Re: ansal plaza incident--2

[D Deka]

Conscience and guilt do not always coexist as words. Please look up the meaning. Conscience also means knowing what is right and what is wrong, (without feeling guilty of anything).

Now I didn't use the word to make you feel guilty. I applaud your effort to keep your conscience clear. If in the process you can educate some of the netters, all the better.

 Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>---it clears the conscience of the participants in the debates.


** Really? How so? What is the participants' guilt in this instance?


But there is a better reason: to educate all of us on the importance of the
various issues it deals with. It helps us make better citizens. As they
say, an informed polity is critical for the success of a democracy.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


At 12:57 PM -0800 11/18/02, D Deka wrote:
>Debating on these issues is healthy. Even if it doesn't solve the real
>problem back home, it clears the conscience of the participants in the
>debates.
>
>I have a very simple question to the sleuths of the net. Where are the
>friends and relatives of the victims? Normally after such an incident, the
>journalists find the relati! ves, friends or neighbors to interview. I have
>scanned the Indian newspapers but haven't read any such interview. Were
>the victims local to Delhi? Or is it simply that I missed the reports?
>
>Dilip Deka
>
> Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
>>Could Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or countries that are run by dictators, boast of
>>such freedom?
>
>Actually you can add many more: China, Russia, Taiwan, Myanbmar -- what
>have you.
>
>But a very low threshold of a benchmark to weigh the largest democracy in
>the world. Besides, imagine the elation of the victims at what a fine
>country India is.
>
>
>
>
>>It is heartening to know that in India people like Nayar and others who can
>>easily voice their opinions against the establishment without being
>>harrassed, do exist.
>
>Wake up A. What do you call the! following?
>
>>> The issue has got politicised with BJP general secretary Arun
>>> Jaitley accusing Nayar, me, and other 'so-called human rights
>>> activists' of being 'the overground face of the underground'. The
>>> VHP wants us prosecuted as 'terrorist accomplices'. Equally nasty
>>> statements have come from other Sangh Parivar figures. The VHP has
>>> even demanded that the NHRC be renamed National Terrorists' Rights
>>> Commission.
>
>Those from the ruling party and its supporters. Add to that what Assam
>Netters branded them recently fo that matter. And that what we know of.
>
>
>
>
>
>>This is the only way when the government goes wrong it
>>can be righted.
>
>Let us not count the chickens before they are hatched. We know of countless
>such abominations that have been exposed, but NOTHING has e! ver changed.
>
>
>c-da
>
>
>
>
>At 1:21 PM -0600 11/18/02, Alpana Sarangapani wrote:
>>It is heartening to know that in India people like Nayar and others who can
>>easily voice their opinions against the establishment without being
>>harrassed, do exist. This is the only way when the government goes wrong it
>>can be righted.
>>
>>Could Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or countries that are run by dictators, boast of
>>such freedom?
>>On a side note, Pakistan probably has more supporters in India (including
>>this net) than in Pakistan itself.
>
>
>
>>> Praful Bidwai
>>>
>>> Encounters, Real and Fake
>>>
>>> It is not usual for journalists, even those holding strong beliefs,
>>> to become public-interest litigants. So it is only with considerable
>>> delibera! tion that Kuldip Nayar and I decided last fortnight to
>>> approach the National Human Rights Commission with a complaint
>>> concerning what the police call their 'encounter' at Ansal Plaza,
>>> New Delhi's posh shopping mall, on the Diwali weekend, in which two
>>> 'Pakistani terrorists' were gunned down.
>>>
>>> The last time I initiated public interest litigation was 21 years
>>> ago, when I moved the Bombay high court in the pavement dwellers'
>>> case. What impelled me this time was the extraordinary nature of the
>>> circumstances of the Ansal Plaza 'encounter'. Both Mr Nayar --- one
>>> of our most respected journalists, with a distinguished record of
>>> defending human rights --- and I had been uneasy about the police
>>> version of the events. Then, on November 6, The Asian Age published
>>> a story quoting a D! r H Krishna who claimed to be an eyewitness to
>>> the event. He was emphatic that the 'terrorists' did not come to the
>>> Plaza in a Maruti car as alleged; they were brought by the police;
>>> they were unarmed, barely able to walk; the police killed them at
>>> point-blank range.
>>>
>>> Our complaint said that the salient facts, including Dr Krishna's
>>> account, are disturbing enough to warrant an impartial inquiry. The
>>> NHRC chairman, Justice J S Verma, passed an order within minutes of
>>> our meeting him. He issued notice to the Delhi police commissioner
>>> and 'anti-terrorism' Special Cell to respond to the adverse
>>> allegations, and directed them to provide 'immediate and adequate
>>> protection' to Dr Krishna.
>>>
>>> Since then, the 'encounter' controversy has become more heated ---
>&! gt;> and murky. Doubts have been cast on Dr Krishna's integrity and
>>> character by raking up old (apparently long-closed) cases filed by
>>> estranged relations. But the central issue is not his character, but
>>> his role as a witness, hinging on his presence at Ansal Plaza. The
>>> Special Cell insists he was not present in the Plaza basement. It
>>> backs its stand by citing 'technical information' from a cellular
>>> telephone company. The police haven't disclosed the material facts.
>>> Rather, they have been leaking them selectively to 'sympathetic'
>>> publications and reporters.
>>>
>>> The issue has got politicised with BJP general secretary Arun
>>> Jaitley accusing Nayar, me, and other 'so-called human rights
>>> activists' of being 'the overground face of the underground'. The
>>> VHP wants us prosecuted ! as 'terrorist accomplices'. Equally nasty
>>> statements have come from other Sangh Parivar figures. The VHP has
>>> even demanded that the NHRC be renamed National Terrorists' Rights
>>> Commission. And now, Prime Minister Vajpayee himself has
>>> rationalised human rights violations by saying (November 11) that
>>> 'tough decisions' have to be taken while fighting terrorism,
>>> sometimes 'even infringing some of our freedoms and abridging some
>>> of our human rights temporarily... so that our future generations
>>> can live in peace and harmony.'
>>>
>>> This is a remarkably frank admission of what the Indian State (like
>>> some others) practises. Clearly, the Parivar has made the
>>> 'encounter' a loyalty test: Patriotism requires that we support the
>>> police; those who don't are working hand-in-glove with terrori! sts.
>>> The posture --- that you are either with the VHP-BJP, or against the
>>> Indian nation --- is rooted in unspeakable arrogance. It equates
>>> crass Hindutva with genuine patriotism, based on India's
>>> pluralist-secular Constitution. But let's leave aside the BJP-VHP's
>>> defamatory statements. What matter now are the numerous
>>> contradictions in the 'encounter' theory --- even if it is assumed
>>> that Dr Krishna is an unreliable witness. Consider the following:
>>>
>>> * Police Commissioner R S Gupta said the police didn't have the
>>> registration number of the terrorists' car (The Times of India,
>>> November 6). Joint Commissioner Neeraj Kumar told The Indian Express
>>> (November 4) they had no details on 'the make or... number... [only]
>>> a rough description of the two men...' But hands-on Assistant>>> Commissioner and 'encounter specialist' Rajbir Singh said: 'We had
>>> ... the car number" (ToI, November 4). The car was stolen in July,
>>> but the FIR for the theft was lodged two days after the 'encounter'.
>>>
>>> * The police claimed the terrorists had two pistols, an AK-56 rifle
>>> (in a bag) and only 60 rounds of ammunition. If they wanted to wreak
>>> large-scale havoc in a prime shopping mall, why didn't they carry
>>> RDX, grenades, and more AK-56s? The two men were clever enough to
>>> enter India, travel to Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Kashmir in
>>> disguise, and concoct false identities, but so stupid as to leave
>>> their diaries in their pockets!
>>>
>>> * The police say the terrorists fired 24 bullets, but they haven't
>>> shown any spent cartridges. No policeman suffered even a scrat! ch.
>>> Worse, contrary to all professional and ethical norms, the police
>>> handled the alleged terrorists' weapons without gloves in the full
>>> glare of television cameras. As even a schoolchild knows, this is
>>> not done if you want to preserve fingerprints.
>>>
>>> * The police first claimed that the encounter lasted 15 to 20 minutes
>>> and involved 30 to 35 Special Cell operatives using AK-56 guns.
>>> Although these have small (30-round) magazines, they fire at the
>>> very rapid rate of 600 bullets a minute! But instead of the huge
>>> number of holes such firing should have left in the basement walls,
>>> there are only 13 such holes. Later, the police disclosed that they
>>> fired a total of 52 rounds, and the 'terrorists' another 24. But
>>> they still cannot account for a good 41 of the 76!
>>>!
>>> * The police delayed ordering autopsy on the two bodies by over 72
>>> hours. They claimed there was a month's delay in the December 13
>>> case too. In fact, that autopsy was done on December 17. They said
>>> they referred the present matter to the home and foreign ministries;
>>> the clearance would take 20 days. Then, on November 9, they hastily
>>> ordered an autopsy. The only publicly disclosed sentence in the
>>> autopsy report gives an extra- medical opinion --- that fatal
>>> 'shock' and 'haemorrhage' were caused by 'firearms', and 'could have
>>> been sustained in a police encounter'. Doctors cannot determine
>>> this.
>>>
>>> * The police claim that 19 eyewitnesses 'confirm' their account. But
>>> none of those paraded on television say they actually saw the
>>> terrorists shooting.
>>! > The police failed to summon independent ballistic experts. They
>>> claim they were tracking the terrorists for three months. But they
>>> didn't know their whereabouts even a few days before the shootout
>>> --- despite cell phone tracking!
>>>
>>> * Pictures show one dead man clutching his pistol. Ballistic experts
>>> and physiologists say that under heavy fire, the victim's first
>>> reaction 'is to release whatever they are holding'. It is hard to
>>> believe the weapon wasn't planted after the event.
>>>
>>> The Delhi police have a lot of answering to do. They claim, on the
>>> strength of cell phone records, that Dr Krishna only reached Ansal
>>> Plaza two hours after the encounter. According to an IIT Madras
>>> telecom expert, cell phone records can only give the approximate
>>> location (with 1 ! to 1.5km) of a user. More precise information
>>> (within, say, 100 to 150 metres) can only be obtained if calls are
>>> tracked on the basis of advanced authorisation --- impossible in Dr
>>> Krishna's case, short of an odious deal with the police. The fact
>>> that the user's record shows s/he accessed one cell (one of many
>>> transceivers in a mobile network) does not prove s/he was nearest
>>> that cell. If one cell is busy, the call is diverted to another.
>>>
>>> The murky nature of these events has impressed itself firmly on the
>>> public mind. Thinking people everywhere are asking: was this
>>> encounter calculated to spread fear and insecurity, and thus
>>> 'normalise' the use of indiscriminate force? Why does the home
>>> minister appear at the site of each terrorist event? Is he trying to
>>> create the impre! ssion that he alone can defend citizens against
>>> terrorism? Is there a deeper game? Why should a policeman, even Mr
>>> Rajbir Singh --- involved in six of seven 'encounters' in 2000 ---
>>> risk an 'encounter' without the assurance of apex-level political
>>> support?
>>>
>>> These troublesome questions must not be ducked. Too many people are
>>> being killed after being designated 'terrorists'. In J&K, no fewer
>>> than 1,296 have been shot dead this year. Andhra Pradesh alone
>>> records 250 'encounters' a year. In Uttar Pradesh, there were 150
>>> custodial deaths in 2000. In India, each year, over 2,000 habeas
>>> corpus petitions are filed, but largely ignored. This is
>>> unacceptable. Terrorism must be fought --- one might even say, on
>>> war footing. But only a lawless, barbaric, State fights it with
&! gt;>> summary, brutal and cruel methods --- which are the terrorist's own
>>> evil hallmark.
>>>
>>> Even wars have to be fought lawfully. Rules of warfare are
>>> incorporated in various Geneva Conventions and international
>>> treaties. The State cannot summarily extinguish human life. The
>>> police have no right whatever to do so. That is the function only of
>>> a court of law. A State that kills terrorists on mere suspicion
>>> itself practises terrorism. Many condone this on the assumption that
>>> a few 'excesses' are permissible because the real enemy is Pakistan.
>>> This view is dangerously wrong. Tomorrow's 'terrorist' --- the
>>> Special Cell's target --- could be you. Citizens are no more secure
>>> against State brutality than against militant terrorism.
>>>
>>> --
>>> saurav>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo!
>Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site