At 2:33 PM -0800 11/18/02, D Deka wrote: >Conscience and guilt do not always coexist as words.
** In this context,one might reasonably conclude it DOES, if one has to attempt to CLEAR it. Why would anyone want to clear one's conscience, unless it is ridden with guilt? >I applaud your effort to keep your conscience clear. You don't go about applying efforts to keep clear a conscience that is already clear, do you? :-) :-) :-) 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 relatives, 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 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 ever 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 >>>> deliberation 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 Dr 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 --- >>>> 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 terrorists. >>>> 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 scratch. >>>> 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 impression 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 >>>> 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!? > <http://rd.yahoo.com/hosting/mailsig/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com>Yahoo! >Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
