person who chooses to make a volte face after this is liable for imprisonment.
A Chandkheda police official said: "We have learnt that Shah has been missing from his home. We have spoken to his family but they are not yet ready to file any complaint. We can do little at this juncture."
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Witness-in-Sanjiv-Bhatt-case-goes-missing/articleshow/10503994.cms
Shah was allegedly with Bhatt when police constable K D Pant filed the affidavit. Pant had initially filed an affidavit which was used by Bhatt to support his claim that he was present at a meeting conducted by the Gujarat chief minister right before the communal riots of 2002.
Later, Pant filed a police complaint against Bhatt. Pant said in his complaint that Bhatt had forced him to file the affidavit.
When Pant had filed his affidavit to support Bhatt's claim, Shah was with them. After Pant filed the complaint with the Ghatlodia police which is investigating the case, Shah had become a witness and his statement was recorded under 164 CrPC. A statement made under this section, before a judicial magistrate, is difficult to go back on. Any person who chooses to make a volte face after this is liable for imprisonment.
A Chandkheda police official said: "We have learnt that Shah has been missing from his home. We have spoken to his family but they are not yet ready to file any complaint. We can do little at this juncture."
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Witness-in-Sanjiv-Bhatt-case-goes-missing/articleshow/10503994.cms
Witness in Sanjiv Bhatt case goes missing
AHMEDABAD: A witness in the Sanjiv Bhatt case, Shrenik Shah, who stays in Chandkheda, has been missing for the past two days.
Shah was allegedly with Bhatt when police constable K D Pant filed the affidavit. Pant had initially filed an affidavit which was used by Bhatt to support his claim that he was present at a meeting conducted by the Gujarat chief minister right before the communal riots of 2002.
Later, Pant filed a police complaint against Bhatt. Pant said in his complaint that Bhatt had forced him to file the affidavit.
When Pant had filed his affidavit to support Bhatt's claim, Shah was with them. After Pant filed the complaint with the Ghatlodia police which is investigating the case, Shah had become a witness and his statement was recorded under 164 CrPC. A statement made under this section, before a judicial magistrate, is difficult to go back on. Any person who chooses to make a volte face after this is liable for imprisonment.
A Chandkheda police official said: "We have learnt that Shah has been missing from his home. We have spoken to his family but they are not yet ready to file any complaint. We can do little at this juncture."
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Witness-in-Sanjiv-Bhatt-case-goes-missing/articleshow/10503994.cms
Shah was allegedly with Bhatt when police constable K D Pant filed the affidavit. Pant had initially filed an affidavit which was used by Bhatt to support his claim that he was present at a meeting conducted by the Gujarat chief minister right before the communal riots of 2002.
Later, Pant filed a police complaint against Bhatt. Pant said in his complaint that Bhatt had forced him to file the affidavit.
When Pant had filed his affidavit to support Bhatt's claim, Shah was with them. After Pant filed the complaint with the Ghatlodia police which is investigating the case, Shah had become a witness and his statement was recorded under 164 CrPC. A statement made under this section, before a judicial magistrate, is difficult to go back on. Any person who chooses to make a volte face after this is liable for imprisonment.
A Chandkheda police official said: "We have learnt that Shah has been missing from his home. We have spoken to his family but they are not yet ready to file any complaint. We can do little at this juncture."
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Witness-in-Sanjiv-Bhatt-case-goes-missing/articleshow/10503994.cms
Yeddyurappa flouted rules to back RSS newspaper
Hosa Digantha was accorded a ‘state newspaper’ status by bending rules, got state govt ads worth Rs 1 crore in the past 6 months
More skeletons are tumbling out of former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa’s cupboard. The latest controversy involves the RSS morning daily Hosa Digantha, which got undue patronage of the BJP-ruled government apparently to spread the Hinduvta message.
Hosa Digantha, whose tagline Rashtra Jagrutiya Dainika means Daily for National Awareness, has been accorded a ‘state newspaper’ status by its benefactors sweeping aside the recommendations of a State Information Department panel. Though the RSS mouthpiece lacks the necessary circulation, print and certification from the central Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC), rules were bent with the state government providing two industrial sheds in Bengaluru worth Rs 5 crore to the newspaper for Rs 1.5 crore.
Started in 1979, Hosa Digantha’s Mangalore edition has a print run of less than 20,000 copies. Despite running for 32 years, it failed to make impact until the BJP came to power in 2008. In three years, the paper’s circulation hit 55,000 with the addition of Bengaluru and Shimoga editions. In fact, Yeddyurappa, during the launch at his hometown of Shimoga, hailed the newspaper’s “contribution to journalism” and said the reason for its success was its policy of “nation first”.
This year, the daily was granted the status of a state newspaper. According to the recommendations of the P Ramaiah Committee, which framed rules for according newspaper status, a publication should have not less than 1,000 copies daily to be accorded a district-level newspaper status. Regional newspaper status is given to publication with the same print run in more than two districts. But the criteria for a state newspaper status are tough making circulation of 75,000 and presence in more than 19 of the 30 districts of the state compulsory.
A government order in 2001 made ABC certification mandatory for newspapers. Muddu Mohan, Director of State Information Department, had written to the state government on 17 March that a paper that failed to meet the required criteria could not be granted the status of a state newspaper. However, overriding his objection, a circular was passed on 13 April according the status of state newspaper to Hosa Digantha.
When questioned about this anomaly, Ramesh Jharkhi, Secretary in the Information Department said, “The state government in its wisdom had passed the orders’’ refusing to comment further.
BV Seetaram, Editor and director of Mangalore-based newspaper Karavali Ale (Canara Times, a regional newspaper) has filed a petition in the High Court against the government’s decision. “The Department of Information in November 2010 issued advertisements of Bhagyalaxmi (an insurance scheme for the girl child) programmes in Chikmagulur and Bidar districts to Hosa Digantha despite its zero circulation in the districts. The advertisements were denied to our newspapers even though we also belong to the regional newspaper category,” Seetaram claimed.
According to a data sheet of advertisements released by the Information Department collated by Seetaram, the newspaper got state governments ads worth Rs 1 crore in the past six months. “The data does not mention advertisements released by other departments,” he added.
(Information sought under the RTI Act by Tehelka shows tha since January, the newspaper has received advertisements worth Rs 49.21 lakh.)
Seetaram alleges that even the name of the publication has been stolen from a rival newspaper. “This newspaper has the registration number of another daily with the same name and owned by a different management based in with Chikmagulur.”
Hosa Digantha Editor Chudamani Aiyyar, himself an RSS activist said, “We had filed a case against the newspaper in 1980 in the magistrate’s court of Dakshin Kannada. In June 2011, we filed a case against the management of Janana Bharathi Trust for stealing our name.” Muddu Mohan refused to comment on this matter.
Chairman of the management board of Hosa Digantha and Director of Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd P Dayananda Pai was unavailable for comment. When contacted, his office informed TEHELKA that he was out of the country.
CEO of the trust Prakash, however, denied the allegations saying, “Though we don’t have ABC certification, our paper reaches all the districts of the state. As for the name registration issue, we have sorted that matter out. And, the twin sheds at Rajaji Nagar were legally granted to us at their actual cost price.”
A local weekly Lankesh Patrike recently reported that Shantaram, the Resident Editor of Hosa Digantha and an RSS leader, was the beneficiary of a Housing Board house worth Rs 35 lakh. According to the documents available with the daily, Yeddyurappa had himself paid for the house-- located at Sooryanagar in Bangalore--despite the editor owning another plot, which amounts of violation of law. For a similar reason, former Lokayukta Justice Shivaraj V Patil had to step down.
The state BJP government has also granted land all over the state to RSS-affiliated institution Rashtrothan Parishat. Documents available with TEHEKA show that close to 100 acre of land have been given to this organisation in the past three years. The details have been listed below.
Sl. No. Date Place Survey number Extent of Land Allotted.
1. 08/07/2010 Doddballapur Taluk , Tobagere Village 38 7.20 acre
2. Doddaballapur Taluk, Kelaginajugana Village 47 36
3. Doddaballapur Taluk, Kelaginanayakarndalli,village 5 6.20
4. Haveri District, Taluk Hanagal, village Malligar Rs. No.1 5.18 acre
5.01/09/2010 Doddaballapur 38/47/05 Based on their application
on 16Aug,2010, additional
50 acre has been allotted
to them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imran Khan is a Senior Correspondent with Tehelka.com.
imran@tehelka.com
Source: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws281011RSS.asp
Cops were punished for controlling riots : Ex-DGP
AHMEDABAD: Retired IPS officer and former state intelligence bureau (IB) chief, R B Sreekumar has requested the Godhra probe panel to seek details on how efficient cops managed to control riots in 2002 in most part of Gujarat. He has also told the commission that state government has "with ulterior motive underplayed or belittled the praiseworthy and model performance of law enforcers" who controlled riots in their respective jurisdictions.
Sreekumar, who has dashed off a letter to the Nanavati-Mehta commission and the Supreme Court-mandated special investigation team, has highlighted that state government's claims that the 2002 riots were "spontaneous" and violence took place due to "failure of system" were completely misleading.
He said that there was either no violence or negligible damage in 16 districts and two commissionerates. But the government has never given due credit to its police officers for effectively containing riots. Instead, those cops have received "shabby treatment from the state government including punishment postings and departmental actions in the post-riot period." His affidavit filed last year contained names of such officials.
Sreekumar has also told the commission to seek details from senior police officers like V K Gupta, Manoj Shashidhar, Satish Verma, Narasimha Komar, Vivek Srivastava, Rahul Sharma, M D Antani, Upendra Singh and Keshav Kumar on how they managed to control violence in their areas. "The information on the operational strategy, tactics, ground-level methodology, techniques of leadership and motivation and administrative measures, adopted by these officers during the time of protracted 2002 anti-minority blood bath in Gujarat will be of great relevance to the terms of reference of the Commission," the letter stated.
The commission has also been asked by the state government to come up with suggestions to prevent such violence in future.
Analyzing the incidents of violence, Sreekumar has stated that the authorities deliberately acted against the minority community, which resulted in massive violence in areas like Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Panchmahals and north Gujarat.
"Paradoxical and inexplicably strange phenomena of about 60% of death in police firing and 77% of casualties of mob-violence being drawn from the Muslim community pose a serious question mark on the professional integrity and the commitment to the Rule of Law of the officers of police and Executive Magistracy," Sreekumar stated.
Sreekumar has till date filed eight affidavits before the commission exposing the State's complicity in the 2002 riots. He was denied promotion by the Narendra Modi government, but he fought a long legal battle and got promotion on Gujarat high court order after he retired.
Source:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Cops-were-punished-for-controlling-riots-Ex-DGP/articleshow/10561375.cms
Day before murder, Jharkhand nun reported rape in village
A candlelight vigil for Sister Valsa in Delhi Friday. Amit Mehra
A day before she was hacked to death, Sister Valsa John had told a supporter about a rape in the village, and how the police were not registering her complaint. This has emerged as a strong line of investigation three days after the Catholic nun was murdered by unidentified assailants in Pachuwara village in Jharkhand’s Pakur district, according to officials.
Pakur deputy comissioner Sunil Kumar Singh told The Indian Express that an aide of the nun, whose identity is being withheld, had conveyed to him the problems she was facing in getting the rape complaint registered. “I immediately asked the concerned police officer to register the FIR. This was on November 14. Next day she was killed,” Singh said.
The alleged rapist, Adwin Murmu of Alubera village, two km from Pachuwara, was taken into custody along with six others today. They were being interrogated by officers led by acting SP Amar Nath Khanna at Amrapara, 40 km from here.
Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/day-before-murder-jharkhand-nun-reported-rape-in-village/877825/
A day before she was hacked to death, Sister Valsa John had told a supporter about a rape in the village, and how the police were not registering her complaint. This has emerged as a strong line of investigation three days after the Catholic nun was murdered by unidentified assailants in Pachuwara village in Jharkhand’s Pakur district, according to officials.
Pakur deputy comissioner Sunil Kumar Singh told The Indian Express that an aide of the nun, whose identity is being withheld, had conveyed to him the problems she was facing in getting the rape complaint registered. “I immediately asked the concerned police officer to register the FIR. This was on November 14. Next day she was killed,” Singh said.
The alleged rapist, Adwin Murmu of Alubera village, two km from Pachuwara, was taken into custody along with six others today. They were being interrogated by officers led by acting SP Amar Nath Khanna at Amrapara, 40 km from here.
Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/day-before-murder-jharkhand-nun-reported-rape-in-village/877825/
Narendra Modi should tell us why my sister was killed: Ishrat Jahan's brother
Anwar, brother of Ishrat Jahan, offers sweets to his mother Shamima Kausar on Monday
GK Baig | DNA
Mumbai girl Ishrat Jahan and three others were not killed in an encounter on June 15, 2004, near Ahmedabad. They were killed earlier and the encounter was staged.
This is what the Special Investigative Team, appointed by the Gujarat high court, told the court on Monday.
Hearing the news, Ishrat’s family members in Mumbra, Thane, said the guilty policemen should be hanged and Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi should give an explanation. “What did Modi get by killing my daughter?” asked Ishrat’s mother Shamima Kausar Jehan. “We had full faith in the judiciary. Now it has been proved that my daughter was killed in a fake encounter. Can Modi give back my daughter?”
Ishrat’s brother Raza Anwar Iqbal said the guilty policemen deserve capital punishment. “Also, those who ordered the fake encounter should not be allowed to get away scot-free,” he said. “Modi should tell us why my sister was killed.”
The bench of justices Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari initially said a fresh FIR under section 302 (murder) of the IPC should be filed to investigate the motive behind the fake encounter and to book the guilty cops. Later, hearing the Gujarat government, which opposed the filing of a fresh FIR, and petitioners who wanted a fresh FIR, the court decided to pronounce the final order on Wednesday.
The bench will also decide which agency would pursue the case. It has sought the Union home ministry’s opinion on whom to hand over the investigations - the Central Bureau of Investigations or the National Investigation Agency.
The SIT said in its report that Jahan, 19, Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai, Amjad Ali Rana and Zeeshan Johar were killed earlier than the shootout date of June 15, 2004. The police had then claimed that the four belonged to the Lashkar-e-Taiba and they were in the city with the intention to kill Modi. They had also said that Rana and Johar were Pakistani nationals.
“All three members of the SIT have unanimously concluded that the encounter was not genuine and an FIR should be filed under section 302 and investigation should be done by the CBI or the NIA,” Patel said at the beginning of the hearing on the Monday.
Twenty-one policemen, including four IPS officers - then joint commissioner PP Pande, suspended deputy inspector general DG Vanzara, then assistant commissioners GL Singhal and NK Amin - were involved in the staged shootout.
Citing the report, Patel said, “The time of death as stated in the FIR (filed in 2004 after the encounter) and the actual time of death seem to be different. Even the place of death seems to be different than what is shown in the FIR.”
Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_narendra-modi-should-tell-us-why-my-sister-was-killed-ishrat-jahan-s-brother_1615725
GK Baig | DNA
Mumbai girl Ishrat Jahan and three others were not killed in an encounter on June 15, 2004, near Ahmedabad. They were killed earlier and the encounter was staged.
This is what the Special Investigative Team, appointed by the Gujarat high court, told the court on Monday.
Hearing the news, Ishrat’s family members in Mumbra, Thane, said the guilty policemen should be hanged and Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi should give an explanation. “What did Modi get by killing my daughter?” asked Ishrat’s mother Shamima Kausar Jehan. “We had full faith in the judiciary. Now it has been proved that my daughter was killed in a fake encounter. Can Modi give back my daughter?”
Ishrat’s brother Raza Anwar Iqbal said the guilty policemen deserve capital punishment. “Also, those who ordered the fake encounter should not be allowed to get away scot-free,” he said. “Modi should tell us why my sister was killed.”
The bench of justices Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari initially said a fresh FIR under section 302 (murder) of the IPC should be filed to investigate the motive behind the fake encounter and to book the guilty cops. Later, hearing the Gujarat government, which opposed the filing of a fresh FIR, and petitioners who wanted a fresh FIR, the court decided to pronounce the final order on Wednesday.
The bench will also decide which agency would pursue the case. It has sought the Union home ministry’s opinion on whom to hand over the investigations - the Central Bureau of Investigations or the National Investigation Agency.
The SIT said in its report that Jahan, 19, Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai, Amjad Ali Rana and Zeeshan Johar were killed earlier than the shootout date of June 15, 2004. The police had then claimed that the four belonged to the Lashkar-e-Taiba and they were in the city with the intention to kill Modi. They had also said that Rana and Johar were Pakistani nationals.
“All three members of the SIT have unanimously concluded that the encounter was not genuine and an FIR should be filed under section 302 and investigation should be done by the CBI or the NIA,” Patel said at the beginning of the hearing on the Monday.
Twenty-one policemen, including four IPS officers - then joint commissioner PP Pande, suspended deputy inspector general DG Vanzara, then assistant commissioners GL Singhal and NK Amin - were involved in the staged shootout.
Citing the report, Patel said, “The time of death as stated in the FIR (filed in 2004 after the encounter) and the actual time of death seem to be different. Even the place of death seems to be different than what is shown in the FIR.”
Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_narendra-modi-should-tell-us-why-my-sister-was-killed-ishrat-jahan-s-brother_1615725
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Gujarat's close ‘Encounters’
The Narendra Modi government has reason to feel severely embarrassed and exposed by the report submitted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to the Gujarat High Court. In holding that Ishrat Jahan, the 19-year old Mumbai student, and three others were killed in cold blood by the Gujarat police, the SIT has dismissed the State government's persistent claim that the four died in a shootout. The evidence on which the team reached its conclusion is not yet publicly available but the High Court has revealed that the three-member SIT reached the unanimous conclusion that the four victims were murdered before their bodies were dumped on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. In short, summary extra-judicial executions were dressed up to look like a police encounter. This is exactly the same conclusion the Ahmedabad Metropolitan Magistrate had reached in 2009. Going by the forensic evidence and the post-mortem reports, the magistrate dismissed the Gujarat police's claim that the victims, who were allegedly involved in a plot to assassinate Chief Minister Narendra Modi, were killed in an exchange of gunfire on a highway. He concluded that the victims were shot dead at very close range the night before the encounter was supposed to have taken place. Instead of acting on this honest finding, the Bharatiya Janata Party State government denied that the encounter was fake and accused the magistrate of overstepping his jurisdiction by writing such a report. Now that the High Court has ordered that a fresh FIR be registered against those suspected of murdering Ishrat and the others, cover-up of the heinous crime will no longer be possible.
It has been seven years since the killings took place, a period during which the Modi government feigned a posture of hurt innocence. With the High Court declaring its intent to hand over the investigation, after the filing of a fresh FIR, to a central agency, there is no way the 21 policemen, including some officers, allegedly responsible for staging the fake encounter could be shielded. Among them is Deputy Inspector General D.G. Vanzara, the so-called ‘encounter specialist,' who was arrested and jailed for the extra-judicial murder of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife in 2005. The issue of staging fake encounters should be seen for what it is — murder most foul. It should not be clouded or sidetracked by questions on whether those done away with were ‘innocents' or extremists, gangsters, or whatever. Enough of rationalisations: no civilised society under the rule of law can countenance or tolerate extra-judicial killings, a practice that subverts the very principles the criminal justice system is founded upon.
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article2653856.ece
It has been seven years since the killings took place, a period during which the Modi government feigned a posture of hurt innocence. With the High Court declaring its intent to hand over the investigation, after the filing of a fresh FIR, to a central agency, there is no way the 21 policemen, including some officers, allegedly responsible for staging the fake encounter could be shielded. Among them is Deputy Inspector General D.G. Vanzara, the so-called ‘encounter specialist,' who was arrested and jailed for the extra-judicial murder of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife in 2005. The issue of staging fake encounters should be seen for what it is — murder most foul. It should not be clouded or sidetracked by questions on whether those done away with were ‘innocents' or extremists, gangsters, or whatever. Enough of rationalisations: no civilised society under the rule of law can countenance or tolerate extra-judicial killings, a practice that subverts the very principles the criminal justice system is founded upon.
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article2653856.ece
Exams where caste stigma has no answer
Manish Kumar landed in the Capital from Bihar three years ago with happy thoughts that his childhood dream of becoming a doctor was almost within grasp.
He was on the right path, with a seat secured in a well-known medical college and with the realisation that he could finally shed the caste identity that was part of his small-town upbringing.
In the three years since, Manish has studied hard, seen the insides of a court room, filed RTI applications and knocked at the doors of government offices, but has still not managed to get past the second year of the MBBS course.
“I was a first year medical student at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College in 2008 when I first failed in physiology. This happened again in July 2010 and I sat for the supplementary exams in October. I did not know how to react when I found out that I had failed again in the supplementary exams along with 24 of my classmates, every one of whom belonged to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or some other reserved category,” says Manish, adding that he received a bigger shock when he found that among the 25, there were students who had been failing only in physiology from 2004 onwards until 2009.
Manish and his friends realised something else later. “The university allots roll numbers to the reserved category candidates in a row and the answer-sheets are coded and collected in a way that the identity of the reserved category students is revealed easily.”
Ever since this revelation, the students seem to have knocked at every door that could help them -- from filling RTI applications to complaints with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, and even going to the High Court.
However, the legal battle only brought them some temporarily relief. “Under the Court's supervision, we took another exam in which every one of us, including those who had failed repeatedly since 2004, passed. The Court also passed an order that we be allowed to attend classes for the second year and that due consideration be given for shortage of attendance.”
Since then the students have been attending second year classes but were prevented from taking their exams in mid-November. “We were told we did not have sufficient attendance. The Principal usually refused to meet us and whenever he had, he pretended that he was not aware of anything and seems to have washed his hands off the whole affair.”
When contacted by The Hindu , the Principal refused to discuss the matter.
These days Manish spends all his time worrying whether he would be allowed at least to take the supplementary exams in March, and praying that he would not be humiliated every time he attends class.
“Right after the court case, the lecturers would tell our classmates to look at us -- the people who could only gain entrance into a medical college through reservations and couldn't pass without a High Court order. After some complaints it has toned down,” says Manish.
The students, however, believe another legal battle is imminent. “Our lawyer has asked us to file for contempt of court. I don't see this ending easily.”
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article2654919.ece
He was on the right path, with a seat secured in a well-known medical college and with the realisation that he could finally shed the caste identity that was part of his small-town upbringing.
In the three years since, Manish has studied hard, seen the insides of a court room, filed RTI applications and knocked at the doors of government offices, but has still not managed to get past the second year of the MBBS course.
“I was a first year medical student at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College in 2008 when I first failed in physiology. This happened again in July 2010 and I sat for the supplementary exams in October. I did not know how to react when I found out that I had failed again in the supplementary exams along with 24 of my classmates, every one of whom belonged to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or some other reserved category,” says Manish, adding that he received a bigger shock when he found that among the 25, there were students who had been failing only in physiology from 2004 onwards until 2009.
Manish and his friends realised something else later. “The university allots roll numbers to the reserved category candidates in a row and the answer-sheets are coded and collected in a way that the identity of the reserved category students is revealed easily.”
Ever since this revelation, the students seem to have knocked at every door that could help them -- from filling RTI applications to complaints with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, and even going to the High Court.
However, the legal battle only brought them some temporarily relief. “Under the Court's supervision, we took another exam in which every one of us, including those who had failed repeatedly since 2004, passed. The Court also passed an order that we be allowed to attend classes for the second year and that due consideration be given for shortage of attendance.”
Since then the students have been attending second year classes but were prevented from taking their exams in mid-November. “We were told we did not have sufficient attendance. The Principal usually refused to meet us and whenever he had, he pretended that he was not aware of anything and seems to have washed his hands off the whole affair.”
When contacted by The Hindu , the Principal refused to discuss the matter.
These days Manish spends all his time worrying whether he would be allowed at least to take the supplementary exams in March, and praying that he would not be humiliated every time he attends class.
“Right after the court case, the lecturers would tell our classmates to look at us -- the people who could only gain entrance into a medical college through reservations and couldn't pass without a High Court order. After some complaints it has toned down,” says Manish.
The students, however, believe another legal battle is imminent. “Our lawyer has asked us to file for contempt of court. I don't see this ending easily.”
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article2654919.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)