Nasheman

India's largest selling Urdu weekly, now also in English

You are here: Home / 2015 / Archives for January 2015

Archives for January 2015

Bangaloreans herald New Year amid tight security

by

bangalore-new-year

Bengaluru: Thousands of Bangaloreans heralded New Year early Thursday, cheering, dancing, hooting, whistling, bursting crackers and greeting each other amid tight security across this tech hub.

Undeterred by the presence of hundreds of police personnel, heightened vigil and CCTV cameras in downtown, about 8,000 people ushered in 2015 by milling around the up-market M.G. Road, fashionable Brigade Road, posh Lavelle Road, serene Cubbon Road and the bustling Commercial Street, which were lit up for the occasion.

Braving wintry chill and overlooking restrictions imposed by police to maintain law and order, young techies, college students, professionals and boys and girls jostled for space to do a jig, dance to rock music or swing to lilting filmy songs.

“The New Year fest has been peaceful though noisy. No untoward incident reported from anywhere in the city. People dispersed orderly after partying without fear from public venues,” Additional Police Commissioner Alok Kumar told IANS later.

As a precautionary measure and in view of the Dec 28 minor blast near a restaurant on upscale Church Street in the city centre, police directed all pubs, bars, eateries and hotels to close at 1 a.m. instead of 2 a.m.

“We extended closure timing of pubs, bars, eateries and hotels to 1am from 11:30 p.m. Wednesday so as to allow people enjoy the New Year fest. It’s a great relief all agreed to abide by the order,” Kumar said.

About 3,000 police personnel, including contingents from the city armed constabulary, the rapid action force and the state reserve force were deployed in the central business district to ensure peaceful celebration of the New Year.

Apart from banning parking and vehicular traffic from 8 p.m. till 1 a.m. in downtown, major inter-sections and main thoroughfares, driving on all flyovers across the city were blocked till 6am to prevent drunken driving and drag racing.

(IANS)

Govt blocks 32 websites including Vimeo & Github, users furious

by

websites-block-india

New Delhi: On Wednesday, the Department of Telecommunications issued orders to Internet service providers in the country to block 32 websites on December 16, compliance of which was effected on the same day.

According to Government sources, the sites had alleged anti-India content from groups such as Islamic State or ISIS.

“We have blocked some websites as there were serious national security concerns,” said a government official.

“The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying anti-India content from ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria),” Arvind Gupta, head of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s information technology cell, said in a message on Twitter.

“The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the ongoing investigations, are being unblocked,” he added.

If Internet service providers (ISPs) don’t comply with the demand, they are liable to being penalized, the order said.

However, social media users erupted in fury over the blocking of sites like Vimeo, Dailymotion, Pastebin and, for some reason, Internet Archive and Github – one an archive and the other a collaborative programming service.

Redditors in India: United We Stand have been discussing the blocks on Reddit threads confirming that some of the listed sites have been blocked by Vodafone, BSNL, ACT Fibrenet, Hathway Cable & Datacom LTD. (Bangalore), among others.

This is not the first time the government has cracked down on websites. A recent report by Freedom House, an independent watchdog, said the information ministry received a total of 130 court orders to block Web content between February 2009 and December 2013.

In February 2014, the then minister of communication and information technology told Parliament that 62 URLs were blocked in 2013 under Section 69A for hosting objectionable information with the potential to disturb public order.

As many as 82 URLs were blocked on 18 September 2013 in addition to 26 blocked a week earlier after violence escalated between Hindu and Muslim communities in Muzaffarnagar district of Uttar Pradesh. A total of 362 URLs were blocked in response to communal violence in the northeast, the report said.

Amit Shah’s case – A complete mockery of Justice system

by

Amit-Shah

by Pratik Sinha

Once again the Indian Investigating agencies and Judiciary have failed the people of India by letting out a powerful political leader despite having enough evidence of involvement in a henious crime. Amit Shah has been acquitted by the Special CBI Court, Bombay, in the Sohrabuddin murder case even before the trial for the case could start.

Sohrabuddin case has been in the political limelight for over 8 years now. On 23 November, 2005, Sohrabuddin, his wife Kausarbi and Tulsi Prajapati were abducted from a bus near Sangali in Maharashtra. Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi were kept in a farm house near Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Sohrabuddin was murdered in a fake encounter on 26th November. His wife Kausarbi was allegedly raped while in custody of Gujarat Police and on 29th November was murdered as well. Within a year, on 28th December, 2006, Tulsi Prajapati was also eliminated.

Gujarat State government agreed before Supreme Court that the encounter of Sohrabuddin was a fake encounter. On April 24th, 2007, IPS officers Vanzara, Dinesh MN and Rajkumar Pandian were arrested by Rajnish Rai. However SC observed that Gujarat government was lackadaisical in its investigation and therefore transferred the case to CBI. CBI arrested Amit shah in July 2010 and thereafter on CBI’s request, the case was transferred to Bombay in 2012. Gujarat Government also admitted before the Supreme Court that Tulsi Prajapati’s encounter was fake as well. Meanwhile Amit Shah had secured himself a bail in the Sohrabuddin case after spending 3 months behind the bars. Soon after, to avoid arrest in the Tulsi Prajapati, on the best of Amit Shah, all three cases were clubbed by Supreme Court as a single case. Since Amit Shah had already secured a bail in Sohrabuddin case, he was not charged separately for Tulsi encounter case and thus avoided arrest even though he was the A-1 accused according to the CBI Chargesheet.

While it was already difficult to secure justice while Narendra Modi was the CM of Gujarat as has been observed in multiple riot and fake encounter cases, now that Modi has become the PM of India, situation has gone from worse to worst for the victims of such heinous crimes. Caged Parrot of Congress has now become Mute Parrot of BJP. It has been more than seven years since the CBI filed its chargesheet in the case and yet the trial in this case has not been started. This became the prime argument for all the cops to get bails and now all these cops who are murder accused are roaming freely in uniforms on the streets of Gujarat and have been reinstated in the police force with plum postings. This speaks a lot about the attitude of Gujarat Government who facilitate such cops.

CBI under Narendra Modi did their job by putting a very poor defence in the Amit Shah’s discharge application. While Amit Shah hired a battery of top lawyers, not even a Special Prosecutor was appointed by the CBI for this case. While Amit Shah’s lawyers argued for 3 days, CBI’s lawyer finished his argument within fifteen minutes. The facilitation by Modi Government was not limited to CBI’s role. Even Judges who were not favourable and who rebuked Amit Shah for his non-appearance in the court were instantly transferred.

But the Government and the Investigating agencies are not the only ones to be blamed. The Special CBI Court, in an unprecedented move, acquitted Amit Shah who was a triple murder accused with a mountain of evidence against him without making him face a trial and being cross-investigated. It is only during the trial stage when the witnesses and evidence are appreciated.

While acquitting Amit Shah, the Court ignored several important facts which were damning of Amit Shah’s role in the Sohrabuddin encounter. The Court did not take into account the statement of VL Solanki who was the investigating officer in this case and who had given a statement about how Amit Shah tried to influence the case. The Court has not taken in account all the phone call data and dying declaration of Tulsi Prajapati before the magistrate and NHRC.

What we have seen in Amit Shah’s case is a complete mockery of the Justice system. Jan Sangharsh Manch who has been representing Sohrabuddin’s brother Rubabuddin in this case will move the High Court to appeal against this acquittal. The fight must go on.

Gujarat police make dummy 'terrorists' wear Muslim skullcaps in mock anti-terror drill

by

Policemen posing as terrorists were told to wear skullcaps during an anti-terror drill in Surat

Policemen posing as terrorists were told to wear skullcaps during an anti-terror drill in Surat

Surat: According to the Gujarat Police, two high-profile events in the state – Pravasi Bharatiya Divas and the Vibrant Gujarat Investors Summit – could be a target of terror attacks, and in order to be prepared against any disruptive incidents, mock anti-terror drills are being carried out across Gujarat.

However, it looks like for the police, terrorists and terrorism are quintessentially Muslim.

In the diamond hub of Surat, the drill to check the preparedness of the force ran into controversy on Tuesday, when dummy terrorists in the drill were shown wearing Muslim skullcaps.

A video of the drill shows five policemen holding three dummy terrorists who are wearing Muslim skullcaps. The trio were also shown lying down, while policemen keep a watch on them. The video ends with the men posing as terrorists being bundled into a police jeep after being captured alive.

Surat (Rural) Superintendent of Police Pradip Shejul said the situation could have been avoided by the police but said it should be taken as a “pretty normal thing”.

He said: “We have been conducting mock drills at several locations to check the preparedness ahead of the Vibrant Gujarat Summit. Today, it was held in a coastal location where a policeman posing as a terrorist was wearing a skullcap.”

He added that the incident was “avoidable” and said the intention was not to stereotype any community.

Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said: “Unfortunately, the hallmark, the identity of this government, is fast becoming a government which is using symbolic gestures, images, comments to create division… It is marked by intolerance which is another reason why the government is a failure. It’s a failed administration.”

Gujarat BJP’s Minority Cell president Mehboob Ali Sufi Baba strongly objected to the portrayal of terrorists in this manner.

“This type of act sends a wrong message to the masses,” Baba said.

(With PTI inputs)

Not enough evidence to prosecute Amit Shah? – Statement by Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Association

by

Amit-Shah

by Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association, JTSA

Even by the plummeting standards set in the last few months, the decision of the special CBI court in discharging Amit Shah, (accused no. 16 in the second chargesheet; accused no. 1 in the third chargesheet) in the Sohrabuddin encounter case, seems outrageous.

The Special CBI court without waiting for even the trial to commence, without weighing the evidence at length, seems to have suddenly concurred with the defence and the ruling party’s view that Amit Shah was caught in a political trap. Why this impatience with the process of the trial? And Shah is no ordinary accused, or accessory with a side role: he is accused of being the “king pin” or the mastermind of the triple murder.

“The entire record considered in totality”, says the court does not indicate to Shah’s role, and hence discharged him. However, what is the entire record? Even a simple, cursory looks suggest that in fact it is not hearsay but solid evidence of call details records, witness statements recorded under 161 and 164 CrPC, as well evidence of systematic and direct interference by Shah in the state CID probe into the encounter.

If the call details records were totally insignificant and proved nothing, why was there such a concerted effort to suppress all such information that pointed to Shah’s role?

The state CID investigations, which first led to the arrests of the senior police offcers, had taken on record phone call details between Shah and accused police officers. However, once the Supreme Court directed the transfer of investigation to the CBI, the CID failed to hand over the CD containing these phone conversations. A total of 331 conversations had been deleted from the record.

(“Another top cop under scanner for ‘erasing’ Amit Shah reference in CD” by Neeraj Chauhan and Ujjwala Nayudu, Indian Express, 27 July 2010.

Link here: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/another-top-cop-under-scanner-for–erasing–amit-shah-reference-in-cd/652299)

Shah attempted to sabotage CID enquiry

IGP Gita Johri, who was made in charge of the state CID investigation, recorded in Part B of her first report, how Shah attempted to sabotage the enquiry. She has recorded that though she and the Investigating Officer Solanki did not face any “hurdle” initially, “However, as soon as the statements of witnesses pertaining to confinement of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi in the Farm House of Shri Girish Patel at Ahmedabad came to be recorded, it came to the knowledge of Shri Vanzara and Shri Rajkumar Pandian [two of the accused officers]. It is further learnt that these officers brought the above facts to the notice of Respondent No. 2, Shri Amit Shah, Minister of State for Home, Government of Gujarat.”

It further states that Shah “brought to bear pressure” on the enquiry process, resulting in the enquiry papers being taken away from her “under the guise of scrutiny”. He “directed Shri G.C. Raigar, Additional Director General of Police, CID (Crime & Railways) to provide him with the list of witnesses, both police and private, who are yet to be contacted by CID (Crime) for recording their statement in the said enquiry. Such direction of Minister of State for Home goes beyond the scope of his office, was patently illegal and apparently designed to provide the same list to accused police officers … so as to enable them to take measures in their defence.”

(See “Geetha Johri report speaks of ‘collusion of State government’”, By Neena Vyas, 5 May 2007, The Hindu. Link here: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article1838149.ece)

Creative Reading by the CBI Court:

The CBI court did not entertain a note written by Gita Johri, in which the sentence “systematic efforts on the part of the state government” was struck out. The CBI’s case had been that this sentence had been omitted under Shah’s political pressure, whereas the court interpreted it to mean that Johri was not happy with the investigation done by the investigating officer. This is a flight of fancy, if there can be one. In fact, it is a matter of record that Johri’s initial investigation, before she was removed, proved to be path breaking. However, when she was reinstated, she took a complete U-turn. So chaffed was the apex court with her that he chastised her, while praising the investigation of the IO Solanki. The Supreme Court observed the following:

“69. We have observed that from the record, it was found that Mr VL Solanki, an investigating officer, was proceeding in the right direction, but Ms Johri had not been carrying out the investigation in the right manner, in view of our discussions made here in above. It appears that Ms Johri had not made any reference to the second report of Solanki, and that though his first report was attached with one of her reports, the same was not forwarded to this Court.

  1. In the present circumstances and in view of the involvement of the police officials the State in this crime, we cannot shut our eyes and direct the State police authorities to continue with the investigation and the charge-sheet and for a proper and fair investigation, we also feel that CBI should be requested to take up the investigation and submit a report in this Court within six months from the date of handing over a copy of this judgment and the records relating to this crime to them.”

(Rubabuddin Sheikh v State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 2 SCC 200, p. 217.)

The Special CBI Court cannot act as though none of this happened. The “entire record” in fact points to Shah’s involvement. The conspiracy is that of three cold-blooded murders. By terming Shah’s implication in the triple murder fake encounter case as a political conspiracy carried out by CBI under directions from a rival political party, the special CBI court has cast aspersions on the Supreme Court which was monitoring the investigations closely at all stages.

Disregarding the statements of key witnesses:

The special CBI court also disregarded the statements of key witnesses: namely, the Patel brothers, Dashrath and Raman, proprietors of the successful Popular builders. Their statements to the CBI details how money was extorted from them and how they were being forced by Vanzara and cohorts to give a statement against Sohrabuddin. The statement describes a meeting as well telephonic conversation with Shah. This has been recorded under 164 CrPC, and yet this is not deemed evidence but hearsay?

One can only say that the pusillanimity of the CBI in first, not contesting Shah’s application of exemption from appearing before the court in encounter cases, then not challenging the bail to senior police officer N.K. Amin in the Supreme Court, then responding to Shah’s voluminous discharge application and marathon three day arguments with a perfunctory 15-20 minutes argument by a junior lawyer, had already made matters clear. The die had been cast on 16th May itself, when Amit Shah delivered the rich harvest of seats for the BJP.

But what it has exposed is the rot in our institutions: the u-turn of the CBI, the reinstatement of the accused cops on duty, some of them, such as Abhay Chudasma, being given coveted posting in the Vigilance squad. Worst of all, what it has shown is the abdication of even a modicum of judicial independence.

KNOW US

GET INVOLVED

PROMOTE

Archives