“Sur Mile Mera Tumahara

Woh Sur Baneh hamara…”

But after all the song and dances are over, have these nation states been able to resolve their ‘minority’ issues? A perfunctory look at the recent history would show that even in the twentieth century, the attitude of the majority towards the minorities was one of total domination. An excerpt from Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar’s book *” We or Our Nationhood Defined” *would establish this attitude without any ambiguity:

“German Race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by purging the country of the Semitic Races-the Jews. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by”.

“It is worth bearing well in mind how these old Nations solve their minorities problem. There are only two courses open to the foreign elements, either to merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture, or to live at its mercy so long as the national race may allow them to do so and to quit the country at the sweet will of the national race. From this stand point, sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations, the foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion…”

In contest with this extreme Hindu nationalist position, the Congress promoted an ambiguous nation state theory: the soft Hindu state propagated by leaders like Purusotham Tandon and Madan Mohan Malaviya and the ‘secular’ state of Nehru. This ambiguity of the leaders of Congress towards secularism continues even till now and the slogan of “Sarva Dharma Samabhav” continues to deceive the minorities. At this stage, we may note some of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this subject:

“The word ‘secular’ is commonly understood in contradistinction to the word ‘religious’. Although the idea of secularism may have been borrowed in the Indian Constitution from the West, India has adopted its own unique brand of secularism based on its particular history.

The First Amendment to the American Constitution mandates that, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State’.

Similarly, the Australian Constitution also prescribes that ,’the Commonwealth shall not make any laws for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion’. Under the Indian Constitution however there is no such ‘wall of separation’ between the State and religious institutions…”

The above observations of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, quite correctly sums up the dichotomy in the concept of the Indian secularism. This ambivalent attitude towards secularism is reflected in the judicial pronouncements also. In the case of Valsamma Paul (Mrs) v. Cochin University, the Apex Court felt that ‘pluralism of Indian culture and religious tolerance is the bedrock of Indian secularism. It is based on the belief that all religions are equally good and efficacious pathways to perfection or God-realisation. (Sarva Dharma Samabhav?) It stands for a complex interpretative process in which there is a transcendence of religion and yet there is a unification of multiple religions’.

As a contradistinction, we may extract another view of the Apex Court; in the case of *I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N., the Court held that ‘the fundamental rights have always enjoyed a special and privileged place in the Constitution. Some of the rights in Part III constitute fundamentals of the Constitution like Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 15 which represent secularism, etc. The role of the judiciary is to protect fundamental rights. A modern democracy is based on the twin principles of majority rule and the need to protect fundamental rights.’ This judgment brings us to the moot questions- do the minorities get the equal protection of law in secular India?

Keeping aside the larger question of economic or social justice to the minorities, we may limit our discussions to the two basic questions: (1) affording equal protection of law to the minorities and (2) the efficacy of the criminal justice system of delivering justice to the minorities. At this stage it becomes necessary to recall some of the major events of violence in secular India to assess the extent to which the minorities get the “equal” treatment in law.

The Nellie massacre took place in Assam during a six-hour period in the morning of 18 February 1983. The massacre claimed the lives of 2,191 people (unofficial figures run at more than 5,000) from 14 villages of Nagaon district. Most of the victims were Bengali-speaking Muslim women and children who had immigrated to the region . A group of media personnel passing by the region were witness to the massacre. No one has been punished for the most gruesome genocide!

On May 17, 1984, rioting began in Bhiwandi and spread to Bombay. Rioting continued till May 27. According to official statistics, the riots left 278 dead, 1115 injured, and 11,453 arrested. The large majority of all three categories were Muslim.

The anti-Sikh riots in 1984 were four days of mayhem in the northern parts of India, particularly Delhi, in which armed mobs set fire to Sikh homes and businesses, killed unarmed men, women and children and attacked gurdwaras, Sikh places of worship. The violence, which left almost 3,000 people dead, was a reaction to the assassination of the country’s Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, on Oct. 31, 1984, by her two Sikh bodyguards, Beant Singh and SatwantSingh. After 28 years of the carnage, there are very few that have been punished for the heinous crime.

The Bhagalpur riots that was sparked off on 24th October, 1989 was one of the series of riots organized by the Sanghparivar in connection with the Babri Masjid demolition movement. It was sparked off by a procession carrying bricks for Shilapujan for building the Ram temple in Ayodhya ,organized by BJP, VHP, Bajrangdal .116 persons were killed in the village Logai alone in Bhagalpur district on October 27, 1989.The rioters in Logai buried the bodies in a field and planted vegetables.The irony is that out of 1486 killed during October, 1989 in Bhagalpur, though 1383 were Muslims but it were the Muslims who were punished; the Court awarded life imprisonment for one and ten years imprisonment for 11 persons in 1996. Beside this, two dozen Muslims had earlier received similar punishments. The Mumbai riots started after the Babri Mosque demolition on 6 December 1992. This was followed by celebratory processions by Shiv Sena and BJP activists and targeting of Muslim localities. It is commonly believed that the riots occurred in two phases. The first was mainly a Muslim backlash as a result of the Babri Masjid demolition ..The second The second phase occurred in January 1993, with most incidents reported between 6 January and 20 January. Around 900 (575 Muslims, 275 Hindus, 45 unknown and 5 others) persons died in the violence and police firing.

The Gujarat violence of 2002 and thereafter

On 27-2- 2002, 58 passengers died in the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express which burned down to ashes near the Godhra Railway station following a altercation between the Karsevaks who were traveling in the train with the Muslim tea vendors of the Godhra railway station. 58 dead bodies were brought to Ahmedabad and paraded in the street of Ahmedabad .

By 10 am in the morning on 28-2-02 the saffron bands were on the road leading crowds upto 20 thousands – attacking everyone that was Muslim. At the end of the day, three of the most gruesome offence were committed at (1) Naroda Patia- 100 dead; (2) Gulberg Society-70 dead and eight girls are still missing; and (3) Pandarwada – 100 dead. By next two weeks, over 1000 innocent Muslim men, women and children were brutally killed. Several thousand had to run away, crores worth of property were destroyed in the cities, every single Muslim business establishment was specifically targeted; for the first time, the violence was taken to villages and Muslims of hundreds of villages had to run away.

No FIRs were allowed to be taken from any victim and police officers filed omnibus FIRs , carefully avoiding to give any details, sabotaging the very foundation of investigation. Investigating Officers at police station level refused to take orders from higher officers and listened only to the local BJP leaders. After sabotaging the evidence,the trial of the cases were handed over to Public Prosecutors. who were also VHP/BJP activist. (result – Acquittal like in the Best Bakery Case) . Bail was granted for asking in murder, rape and in cases of arson.

Matters didn’t end there….

The next phase of the plan started unfolding from the end of 2002: The plan was to profile the entire Muslim community of Gujarat as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorist. The Prevention of Terrorist Act (Pota) was thus used against innocent youth, and hundreds were picked up between April 2003 to December 2004. Gujarat never had terrorist ever before but, Gujarat Government used Pota, to create terrorist in Gujarat. POTA was thus used as the ” Production of terrorist Act ” and not as the “Prevention of terrorist Act”.

Next, it had to be put in the minds of the people that the Islamic terrorist were bent upon eliminating the “Great Savior” . Thus started the encounter program: Salim Pathan, Sadik Jamal, Javed , Israt Jahan, Shohrabuddin and many more were unfortunate innocent “terrorists” who had to be killed to established that Narendra Modi was in constant danger. Every six months one dead person was required to sacrificed at the alter of Modi and in every FIR that followed the encounter deaths of such hand piceked “terrorists”, a line was invariably added that “ the accused had come to Gujarat to kill the Chief Minister”! The Supreme Courts interference has now exposed this game plan fully.

Besides the above cases of mass violence, in the last decade, especially after the 9/11 event in New York, several cases of “bomb blasts” have taken place all over the country killing many innocents. The blame ofcourse was shifted on the Muslims ‘confirming’ their terrorist tendencies; the exposure of the Malegaon blast, Mecca Masjid blast at Hyderbad etc has however revealed the hidden agenda of the Hindu terrorist group to spread anarchy and hate against the minorities.

How has the Indian judiciary and other democratic Institutions reacted to the repeated instances of mass violence or the encounters and bomb blasts? At the lower rungs of the justice delivery system, the proximity of the police, prosecutor and the politician has as a rule, denied a fair deal to the minorities. In any communal conflict, the majority community has successfully turned the prosecution on its side and in severe situations like in Gujarat, even the judiciary in the State has faltered.

Few instances will suffice to establish this point. In the case of the death of the 58 passengers of the Sabarmati Express on 27th Feb, 2002, the session court awarded death penalty to eleven accused and life sentence to 20 more accused whereas in the Best Bakery case, all the accused were acquitted by the sessions court desp[ite the brutal murder of several persons. POTA was invoked in the Sabarmati express case and 100 or so accused remained in jail for over eight years as under trial whereas all the accused in most of the 3000 or cases involving the brutal murder of over 1000 Muslims were bailed out within few months. POTA was never invoked in such cases though the Muslims all over Gujarat were terrified and helpless against the mob-violence supported by the state.

Besides these cases during the main phase of violence, hundreds of Muslim Youth were detained under POTA in connection within Haren Pandya murder case, tiffin bomb case (no one was really injured in this case) and one omibus case strangely called the ISI conspiracy case. All the cases ended in conviction of the Muslim accused and several are undergoing life sentences.

It is must however said that the Apex Court has time and again intervened to protect the fundamental rights of the minorities but in a country of over a billion people with a sizable percentage of minorities, even with the best intentions, it would be impossible for a single court to protect the basic structure of the constitution and afford equal protection of law to the minorities when the players in the State themselves pitch for the majority community.

Secularism is therefore an ambiguous word slipped in the preamble of the Constitution during the dark days of emergency by way of the 42nd amendment of the constitution in 1976. In our country, it has become purely a political slogan for and against the minority during the elections.

In the international arena, the declaration of US of its resolve to wage a “War on Terror” after the 9/11 event, has forced the genuine secular force to retreat as otherwise they would be seen to be siding with the “Islamic Jehadis”. This political propaganda has hit the shores of all countries with their rightist forces queuing up to support the “war on terrorism” to please their western masters.

Interestingly, the campaign of the BJP led sangh parivar against the Muslims has also changed after the 9/11 event. Prior to 2001, the campaign used to revolve around demand demolition of the Babri Masjid and the building of the Ram temple as a retaliation to the alleged past oppression of the Muslim rulers. After 9/11, the campaign shifted in profiling the Muslims as terrorist and the death of the 58 karsevaks of the Sabarmati express was used to demonise the entire community.

Defenders of secularism must therefore take lessons from the reality of the present day. While we shall salute warriors like Shahid Azmi, we must realize that this struggle has to be waged by the masses as a part of their larger struggle for democracy.

Why do you have to undertake this “Sadbhavna Mission” by observing three days “upvaas”?? No other Chief Minister of the 26 States in India has to do such a “prayaschit” to earn sadbhavna! Have you finally realized after about a decade that all the so called “developmental” publicity cannot earn you the faith, respect and love of the people?

You are quite good at story telling. Do you remember the story of king Midas? Whatever he touched turned into gold. Your supporters say you have the Midas touch of turning Gujarat into Swarnim Gujarat. But do you remember that despite all his power, Midas thirsted for just a glass of water, like you are thirsting for the love and respect of the victims of the 2002 riots? No amount of power or arrogance gave Midas his glass of water nor will you get your sadbhavana with all your developmental publicity!

You say all your critics are liars! Is it a lie that in the months of February and March 2002, over a thousand helpless men, women and children were butchered all over Gujarat with your police watching the mobs looting and killing?? Is it a lie that you were the Chief Minister of Gujarat at that time? If you were so great a Chief Minister as you claim today, why couldn’t you protect these innocent, helpless Muslims?? In fact, why did you fail to protect the innocent 58 passengers of Sabarmati Express who also died in the terrible fire on 27th February, 2002??

You say that you are not guilty of the mass murders of those days! If you are not guilty then tell us who are guilty? Tell us why your police failed to prosecute them because of which Supreme Court had to appoint SIT? Tell us why even after SIT was appointed, all those who were arrested including Mayaben Kodnani and Jaydeep Patel are roaming freely in this State? Tell us why POTA was applied to only Muslim accused? Tell us why the muslim accused were not granted bail and most of them have been convicted and even sentenced to death! Tell us why the accused of the Naroda Patiya or Gulberg massacre have not been convicted till today??

Tell us why the blame of the Haren Pandya murder was falsely put on the muslim boys who had to suffer 8 years in jail till they were acquitted by the high court?

Tell us why Sameer Khan Pathan, Sadiq Jamal, Ishrat Jahan, Sohrabuddin, Kausar, Tulsi Prajapati and several others were murdered in fake encounters and in every FIR it was alleged that they were intending to kill you? Did you ever investigate why every FIR made such an allegation regarding you? If such an allegation was false, did you take any action against the police officers who killed them? Or did you give them promotions??

Are you celebrating the pain of the victims or are you trying to confuse the people by organizing the five-star programme to give an impression that the cases against you have been closed?

Narendrabhai, you may turn Gujarat into a heaven for a handful of rich and powerful. But have you ever peeped into the hell through which we the victims and community as a whole is going through? No, you have not and we know, you have no desire or intention to give us Justice. We therefore dismiss your “Sadbhavana Mission” as just another publicity stunt.

On our part, we declare that we have no ill feeling towards our Hindu brothers and sisters despite our terrible loss and sufferings. We are both the victims of powerful political forces whose strength lies in our division. We alone can create “Sadbhavana” by uniting and defeating the forces of fraud and deception for vote politics. You may be doing all this for your great ambition to become PM of the country, but we have only one small demand- WE WANT JUSTICE.

Your riot victim citizens.
Jan Sangharsh Manch
September 18, 2011

Sharma’s lawyer Mukul Sinha said, “This is shocking, we are studying the chargesheet. They have targeted any person who has spoken the truth about the riots.”

Chidambaram had reiterated that there are rules which allow the Centre to intervene but only at the behest of the officer concerned.

“Rules do provide for Central Government to take certain decisions but this depends on officer concerned. If officer concerned raises it we can,” said Chidambaram.

Meanwhile, Gujarat government spokesperson Jai Narayan Vyas accused the Centre of instigating the state IPS officers to revolt against the Modi government.

“The Union Home Minister has kept aside all federal relations. Chidambaram has made an inciting statement. This is nothing but creating a situation of revolt and asking officers to revolt against the government,” Vyas said.

Vyas said that Sharma cannot retain the copies of original documents (CDs) and it is not within the service rules. “Rahul Sharma was was given a show cause notice on January 27, 2011, and was given sufficient time to reply to it, but even after that Rahul did not work in accordance with law. Therefore, the Gujarat government served him with a chargesheet.”

Earlier on Friday, the Gujarat High Court Rahul Sharma’s petition seeking details of the grounds on which he was served a show cause notice by the state government in February this year over providing phone call records related to the 2002 riots.

Justice Abhilasha Kumari, hearing the case, said the court did not find it appropriate to interfere when an alternative statutory provision for appeal was available to the petitioner.

The petition also does not disclose violation of any fundamental rights of the petitioner, the court added.

Sharma, a DIG rank officer, was served the show cause notice by the state Home department on February 5, asking why he should not be chargesheeted for giving CDs containing the 2002 riots phone call records to various agencies, including the Nanavati Commission and the SIT, without government authorisation.

In his petition filed on Thursday, Sharma said when he asked the state government on what grounds was he issued a show cause on the matter, it refused to give him information regarding the same.

During the proceedings, Justice Kumari observed that some of the directions sought by Sharma were related to the show cause notice and it pertained to service matters.

She declined to entertain these prayers saying that she was not assigned to deal with service matters.

Following this, Sharma’s lawyer Mukul Sinha said he would not like to press for those prayers relating to service matters and sought permission of the court to approach the appropriate authority.

Source: IBN

These three gentlemen – Harshad, Ketan and Telgi – together siphoned off more money by fraud and cheating than many others like Quattrocchi and Raja involved in sarkari scams. Yet Anna’s much-touted Janlokpal law will not even book them, much less send them to jail.

Then why is Anna insisting that the prime minister should be included in the scope and ambit of the Janlokpal bill while being indifferent to the exclusion of illustrious gentlemen like Ketan and Telgi? To understand this embarrassing contradiction, we need to do a dissection of ‘corruption’ as defined by Anna and his merry men.

Many people will be shocked to learn that the Janlokpal bill has not developed its own definition of this all-important delinquency it seeks to uproot. The authors of the Janlokpal bill have, in section 2(4), defined corruption to include “anything made punishable under Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988.” The definition is, therefore, not original but borrowed from the PCA and it suffers from all the defects of the parent law.

The PCA was never meant to tackle corruption in general but was enacted to punish “public servants” misusing their office to give favours for a consideration, usually money. The Janlokpal Bill, therefore, borrows and adopts an extremely restrictive definition of corruption from the PCA. This definition excludes every type of fraudulent act or cheating in both public and private domains which are punishable under sections 410 to 424 of the IPC.

In this situation, people like Harshad Mehta (if he had been alive), Ketan Parekh and Telgi can even join the “second freedom struggle” of Anna to enact the Janlokpal bill as they will be outside the scope of the ‘People’s Lokpal’. Be that as it may, the country should not be burdened with yet another useless law due to the arrogant righteousness of self-appointed guardians of civil society.

Any claim that a particular law can eradicate corruption is a dishonest claim far removed from the truth. With the advent of globalisation, corruption has become an integral part of all transactions. It is, therefore, required to understand that rooting out corruption is almost an impossible task. It flows across borders at enormous speed, visiting profitable bourses and special economic zones or tax havens. Money now is no longer black or white; it is just green.

The most important factors behind the generation of ‘black’ money are the policies of the government itself. The creation of SEZs or SIRs and exemptions given to industries within such zones from all types of taxes is an open invitation to tax evasion. This becomes even more pronounced when India signs a treaty with other small countries for tax avoidance. A small island nation like Mauritius perhaps generates more black money than all the SEZs put together because of the two-decade-old bilateral agreement, the Double Taxation Avoidance Convention (DTAC).

Foreign companies masquerading as Mauritian companies have invested in India. Taking advantage of the DTAC, they avoid paying taxes not only in Mauritius but also in India. The probe by a Joint Parliamentary Committee into the 2001 stock market scam in which Ketan Parekh was among the kingpins, had revealed large-scale corruption by Mauritius-based companies. It appears that a case was filed in the Delhi high court against the misuse of DTAC way back in 2002. The high court had nullified the central government’s order regarding the convention with Mauritius but, in October 2002, the NDA government filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the high court order.

A consortium of international investors, represented by the Global Business Institute (GBI), joined the government in filing the appeal. Arun Jaitley, who became the Union Minister for Law and Justice in 2003, appeared on behalf of the GBI. The Supreme Court reversed the Delhi high court’s judgment and ruled that it was the sovereign right of the state to enter into treaties with other countries.

Thus the DTAC continued and, just a few days back, the Sensex dipped heavily at the mere rumour that the UPA Government might review the DTAC with Mauritius. The irony is that the same Arun Jaitley who appeared for the GBI to argue for the continuation of DTAC was now sitting at Rajghat demanding that black money should be brought back!

Such is the hypocrisy of our times.

Source: DNA

Sabbir is the brother of Sadik who was gunned down by DCB sleuths in an encounter in 2003. Kumar, who is currently posted in Delhi, was posted in Gandhinagar as joint director, IB (Gujarat), when the encounter took place.

Sabbir has named Kumar as a key accused in the fresh FIR submitted by him in the Sadik Jamal case. He has further alleged that the senior IB officer had fed false intelligence inputs at the behest of some political leaders and had circulated the inputs in Mumbai, Delhi and Gujarat, to get Sadik killed in a fake encounter.

This is the first encounter case in which the IB officer has been named as a key accused,” Sabbir’s lawyer, Mukul Sinha, told DNA on the sidelines of a press conference held by Sabbir on Saturday.

Sinha alleged that Kumar was the police officer who had provided the intelligence inputs which eventually led to the Ishrat Jahan and Sadik Jamal encounters. He further said that in the previous FIR filed by the DCB, police inspector JG Parmar was the complainant.

Parmar had mentioned in that FIR that there was an intelligence input that one Sadik Jamal, an LeT terrorist, was coming to Ahmedabad for a terror operation.

Sabbir, however, claimed that his brother was neither an LeT terrorist nor was he coming to Ahmedabad as he had been detained by police sub-inspector Daya Nayak in Mumbai for many days before being handed over to the Ahmedabad police.

He further alleged during the press conference that his brother was falsely projected as a Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) operative and was killed allegedly to please some political leaders. Sabbir also claimed that Sadik was booked for minor offences twice earlier, once in a rioting case and the other time in a gambling case in Bhavnagar city.

Sabbir has alleged in the FIR that while handing over Sadik’s body to them, IPS officer DG Vanzara had asked them not to complain to anyone in this regard or Sabbir too would be killed in an encounter. “We were too scared to utter even a single word against the police,”

Sabbir said. The DCB, however, has not registered a complaint so far, ostensibly because the agency is yet to receive a copy of the Gujarat high court order directing it to register a fresh FIR in the case.

DCB authorities said the complaint will be registered once the agency receives a copy of the high court order. “We have not yet formally received the order of the high court directing us to register a fresh FIR in the case. However, we have received the complaint from Sabbir Mehtar,” deputy commissioner of police, DCB, Himanshu Shukla said.

Source: DNA

The court earlier took serious note of the contention that the witnesses were being influenced and made to retract their statements and even one of the members of the SIT had been involved. To rule out any such possibility, the bench directed that in case the chairman found any member of SIT involved in influencing a witness or retraction of statements, he could submit a report in a sealed cover to the court.

However, if any other person was found to be involved other than the members, the chairman would have the right to arrest him and have his custodial interrogation, the bench directed. Giving him the liberty in the mode and manner of the investigation, the court observed that only SIT chairman would decide whether he wants to carry out the investigation on his own or through an appropriate officer. Though remaining two members of the team will have the right to express their opinion, it would be for the chairman to ultimately decide on any issue, the court observed.

Earlier, bringing the role of SIT members under direct scrutiny, the petitioner’s counsel Mukul Sinha said “Not only the external forces but the internal forces were involved in getting the witnesses to retract their statements.”

He pointed out that in an affidavit, filed before the court in January, SIT member Satish Verma had cast aspersions on another team Mohan Jha while alleging that he was involved in getting the statements retracted. The counsel contended that though seven months have elapsed, no action has been taken.

During the hearing, SIT chairman R R Verma also mentioned before the court that retraction of statements by three witnesses had come to his notice. “I am looking into the aspect as to why the witnesses are giving different statements,” mentioned Verma in the open court.

Earlier, the bench was also apprised of the reports submitted by previous SIT chairmen, Karnail Singh and Dr Satyapal Singh, who mentioned that the witnesses were being influenced to retract their statements.

During the hearing, amicus curiae Yogesh Lakhani, while raising concern over the retraction of the statements, contended that the investigation of the entire case was going at a slow pace. The case will now come up for hearing on September 9.

The probe in the case is being supervised directly by Gujarat High Court which had constituted the SIT last year to investigate genuineness of the encounter after petitions filed by Ishrat’s mother Shamima Kausar and Gopinath Pillai,father of another victim of the encounter — Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai.

The court even directed the central government to file an original affidavit till the next hearing. Ishrat Jahan, 19, a Mumbai-based college girl, was killed in an encounter, along with Javed Ghulam Sheikh alias Pranesh Kumar Pillai, Amjad Ali alias Rajkumar Akbar Ali Rana and Jisan Johar Abdul Gani, carried out by crime branch officials near Ahmedabad on June 15, 2004.

Source: Mirror

The application was filed by Jamiat-Ulma-E-Hind (JUH) on May 25. JUH had contended that Bhatt cannot be cross- examined as he was summoned by the two-member panel by exercising power under Section 5 (read with Section 4) of the Commission of Inquiry Act, which means that he was called as an informer and not as a witness.

It had further contended that the procedure followed by the commission in allowing the cross-examination of Bhatt, who has made serious allegations against Chief Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the riots, was contrary to the provisions of Commission of Inquiry Act.

On this basis, JUH had asked the commission to strike off from its record the cross-examination of Bhatt till now and not allow his further cross-examination.

“If questions are asked to Bhatt by the Commission or the state with a view to test his believability or truthfulness about the allegations, it cannot be said that the said procedure adopted by the Commission is contrary to the provision to the Commission of Inquiry Act,” the panel stated.

“This application made by the Jamiat does not appear to be bona fide and it is also devoid of merits. Therefore, it is rejected,” it stated.

The panel said it was difficult to appreciate the objection raised to further questioning of Bhatt who has already answered questions put to him by the commission, Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM), Congress party and the Central Relief Committee (CRC). (More) PTI PB PD RSY

Source: MSN

The role of the Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) in the Sadik Jamal encounter case has come under a shadow as it allegedly did not make a ‘single’ attempt to further investigate the killing. Sadik was killed in an encounter on the midnight of January 13, 2003. After the encounter, the DCB had in a press meet declared that Sadik was an operative of Lashkar -e-Toiba (LeT) and was on a mission to eliminate chief minister Narendra Modi, veteran BJP leader LK Advani and Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s general secretary Pravin Togadia.

The DCB had claimed that he was here at the instance of Pakistan’s spy agency ISI.

JG Parmar, who fired five rounds at Sadik, had lodged a complaint in the case. Parmar had claimed that Sadik decided to take revenge for the Gujarat riots and eliminate chief minister Narendra Modi after he saw television images of the violence while he was in Delhi.

Parmar had also named Tariq Parveen, Salim Chiplun, Dawood Ibrahim, Chhota Shakil and one Dubai-based Maulana as an accused.However after the incident, as alleged by Sadik’s brother Sabir, no investigation was carried out by the DCB. Nor did the local magistrate conduct a mandatory inquiry under section 176 of the Cr.PC, Sabir had claimed.

The magistrate is required to conduct an inquiry in cases where unnatural death has occurred while a person was in police custody or in an encounter. Mukul Sinha, counsel for Sabir, submitted before the court that, though the police painted Sadik as a dreaded terrorists, it did not bother to further investigate him.

“They did not even bother to take the statements of Sadik’s family members,” said Sinha.

During the hearing of the case, the issue of Bhavnagar police twice visiting Sadik’s house for his interrogation in connection with a gambling case lodged against him in 2002 was also made.

The advocate said that the police informed the family about Sadik after he was killed in an encounter but did not inform or summon them for judicial inquiry.

The police then filed an A summary report before the magistrate who accepted it.

Sinha argued as to why the DCB ignored and failed to investigate a case in which they had claimed that top leaders of the country and state were a target. He also mentioned that not one single person near Galaxy cinema area, where Sadik was killed, had made a mention of hearing any bullet shots or seeing chaos that surely must have happened if there was an encounter on the midnight of January 13, 2003.

He said that the police had closed the Sohrabuddin Sheikh, Tulsi Prajapati and Ishrat Jahan encounter case in a similar manner.

At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. Yes! India has woken up to freedom, but for whom? After 61 years of Independence, around 400 million unorganised workers struggle to survive without any tangible right, though they substantially contribute to the national income. No employment regulation, no pension, no maternity benefits, no accident compensation, no provision to get even the minimum wages or health care. Instead, crumbs of social assistance schemes are thrown at them by the state as charity.
Ye Kaisi Aazadi Hai? asks Jagjit Singh, the acclaimed singer, joining the campaigners of Social Security Now, a network of trade unions, civil society organisations, peoples movements and concerned individuals fighting for securing Social Security Rights for the countless, voiceless unorganised workers. Written by renowned poet Nida Fazli, and filmed by Pravin Mishra, the song invites you to join in on the demand for Social Security as a Right for unorganised workers! This is your song. Please send the link to all the concerned Indians.