Sunday 30 December 2012

Gandhian & Others & Zeitgeist

Incomplete

Usha Mehta

R.K.Bajaj

Madhu Mehta

They had written extensively on Ayodhya movement, taking what I thought was a apolegetic line for hindutva. Post 6th Dec, they suddenly seemed to realise the menace and their tone changed. Now that I am going down south, I shall retrieve the paper clippings of their writing pre and post 6th Dec 1992.. I would like to examine my hostility to these people by reexamining what exactly they wrote. Another addition to the list will be Dileep Padgaonkar.

Actually we lack a critical academic atmosphere.

My new year resolution --

Compile the works of Aruna Roy, Madhu Kishwar, Ramachandra Guha, Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt and understand various shifts in their persona.





New Twist to Parliament Attack Case



CRIME

Targeting Geelani
SIDDHARTH NARRAIN
in New Delhi
S.A.R. Geelani, the Delhi University lecturer who was acquitted in the Parliament House attack case, is shot at and injured in mysterious circumstances.
R.V. MOORTHY

S.A.R. Geelani with his lawyer Nandita Haksar after his release from Tihar Jail in October 2003.
THE focus of the national capital once again shifted to the December 13, 2001 terror attack on Parliament House. S.A.R. Geelani, lecturer at the Zakir Hussain College of Delhi University, who was acquitted by the Delhi High Court in October 2003 of conspiracy and terrorism-related charges in the case, was shot at and injured outside the house of his lawyer, Nandita Haksar, at Vasant Enclave on the night of February 8. The unidentified assailant fired five shots, of which three hit Geelani.
In December 2002, a special Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) court had sentenced to death Geelani, who was arrested soon after the December 2001 incident, along with Mohammad Afzal, Shaukat Guru and his wife Afzan Guru. The Delhi Police relied mostly on an intercepted telephone conversation in Kashmiri between Geelani and his half-brother to establish the conspiracy angle. Geelani appealed in the High Court in January 2003. In December that year, the court acquitted Geelani and Afsan Guru. The court held that there was nothing in the telephone conversation to implicate Geelani in the attack case. The Delhi Police then moved the Supreme Court, where the case is pending.
Angry scenes were witnessed outside the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) where Geelani was admitted in a serious condition by Nandita Haksar and her husband Sebastian Hongray. The police refused to allow anyone other than the doctors to see Geelani. Friends of Geelani, fearing the worst for his life, demanded that his immediate family members be given access to him. A large number of media personnel, students, and friends of Geelani, who had gathered outside the hospital, suspected that the Special Cell of the Delhi Police had masterminded the shooting.
The crowd heckled the police officials and demanded to know why Geelani was not given special protection.
Joint Commissioner of Police Ranjit Narayan said: "Geelani had never approached the police with a request to provide him security because of any threat to his life. There is no truth in the charge that the lecturer had been kept under surveillance." He dismissed the allegation that the police had masterminded the attack as a figment of imagination. The police alleged that Geelani's brother, Syed Bismillah Geelani, did not hand over the blood-stained sweater and jacket to the police.
S. SUBRAMANIUM

Students and supporters of Geelani staging a protest demonstration outside the police headquarters in New Delhi.
The Crime Branch has been entrusted with the investigation into the shooting. At the request of the police, the Delhi government has constituted a team of two doctors, one a surgeon and the other specialising in forensics, to examine the `nature of injuries' sustained by Geelani, conduct a ballistic test of the bullets that got embedded in the body and compare the bullets with the empty cartridges found outside the lawyer's residence.
This is not the first time that Geelani has been attacked. In March 2004, he had filed an affidavit before the High Court saying that he was being shadowed by the police and intelligence agencies ever since his acquittal. He said he feared he might become a victim of a false encounter as several attempts were made on his life when he was in jail. Although the All India Defence Committee for S.A.R. Geelani filed a petition before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), no investigation was ordered into the charges.
In a statement to the press, Geelani said that although he could not know for certain whether it was policemen of the Special Branch who tried to kill him there were facts that pointed to their involvement. He said: "The only people who seem to be determined to harm me are the police in the Special Cell of the Delhi Police. They picked me up on December 14, 2001, and brutally tortured me in an effort to make me give a false confession saying I was involved in the conspiracy to attack Parliament House. They ran a vicious campaign through the media against me. They were visibly delighted the day I was sentenced to death by the Designated Court."
Geelani raised some crucial questions that the police have not answered so far. He said that apart from Nandita Haksar nobody had any prior knowledge about his visit to her house that evening. He said that since the only way of tracking his movements was by tapping his or his lawyer's telephones or monitoring his movements, the question the investigating agency should be asking is who could have access to this technology.
The police complained that Nandita Haksar informed them about the incident an hour after it occurred. The lawyer maintained that at that point her first priority was to save Geelani's life. Since there were no eyewitnesses to the shooting, the police, clueless as they were, wanted to question Geelani as soon as possible. Doctors at the AIIMS did not give the police permission because Geelani was not fit enough to see them. In a statement issued six days after the incident, Geelani described his assailant as a man of medium height, wearing pants and shirt, of wheatish complexion, trimmed hair, unshaven and not wearing spectacles.
Geelani said: "I never had any intention of not giving my statement. But until February 13, my wound had still not been stitched up. I was feeling very weak. Moreover, I did not feel like giving any statement after the police gave out the news that I had `refused' to give a statement." He said that the police had been harassing his family. "They had taken away my car, PAN card and bank documents. They have even seized the computer I presented my children on my acquittal," he said.
Vijay Singh, member of the Delhi University Teachers Association's (DUTA) executive body, said the police had not even cordoned off the area where the shooting took place. In a letter to the NHRC, the Delhi University Teachers in Defence of S.A.R. Geelani said that the police actions "not only show the failure of the police to launch a serious investigation into this massive crime, there is an attempt to personalise what is clearly an enormous political crime".
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices P.V. Reddi and P.P. Naolekar hearing the Parliament attack case (State v. Mohammad Afzal and others), sought a report from the Delhi Police about its investigation into the attack on Geelani.
"We are dismayed by this incident," the Judges said, after Geelani's counsel Ram Jethmalani briefed the court about the shooting. The court directed the state's counsel, Gopal Subramanium, to submit a status report. Jethmalani reminded the court that Geelani had filed an affidavit on April 13, 2004, in the apex court saying he apprehended danger to his life. Geelani has filed an application asking for the case to be handed over to an independent investigating agency.
The Delhi Police have tried to link the attack on Geelani to Mohammad Afzal and Shaukat, a suggestion that Geelani was quick to dismiss. "I am saddened to read that the police have tried to blame Mohammad Afzal and Shaukat. It was Afzal who told the media that I was being framed and the police told him not to speak about me. They expressed their happiness at my acquittal," he said.

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

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-28/india/36035664_1_ramchandra-kalasangra-samjhauta-blast-malegaon-blast


Samjhauta blast accused plotted Geelani attack

Deeptiman Tiwary, TNN Dec 28, 2012, 02.05AM IST
(It was something that Samjhauta…)
NEW DELHI: Even though the Hindu terror module responsible for several blasts from Samjhauta Express to Malegaon was allegedly stitched up under the aegis of organizations such as Abhinav Bharat, Jai Maa Vande Mataram and support from certain RSS functionaries to avenge Hindu deaths in terror attacks, the order to shoot dead S A R Geelani did not flow from the top.

It was something that Samjhauta blast accused Lokesh Sharma and Rajender Chadhary, recently arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), decided on their own in consultation with slain Hindu terror suspect Sunil Joshi, sources said.
The trio was convinced of Geelani's guilt in the 2001 Parliament attack case and was incensed at his acquittal by Delhi high court in October 2003, sources added.
Interestingly, it was in 2004 during the Ujjain Kumbh that 2008 Malegaon blast accused Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur allegedly met Sunil Joshi, Sandeep Dange, Ramchandra Kalasangra alias Ramji, Lokesh Sharma and others and brought them under one umbrella and motivated them to retaliate against Muslims who were perpetrating terror against Hindus.
In February, 2005, Lokesh Sharma riding pillion on a bike with Rajender Chaudhary shot at Geelani in Vasant Vihar in Delhi, investigations have revealed. Sources, however, said the Ujjain Kumbh camp was merely an act of motivation and no concrete plans were drawn. "Pragya's name has as yet not cropped up in the Geelani case," said a source privy to investigations. In any case, until the Ujjain Kumbh camp, all the accused were acting independently.
Meanwhile, investigations into the Sunil Joshi murder have thrown up some fresh facts. While Rajender Chaudhary is suspected to have shot Joshi while riding pillion on a bike in Dewas in 2007, his interrogation revealed that the decision to kill Joshi was not taken out of the fear of him being caught by police and leading to unraveling of the entire Hindu conspiracy.
According to sources, Chaudhary said that Joshi was killed merely because he had attempted to sexually harass Pragya Singh, drawing the ire not only of the sadhvi but the entire group. The group believed that Joshi had strayed and his actions showed that he had relinquished the "pious" ideological mores that drove the group. His act was considered anathema to ultra-nationalistic right-wing Hindu ethos that the group subscribed to. That is why, sources said, the group decided that his elimination was important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAR Geelani  is not Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the Kashmiri Separatist leader.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-27/india/36021846_1_modasa-blast-malegaon-blast-samjhauta-blast

Man held for Samjhauta blast also behind bid on Geelani's life: NIA

Deeptiman Tiwary, TNN Dec 27, 2012, 12.34AM IST
NEW DELHI: Rajender Chaudhary alias Samunder, recently arrested by National Investigation Agency (NIA), is turning out to be the biggest catch so far in the agency's attempt to unravel the Hindu terror conspiracy.
He has not only confessed to his role in Samjhauta Express and Mecca Masjid blasts and given vital clues of right-wing involvement in the 2006 Malegaon blast, Sunil Joshi murder case, 2005 attack on SAR Geelani and 2008 Modasa blast, but even revealed his involvement in a Jammu mosque blast that was until now blamed on Kashmiri militants.

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

System was unhappy with my acquittal: Parl attack accused

December 27, 2012 12:01 IST


Alleged Samjhauta express bomber Rajendra Chaudhary has 'confessed' that it was he who fired at S A R Geelani, who was acquitted in the Parliament attack case in 2001. But Geelani alleges that Chaudhary was just a pawn and says that the system was behind it, since there were many others who were unhappy with his acquittal. Vicky Nanjappa reports.
According to the National Investigation Agency, Chaudhary has confessed that he had shot at Geelani at Delhi's [ Images ] Vasant Vihar on February 8, 2005. Chaudhary told the investigators that he was upset over Geelani being acquitted in the Parliament attack case.

Geelani was acquitted in 2003, and Chaudhary has said that the attack had been planned the same year. He said that he, along with Lokesh Sharma, an accused in the 2007 Mecca Masjid case had shot at Geelani.

When asked, Geelani said, "If Chaudhary is to be believed, he was upset over my acquittal. But then my acquittal had upset the people within the system. So, I feel that there was a bigger hand involved," Geelani said.

"Justice would only be done if the people within the system are punished and brought to book. Since they always seem to get away, there is so much of disgruntlement among many in the society. After this attack I was never contacted by the police. I was also never told about the suspects; these names are new to me," he added.

Geelani alleged that after the shooting, the police harassed him and even confiscated his laptop and seized his car apart from giving his family members a hard time. "I don't want to say more about this probe now," he said.

The NIA, on the other hand points out that this information emerged only after Chaudhary's arrest.

"This is the first time that this information is coming out. The Delhi police has been handling this case, and so we have passed on this information to them. They would question these accused separately and further their investigation," an NIA official said.

Earlier, the Delhi police had drawn a blank on this investigation. They picked up two persons in 2005, but they were never able to prove their involvement in the case. However, now with this confession, they hope to make some inroads into the case.

Chaudhary who is being probed for his role in the Samjautha and Mecca Masjid blast cases reportedly told the NIA investigators that the plan to shoot Geelani was devised in 2003 and on the instructions of Sunil Joshi who was considered to be the ring leader.

Joshi was however killed under mysterious circumstances and this matter too is being investigated by the NIA.
Picture: National Security Guard commandos take up positions outside Parliament House, in New Delhi, following the terrorist attack.
Photographer: Ranjan Basu/Saab Press

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

http://m.indianexpress.com/news/samjhauta-accused-claims-he-shot-at-delhi-prof-geelani-in-05/1050223/
Samjhauta accused claims he shot at Delhi prof Geelani in ’05
FP

Rahul Tripathi 


Alleged Samjhauta Express bomber Rajender Choudhary has “confessed” to being behind the firing on Parliament attack accused S A R Geelani. Choudhary, who is currently in NIA custody, has reportedly told investigators that he along with Ajmer dargah and Mecca Masjid bombings accused Lokesh Sharma shot at Geelani on February 8, 2005 in Delhi’s Vasant Vihar, where Geelani had gone to meet his lawyer. The Delhi University teacher had suffered serious injuries.

Choudhary is learnt to have also confessed that the attack was carried out on the instructions of slain RSS pracharak Sunil Joshi. They reportedly started planning the attack in 2003, soon after the Delhi High Court acquitted Geelani in the Parliament attack case of 2001.

Geelani told The Indian Express that Delhi Police had never contacted him after the attack. “They never told me who were the suspects. Instead they always treated me as a suspect. My family was harassed. They also confiscated my car and laptop.”
The Delhi Police Crime had drawn a blank in the case despite several years of probe.

The National Investigation Agency has informed Delhi Police about Choudhary’s “confession”. Delhi Police is now expected to seek custody of Lokesh Sharma, who is currently in Jaipur prison in connection with the 2007 Ajmer blasts.

According to Choudhary, Joshi and other members of the group were angry over Geelani’s acquittal in the Parliament attack case and wanted to avenge the incident. Lokesh Sharma and Choudhary travelled to Delhi several times reportedly to keep a watch on his movements. After the shooting, both had managed to escape.


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


Home page > 2007 > August 11, 2007 > Human Rights in the Time of Patriotism
MAINSTREAM, VOL XLV, NO 34

Human Rights in the Time of Patriotism

BY SURENDRA MOHAN
Framing Geelani, Hanging Afzal: Patriotism in the Time of Terror by Nandita Haksar; Promilla & Co. Publishers in association with Bibliophile South Asia, New Delhi; pp. 348; Rs 450.

Nandita Haksar, human rights activist, who has confronted the Union and several State governments in Courts of law in cases of unspeakable atrocities, particularly in the North-Eastern parts of India, has authored an extremely engaging and challenging book. Although the two individuals who are its main objects belong to Jammu and Kashmir and were accused of taking part in the ‘Attack on Parliament’ case, she has discussed human fights and the civil liberties of the entire people in J&K State. But, in the discussion, she has commented on the role of the Courts, the legal fraternity, teachers of law in the Universities, the print and electronic media including cinema and governments and their agencies. She has raised awkward questions and has focussed on the utter insensitivity of these institutions to democratic and human values. She has pointed out that ‘patriotic’ frenzy blinds our governments, the security networks, the academic community and the media to the basic rights of the common citizens of the country.

Haksar contrasts the insouciance of all the above sectors, highly influential and important as they are, with individuals in India as well the United States of America. The attitudes of several citizens of the USA after the ‘Nine Eleven’ in 2001, that is, a few months before the Attack on Parliament in our country, clearly demonstrated their refusal to get swayed by either enmity with or fear from the so-called ‘terrorists’, mainly the Muslims. At home, stories of those courageous human beings who, in the face of bereavement of a dearest son or daughter, expressed fortitude, tolerance and the desire to serve even those who were responsible in bringing tragedies in their families.
The individuals accused of joining the Attack are Prof S.A.R. Geelani of the Delhi University and Mohammad Afzal, a surrendered militant. When the case of Gilani came up, a prominent leader of the Peoples’ Union of Civil Liberties and a dedicated lawyer, N.D. Pancholi, met the accused in the jail. He took up his brief and approached Nandita to join him in defending Geelani. They set up a ‘Prof S.A.R. Geelani Defence Committee’ with the distinguished academic and social intellectual Prof Rajni Kothari as its chairperson. The two lawyers involved some criminal lawyers of repute, particularly the parliamentarian Ram Jethmalani. The Defence Committee launched a vigorous campaign of mass contact in some metropolises of the country and also concentrated on the people in the J&K State. The reason for it was that it had sensed the deep concern that the people there had for the accused whom they had started to identify as martyrs in their common cause.
THE book contains several undelivered letters. They have been brought together in the volume under review in order to expose the larger public to the issues involved which are seminal to the defence of their human rights. The addressees range from the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh to the director of a cinematic film on the great martyr Sardar Bhagat Singh. Others are Prof Upendra Baxi, who was Nandita’s teacher of law, and enjoys an international reputation as a fighter for human rights, and Prof Bipan Chandra of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, JNU who was also her teacher and who specialises in modern Indian history. Their silence on the entire episode of the framing of some innocent citizens of India is the centre of her criticism of these scholars. Baxi explained later on the occasion of the launching of the book that he was out of India during those fateful years Barkha Dutt, a socially aware journalist, who too was swayed by the tide of patriotism and threw herself in the whirling current, is also an addressee and Haksar has picked on her for her several failings in reporting the two cases, as is typical of her tribe.
One of the accused, Geelani, who had been sentenced to execution by the trial Court, was later acquitted by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. Mohammad Afzal, however, has been waiting in the Tihar Jail of Delhi to be executed. It was an utter travesty of justice that while sentencing Afzal, the Supreme Court observed that the public sentiment against the accused was running very high and that letting him off with a lighter punishment would be mocking that sentiment. It was the highest Court of justice in the country and its attitude was sufficient in blunting any meaningful response by any executive institution to human rights. With such a deeply ingrained prejudice at the level of the Supreme Court, no citizen of the country can feel secure against the miscarriage of justice.
Nandita points out in her several letters that the High Court had observed in Geelani’s case that there was not even a prima facie case against him. Yet, no lawyer was willing to come to his defence and they included even those whom she could rely upon. They said that they could not swim against the current. So strong was this current that the authorities in New Delhi, the national Capital, refused her permission to hold a public meeting. When the prosecution put Afzal before the media even a charge-sheet had not been framed against him, there was no outcry at all. A virulent public opinion had, nevertheless, to be conscientised to the requirements of natural justice for the Indian citizens. Hence, a persistent campaign was conducted for months together with the help of pictures, slides, excerpts from news reports, and the sayings of great people. The main focus was on the details of the case and on the thinness of the evidence. It was an excellent collage.
This effort was thwarted by the authorities on several occasions and in several places. The Delhi University was unhappy and did not allow the exhibition to be shown. Sadly, the Teachers’ Union, DUTA, was no less opposed to it though Geelani was one of its members. Teachers of Geelani’s own Dr Zakir Hussian College were with the DUTA. It was ridiculous that the latter was then dominated by the Students’ Federation of India, SFI, the student outfit of the Communist Party of India-Marxist, a party with which Nandita herself had worked. In fact, the prejudice was not confined to one party. The Hindu communal elements of the RSS and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad were the most obnoxious, administering open threats and writing the crudest possible letters to Geelani and Afzal.
The book details the background of Geelani’s family and his own activities in Delhi. His father was a confirmed secular-minded person and a devout Muslim. But he was tortured by the police even in his old age. Geelani was an enthusiastic participant in the meetings of the PUCL and other human rights groups and moved in liberal circles. Even when he witnessed the most brutal torture of an urchin, he kept his balance. The leaders of the DUTA were aware of these facts. The USA’s propaganda in the wake of ‘Nine Eleven’ was bought wholesale by the Indian elite whose Islamophobia used to be oiled every now and then by media reports about the extremists’ activities in J&K and the frequent riots in the country. Then, there is Pakistan across the western border. In the aftermath of the Attack on Parliament, a state of war was created by India which continued for several months on the Indian demand for the extradition of twenty Indian terrorists whom Pakistan had given shelter.
THE book relates the prosecution of Afzal also in detail. It brings out not only how the judiciary functions. His harassment by the police and the jail authorities has angered the author so much that she has spared no words of contempt against them. After Geelani was acquitted by the Supreme Court, he was shot and wounded by some unidentified gunmen. The occasion was an intended visit to his lawyer Nandita Haksar. He knocked at Nandita’s door while bleeding profusely, and had to be rushed to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences at some distance. On such occasions, Nandita’s and her husband’s sense of timing and refusal to be overwhelmed by such gruesome tragedy has served her well This is the well known state of ‘Sthit Prajnya’. The government let the criminal incident pass without any follow-up. Nandita and her husband retired to Goa in order to have peace of mind and to help soothe her frayed nerves. The intelligence agencies, however, took the fullest care of them and there could be no rest.
An acute confusion in Nandita’s mind was why the CPI-M, the party she had admired, had repulsed all thought of assisting Geelani and Afzal. How could an international and humanist ideology become so utterly insensitive as to become blatantly nationalist, to the extent of justifying even a judicial murder, which will come about when Afzal is hanged? Her discussions with several persons who had thought over this perplexing phenomenon and particularly Geelani’s brother Bismillah, a graduate student, helped to find some answers. Marxists had always thought of religion as part of the ‘superstructure’ which stood above the ‘structure’ and was determined by it. The ‘structure’ consists of the means and the relations of production. Religion, as such, like art and literature, has no independent existence. Therefore, no event can be judged on the basis of religion shorn of the ‘structure’ which determines it.
This attitude was not much different in its effect from the attitude that the leaders of the freedom struggle had adopted then that the Hindu- Muslim problem which had been created by the imperialists in their policy of ‘Divide and Rule’, would evaporate after India won her freedom from them. The same was their approach to the caste issue, although Gandhi had suffered from an acute sense of shame owing to the practice of untouchability. The aetiology of caste or religion worked out by Dr Ambedkar was not acceptable to the Marxists or the nationalists. Had they delved deep into these phenomena, possibly they could have saved India from being partitioned. Ethnic identity and pride are similarly dismissed by these intellectuals. Haksar cast off that attitude and decided on a broad-based humanistic under-standing of religion, caste and ethnicity. Possibly, close working with the Nagas taught her all these things.
The total lack of understanding of their cultural heritage by the people of her generation had also started to worry Nandita. She herself knew nothing of Kashmir’s history or its culture and traditions. Among Kashmiris, her own community, she looked like a stranger. She felt that the issues of an appropriate understanding of religion and ethnicity, and the deep insight into a community’s culture etc. were bound together. Yet, while she grasped the need for developing such holistic understanding and respecting religion as such, she found that all religions, which propagated a noble moral code, had lost their way into obsolete and obscurantist ways of thought and practice. She abhorred these distortions in the religions, and also felt that they had stagnated overtime. However, it was not left to her to free these religions from such evils, but to leave them to the reformists in respective religious communities. Any attempt in this direction by an outsider would be interference and the State’s effort as imposition from above.
The book includes a poignant letter to Bismillah in which Haksar discusses all these issues and bares her heart. Another letter is to the younger generation by which she tries to transmit her new understanding to them. While all these chapters show rigour of analysis, compassion is never far behind. Allusions to the teachings of the Upanishads, the Koran, Buddhism and the Bible can be found every now and then. They help the reader in going forward in the debate. References to literary writings from Kalidasa, Shakespeare or some Urdu poets will also be found which the author uses to buttress an argument or to help illuminate an insight. That an activist, who has struggled in the defence of human rights for the Nagas and the Kashmiris and who is now concerned with 34 Burmese freedom fighters locked up in a Kolkata jail since 1998, should have found time to study the scriptures and literary works of old and new authors boggles the mind.
But, in spite of a stressful life and worries of a whole world, Nandita retains an obsessive optimism. The book ends with a song which invites the reader to travel with her into a world where there are no sorrows and tears and where only love prevails.

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

Friday 21 December 2012

My Bookshelf of Ghosts of Books Lost

http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/my-ideal-bookshelf/

When I was looking at the above list, I was remembering those books which were lent (forcibly to make some point), went to other borrowers and are resting in some bookshelves somewhere - Many of them Out of Print Books that I am unable to replace ...

1. Hope Against Hope -- Nadezhda Mandelstam

2. The Pornography of Representation -- Susanne Kappeler

3. The Soul of the Ape ; The Soul of the White Ant -- Eugene Marais

4. Children of the Arbat -Anatoli Rybakov

5. African Laughter - Doris Lessing

6.

Thursday 20 December 2012

Rape


1. Is an expression of power and a means of demeaning the victim. Psychologically more close to torture than an act of sex. So calling for castration of offenders etc is unnecessarily unwittingly demonizing the act of sex.

2. Is an act of bonding as in gang rape or "ragging"

3. May also be a rite of passage or initiation into a 'gang'

4.  In most of the cases is by a person known to the victim -- A family member or neighbour.

5. I am not aware of  any study pointing to the rapist of a stranger being rapist of known people (usually an "inferior" person, a child for instance). Won't be surprised if that is the case.

6. Burden of proof of innocence should be on the accused if act of sex or an attempt is established. Let people be more careful with whom they get into 'consensual' sex.

7. Popular culture--Here I draw a blank. I can feel the inner  resistance to being made to watch TV or films or read mush.--- Play to my strength-- That shall be my task for 2013-- Image of women in Newspapers & hoardings-- Though it might be weird coming from some one ignorant of popular culture --Not so ignorant-I have watched The three idiots, Lage raho Munnabhai, and enjoyed them.

8. Download all articles over the past few days & analyse them and their reader responses. That will be easier for me.

9. Some thing like "Ways of Seeing" - an analysis of popular images.

Tuesday 18 December 2012

The Best News is No Headlines

Condemn them

A Muslim organisation says the recent violence at Azad Maidan needs to be slammed in the strongest possible terms; wants Muslim leaders to answer, makes a plea for responsible reporting and keeping the city's strained secular fabric from tearing

August 18, 2012
MUMBAI
Hemal Ashar
Mumbai teetered on the brink of large scale communal violence on August 11, 2012 as protests led by Muslim organisations turned bloody within minutes. The protests were to highlight what the organisations claimed were attacks against Muslims in Assam in the ongoing Bodo vs. Muslim conflict in the North Eastern state and attacks against the Muslim community known as the Rohingyas in Myanmar or Burma, as it was formerly called.
Smoke from burning vehicles engulfs, Mumbai's landmark buildings
No sight to behold: Smoke from burning vehicles engulfs the city’s landmark buildings as the protests spiral out of control. Pics/atul kamble  
The protests turned violent due to incendiary speeches and the mob, which may have come prepared given the lethal rocks and weapons they carried, spun out of control torching media vehicles and attacking police officers. There was police firing and at least two people lost their lives but the police did manage to bring a smouldering problem under control after a few hours. The embers though are still burning and a fallout of that violence has sent tremors down the spine of this city. Elsewhere too, North Eastern residents are fleeing cities filled with trepidation of repercussions on them and there is palpable tension in the air.

Making their point: (from left) Shakeel Ahmed, Asgar Ali Engineer, Hasina Khan and Javed Anand. Pic/Satyajit Desai
One of the reactions to this incident is the formation of a group called Muslims in Solidarity for Justice: Voices Against Violence at the Azad Maidan protest. This group, formed in response to the violence, held a public-press meet yesterday at Mumbai’s Press Club, which is, in fact, adjacent to Azad Maidan.
Demonstrators gather
Burning issue: Demonstrators gather after torching a vehicle
The group emphasised that Muslims in Solidarity for Justice condemned the violence at the incident and sought punishment for the guilty. That seemed to be the overriding theme of the meeting, where the four speakers on the dais collectively claimed that they could not condemn the violence enough.
police van burns, Azad Maidan spills over
Carnage: A police van burns as mayhem at Azad Maidan spills over
Social media
Hasina Khan, who was described as a feminist activist and a member of the Collective Forum against Oppression of Women and Aawaz-e-Niswaan, took the mike first, stating, “We are against this violence and the organisations I represent have been working for peace for the past 30 years. We want to ensure that this will not happen again. We are against all injustice and violence and discrimination. There are certain SMS messages and MMSes doing the rounds, increasing the hate and fear. We have to investigate the source of these messages.”
Social media, in fact, came in for flak from most of the speakers who agreed it is a double-edged sword. While in certain cases it does increase awareness and keeps channels of communication open, irresponsible use of social networking also helps spread baseless rumours, drums up dangerous hate sentiments and creates communal mountains out of very manageable molehills.
Said Asgar Ali Engineer, a well-known voice in the community and founder member of the Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism, “The turn the protests took was unexpected and shocking. One never thought that things would pan out like this. However, one has to understand the atmosphere that was created pre-rally and the prevalent sentiments sweeping the Muslim community about Burma and Assam. Overall, Muslims were being fed with the sentiment that there is a ‘world wide conspiracy’ against them, and Assam and Burma were being used as catalysts for this.
They were being told that, there is a conspiracy against you in this world. I do not think the organisers wanted violence but the way they mobilised people for this rally, they did create an atmosphere in masjids etc. that was rife for tension and problems. In fact, there was some kind of internal competition within the Muslim community itself, over who could mobilise more people for the rallies and this may have led to the charged atmosphere they created pre-rally.
One protest was planned for Saturday August 11, which turned violent and there was another planned by yet another section of the community, for Monday, August 13 but was called off, after the Saturday problem. There were also posters put up in various places claiming conspiracy against Muslims.”
Police praise
Engineer also added that he has always been in close touch with what is happening in Assam and what is happening currently is a Bodo vs. Muslim clash not a Hindu vs. Muslim one. “Yet, a religious colour is being given to this conflict by vested interests and then, put that together with conspiracy theories, the community’s unemployment rate, lack of education and frustration which found a vent.”
Engineer praised the Police Commissioner and appealed to people that such clashes cannot be given a religious colour and religion makes the “people very emotional and then it is very difficult to control them. We have 1992-93 (riots in Mumbai) as an example. When people ask me about Mumbai, I say there is communal harmony in the city and 1992-93 was an exception. We have seen how violence claims innocent lives and the responsible go scot-free. There is also an onus on journalists to report responsibly and fairly. Muslims may be bearing the brunt of Assam but Bodos too have suffered,” finished Engineer who reminded everyone that 2014 is election year and much of this may be politically motivated with an eye on the elections.
It was dial L for leaders, for speaker Shakeel Ahmed, part of an organisation called Nirbhay Bano Andolan who laid the blame squarely at the Muslim leadership door. “We have to blame these leaders as they have pushed back the fight for justice. One can see there is a link between violence and justice.
The Muslim leadership gives precedence to such issues, instead of talking about evolution of Muslims who live in the city’s poorest, dirtiest pockets and thinking about their progress. We need these leaders to give us answers. On that day, August 11, I could feel the ‘poison’ seeping into the city. I saw several communal incidents. Instead of all these protests, the community needs schools for children and opportunities to go ahead. Muslim leaders need to think about that.”
Need answers
Shakeel’s words resonated with Communalism Combat’s Javed Anand who stated that, “sorrys by Muslim leaders will not do. We need answers.” Anand added, “The history of this city has shown that usually in cases like these, it is the police on one side and the minority on the other along with human rights organisations who criticise the police.” Anand cited examples like rallies against Salman Rushdie’s book, “Satanic Verses where there were clashes between the protestors and police and blood was spilled.
This time though the provocation was by Muslims and the police showed great restraint.” Anand also said that there were numerous SMS messages and MMSes doing the rounds. After scrutiny it was found that there was absolutely no connection between these MMSes and violence in Assam or Burma. He said that people who incited the protestors to violence, “already had a ready audience because this is the month of Ramzan and there were a lot of men in the mosques coming in to pray. Instead, they should have given the correct picture because Ramzan after all, is a time for ‘hosh’ not ‘josh’, it is time for prayer and patience.”
The operative word is calm and Anand stated that leaders have to come out and calm the community, restore confidence in the North East community and it is heartening that this is already being done in certain sections. “We have seen certain Maulanas standing with leaders in cities like Bangalore and asking them, tell us what you want to say to the people and calm them down. But I have also heard some right wing people are standing with sticks and worsening an already difficult situation.” Anand emphasised that Assam is not, “a Hindu vs Muslim issue, in fact it is a property issue, which is being given a communal colour.”
Anand passed on a message from the Assam Association of Mumbai to the people stating that the Association had explicitly asked him to “tell the press to report responsibly so that truth is not a casualty in this. Today, an Urdu newspaper has printed a long letter, which begins with the words Muslims are being murdered in town after town in India. I do not know how such irresponsible writing can be printed. Do they not have news editors, sub editors and editors looking at the same?” he asked.
Anand also cited the hate mongering going on through Facebook with various bogus ‘groups’ being formed to protect the North East people from some perceived “dangers.” Anand reiterated that there is a modicum of control in the printed press and television channels but there is no such editorial whetting on social networking sites, which are free to fan the flames of hate.
Right wing
Hasina, who had spoken earlier, then cast an eye on the larger issues that beset the community and said it is important to improve the socio-economic conditions of the community. She said, “Muslim women face the brunt of right wingers outside of the community and within the community too.”
Hasina added, “There are some dangerous ideas being propounded and creative liberty is being stifled. Certain groups say that Satanic Verses should not be read. Why should other people decide what we should read or not read? We are not Iran or Afghanistan. Even the fact that writer Taslima Nasreen was told to leave India, as she had to flee Bangladesh it goes against Muslim women. There has to be artistic freedom here. Muslim women are the worst of the deprived.”
The session was thrown open for questions where things got a little tetchy with a listener asking the speakers why they were not at the venue on August 11 to defuse the situation. They said that they did not know there was going to be violence. “How would we know that?” they asked.
Another question asked was that why are Muslims always bothered about what is happening outside in the world, instead with them in their own community, where the speakers themselves said that they are suffering from poor socio-economic conditions, lack of education and other problems. Hasina replied that having said that, “in a democracy people have a right to protest against something anywhere in the world.”
Another man said that he respected Engineer’s views but stating that there is a ‘reason’ for everything might just be seen as justification for the incident. “It is very, very important to de-link what is happening in Assam and Burma from what is happening on D N Road,” he said.
To a question about whether Raza Academy, one of the organisers of the protests should be banned, the speakers answered that by that yardstick, numerous organisations and political parties too should be banned. The speakers claimed that instead, Raza Academy should be made to pay for the damage to public property in the city along with others responsible. 
-----------------------------------------------------------






Mumbai riots exposed both English and Urdu press
Arup Patnaik’s exemplary restraint while controlling a manic mob was not worthy of praise for the English press. The national media’s handling of the recent Mumbai violence has left the Muslims frustrated, says JYOTI PUNWANI.
Posted/Updated Saturday, Aug 25 07:53:55, 2012
HERE’S LOOKING AT US
Jyoti Punwani
The media must be happy. They didn’t bring about Arup Patnaik’s transfer, but they certainly worked for it like they haven’t for any other police commissioner’s transfer. There have been other CPs who have been soft on rioting mobs; indeed, the record of Mumbai Police has been to let mobs riot--as long as those are led by the Thackerays or the VHP. These mobs have attacked innocent citizens only because they were South Indian or Muslim, or North Indian. But that hasn’t made the media see red. Even when the media itself has been the target of such mobs, the police have done nothing. But when Muslims riot? And don’t just riot, they attack the police and the Amar Jawan Jyoti, there must be immediate action. If 10 to 20 bodies aren’t lying around, felled by police bullets, if these Muslims aren’t taught a lesson, then a cop isn’t worthy of his gun. That’s the message the media sent to Muslims.
This was the first time the police were targeted by a violent mob without any provocation from the former. Normally, any time this happens, the police reach for their guns. As it is, when they see a stone-throwing Muslim mob, their first instinct is to fire. So the Mumbai Police Commissioner’s restraint is a first. He ploughed through the mob, went up on stage, appealed to the panicky Muslims gathered there to disperse peacefully to avoid a 1992-like situation, and promised them he would control his men. This too was a first. Hence both actions made news.
But news of what kind? Going through the Marathi press, one finds nothing but praise for the police for having controlled a manic mob that went berserk at 3 p.m. so well that by 6 p.m. things were back to normal. The English press however, found little to praise. Day after day, all the newspapers hounded Arup Patnaik with questions on his inaction, carrying obviously leaked confidential reports warning about the violence, publishing video grabs of him abusing a senior cop for having caught someone who was pleading his innocence… His explanation that he saw in his force’s eyes the same look he had seen in his men in December 1992, and remembering what happened then, he was more afraid of them going out of control than the rallyists, was obviously not good enough for the English press.
Another message came through the coverage of Raj Thackeray’s morcha held ostensibly to condemn the attack by Muslims on the police and the media. Except CNN-IBN and NDTV, every Hindi, English and Marathi channel covered the morcha live. The Times Now reporter was almost breathless with admiration. After the rally, the television channels found nothing wrong in the MNS chief addressing Mumbai’s cops as Maharashtrians and declaring his support for them as Maharashtrians. They found nothing wrong in his blaming the violence both on August 11 and in 1992-93 on “Bangladeshi and Pakistani Muslims who flock here from UP, Bihar and Jharkhand.’’ Even Nikhil Wagle, who has often been physically attacked by the Shiv Sena (when Raj Thackeray was one of its leaders), gushed about the “inclusiveness’’ of the MNS chief’s “Maharashtra dharm’’. The next day, the English press was less gushing, but nowhere critical.
Acrimonious
No wonder an Eid Milan attended by this columnist the day after Raj Thackeray’s morcha turned acrimonious very soon. Some of the Muslims there were waiting to vent their ire on the English media, for projecting the wrong persons as their leaders, for branding the entire community as terrorists, for ignoring the violence on them in Assam and Myanmar…
The first two complaints were valid. The Raza Academy is a paper outfit; its chief, Seed Noori, a fanatic and a rabble-rouser. Yet, he adorns the pages of English newspapers on December 6 every year, performing namaz on the streets. At other times he makes headlines spewing inflammatory stuff against Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen. The communal politics of his outfit resulted in two policemen being lynched in Bhiwandi in 2005. In the resultant firing, two Muslims died. He was one of the organisers of the August 11 rally which ended in violence. But here’s how the Indian Express described him after that: “Al Haj Maulana Saeed Noori Sahab’’--a title obviously taken from his website. Every second maulana has performed the Haj, so have riot victims and the scholar Asghar Ali Engineer. Never heard of them being called “Al Haj”.
The Times  of India described his organisation as a “Sunni advocacy group’’, and theHT gave this headline: “We are progressive and peaceful: Raza Academy”. Al Haj Noori Sahab must be laughing all the way to the mosque (where incidentally, he doesn’t allow Muslims of any other sect to enter except his own)!
Indeed, the Times’ sympathy for the organisers of the rally didn’t stop at Saeed Noori. One report described the “agony’’ experienced by another organiser at the fact that he was being projected as responsible for the violence.
Here’s a strange coincidence. This dichotomy--organisers blameless, individual mobsters guilty--echoes the stand taken by the State Home Minister R R Patil who gave a clean chit to the Raza Academy on day two itself. That should have aroused some suspicions about the organisers’ link with the minister. Any knowledgeable Muslim would tell you how deep these links are. But which English reporter talks to ordinary Muslims? 
The same papers found little worth reporting in a press conference called by Asghar Ali Engineer, Javed Anand, Hasina Khan and Shakil Ahmed, all of them well-known in Mumbai. The speakers condemned the rally’s organisers and asked that they be held responsible for the violence. Why were these voices ignored? Does the English press, as Muslims have always alleged, have a vested interest in projecting a certain image of Muslims--violent, fanatic, terrorist?
However, in one respect, the press (not all TV channels though) came out with flying colours. Themselves at the receiving end of violence by a communally charged mob, the English press deliberately refrained from playing up the communal nature of the attacks. The behaviour of some of the rallyists on their way back had a definite communal overtone to it. But the English press, and the city’s two main Marathi newspapers, Maharashtra Times and Loksatta, chose to ignore it, or just hint at it. This was probably done to avoid any backlash by organised Hindutva parties in Mumbai, and showed a praiseworthy sense of responsibility.
However, by going after the Police Commissioner for his so-called inaction on the spot, the English press displayed the opposite.
The English press also, through these tumultuous days, made it a point to publish Bal Thackeray’s opinions expressed in his newspaper Saamna. One can understand that the Shiv Sena’s take on Muslim violence is part of news. But when Shiv Sainiks indulge in mob violence, do we reproduce what the Urdu press says? Through these last 10 days, only the Times carried two small paras on the Urdu newspapers’ stand.
Victimhood
Not that reproducing what the Urdu papers wrote would have helped. Apart from a general condemnation in the beginning, the Urdu press took its usual “victimhood” stand. In their meeting with the Chief Minister, called by him after the violence, Urdu editors spoke of a police “witch hunt’’, “counselling for rioters, not punishment’’ and reminded him of the soft treatment given to Shiv Sainiks besides objecting to those arrested being charged with murder.
The Urdu papers knew well enough the communal behaviour of the mob, but wrote nothing about it. They knew also that a Muslim woman, disgusted with the rowdy behaviour of Muslim boys going to the rally, had gone to the extent of squatting on the railway tracks to stop them. A fantastic story. But not for the Urdu press!
Instead, the Rashtriya Sahara blamed the so-called national media for not highlighting the incidents in Myanmar and Assam. Urdu journalists know well enough how the entire north-east is ignored by the English media. Before the Assam violence, how much did the Urdu press cover Assam or Myanmar? Did they at least give as much (or as little) coverage to the north-east as the so-called national media has? Some of the rallyists--readers of Urdu newspapers --didn’t even know that Assam was a part of India.
The Urdu press coverage of the August 11 rally brought out some new “facts’’. The Mumbai edition of Sahafat, once edited by the radical journalist Sajid Rashid (who died last year), wrote that the rioters had their faces covered by handkerchiefs. No video or photograph shows this. Urdu journalists know all about the rally organisers’ links with the NCP; again, nothing was written about this. The only exception was a report on the English website run by Muslims, ummid.com. The reporter interviewed a range of Muslims, who criticised the organisers and also spoke about their political links. However, at the end of the report, the writer couldn’t stop himself from wondering whether the violence was not the work of “non-Muslim political workers, agent provocateurs… as common Muslims are not familiar with this kind of violent protest.’’ Indeed. Ask the photographers targeted, and they would tell you how communally motivated their assailants were.  
To conclude, the non-Urdu media’s coverage of the August 11 rally and its fallout left the ordinary Muslim of Mumbai feeling once more frustrated and misunderstood. A large section of educated Muslims is angry with the Urdu press for not exposing the community’s opportunistic ulema. But when they turn to the English press, the message they get leaves them bitter.



Arup Patnaik saved Mumbai from burning

Jyoti Punwani | Agency: DNA | Friday, August 24, 2012
The morale of Mumbai’s police force must be sky-high now that police commissioner Arup Patnaik has been shunted out. The morale of the Muslim community, however, is at rock-bottom. This inverse equation best illustrates the relationship between the state and its largest minority.
But it needn’t have been so.
From security expert B Raman to super cop Julio Ribeiro, everyone praised Patnaik’s handling of the explosive situation at Azad Maidan on August 11. What more endorsement did the Maharashtra government need? Those of us who have seen communal violence in the city since the 80s, have rarely seen a senior policeman actually restrain his men in the face of dire provocation from a group of hoodlums belonging to a community they aren’t exactly fond of.Commissioners who take the trouble to walk through mobs, take the mike and defuse a restive and emotionally charged crowd, are like legendary figures from the early years after Independence.
The city was lucky enough to have a person like that in charge on August 11. Had Patnaik not acted the way he did, instead of just two men dead, we would have had maybe 20. Add to this the anger of an entire community. Unlike in the past 20 years, that anger may not have remained simmering. The brazenness with which cops were attacked on August 11 — without provocation — indicates that for a section of Muslim youth, violence, even against policemen, is fun. They are too young to have seen the brutalities faced by their community in 92-93 or earlier, in 1984. Imagine if this section had come out on the roads if indiscriminate police firing on the Azad Maidan crowd led to high casualties. Imagine what would have happened if that section of Hindu lumpens who, thanks to their powerful backers, have always got away with hooliganism, had taken them on.
“The insensitive and harsh approach of the police while handling the protesting (Muslim) mobs which initially were not violent’’ was listed by theSrikrishna Commission Report (Vol I), as one of the immediate causes of the violence that broke out the day the Babri Masjid was demolished. With his sensitivity, Patnaik saved the entire city from a repeat of 1992-93. A grateful community turned against its ulema and shamed them into apologising for calling a rally which they could not control. This is the first time leaders – Hindu or Muslim — have apologised for mob violence.
Not all the Eid milans and iftaars held every year by the police since 1992 have changed the basic relationship of mistrust between the city’s police and its largest minority. Patnaik’s one act, and his repeated explanations after that, did so. Perhaps for the first time, Muslims (not informers) co-operated with the police who went hunting for the culprits. When Patnaik said on TV, after Raj Thackeray’s rally, that he had been worried about a potential clash between MNS supporters and Muslims celebrating the second day of Eid on Chowpatty, Muslims couldn’t believe their ears.
Under Patnaik, this relationship would have gone far. Imagine the benefits for society as a whole when an embittered community is won over. But that was not to be. The mobs baying for blood had to be appeased. A police commissioner who doesn’t “teach Muslims a lesson” is persona non grata for the entire establishment, including the (non-Urdu) media. Only two Muslims dead when they attack cops? The man has to go. Home Ministers, however, can continue patronising the most rabid Muslims.




How Mumbai's Azad Maidan and Bombay Police riots tell a different story alltogether

Vikram Doctor, ET Bureau Aug 25, 2012, 06.00AM IST
(There is one interesting,…)
MUMBAI: There is one interesting, and depressing, difference between the Maharashtra government's reaction to the recent Azad Maidan riot and a riot that took place in the city exactly 30 years ago, in August 1982.
That was the Bombay Police Riot, an unprecedented event that put the city through its worst riots in 12 years and which was, predictably, greeted by calls from MLAs for the removal of Julio Ribeiro, who had just taken over as police commissioner (PC). But the then chief minister, Babasaheb Bhosale of Congress, refused to give in to the demands since he knew, all too well, how Ribeiro had managed to contain a problem that could have become far worse. Arup Patnaik, who has just been unceremoniously removed as PC, also quite possibly saved the city from far worse on August 11.

Not Yet Time to Forget Bombay Police Riots of 1982
Some activists were looking to provoke a stronger reaction that could have led to further chaos. And by attacking Patnaik for 'doing nothing,' political parties like the two Senas would have relished the chance of such chaos in which they could retaliate.
But by choosing not to be provoked, and containing the riot despite the attacks on police personnel, Patnaik may well have averted a larger conflagration — and his reward has been his removal.
It is a dangerous example of politicians using the police to push their own agenda. This meddling of politicians with the police force was reinforced at Raj Thackeray's rally. The made-for-TV moment of a police constable in uniform grovelling before Thackeray confirms this strategy.
It is a profoundly dangerous one for Mumbai, as the riots following a crackdown on police unions in August 1982 show. Today it seems startling that a police union was allowed at all. The government, at both central and state levels became increasingly uncomfortable with police unions, which had devolved into an alternative power structure.
When Julio Ribeiro took over on February 25, 1982, that discipline and morale in the Bombay Police was on the point of collapse. Rebuilding it would have meant destroying the union — and since the Union government was looking at Bombay to be an example for police forces across the country, the matter had national importance.
The Ganapati festival proved to be the perfect cover. Ribeiro took into confidence only a handful of officers he could totally trust. One of them was deputed to draw up detention papers for the union leaders. It was only two days before the event that the plan was disclosed to deputy police commissioners who, as Ribeiro notes, had suffered a lot from the union, so their support was assured.
It worked almost perfectly. Ribeiro writes that only one of the around 50 union leaders, Shevale, was suspicious — and the chaos he was able to unleash was an indication of how bad it could have been if all the others had known as well. On the night of August 17, when the officers went into action to arrest the leaders, Shevale gave them the slip and managed to contact people in Naigaum and Worli where there were large police colonies.
In one activist's memory, the problem spiralled out of control there because, for some reason, water supply to the Naigaum police colony was cut off. This agitated the women and children of the policemen, and they started altercations that rapidly became violent once news of the arrests spread. And when it became known that the police were off the streets, agitators of all kinds, including random looters, joined in, ransacking shops and burning vehicles. For a few hours, in parts of Bombay, a small civil war raged between the paother rioters.
But Ribeiro had planned well (it helped that he had spent six years in the CRPF and knew how to handle interactions between paramilitary and regular forces). Union leaders were soon in jail, sapping the organised protest and the presence of the Army on the streets calmed citizens. Ribeiro also went on TV to explain why the unions had to be taken down and since most people had suffered from small abuses from policemen, there was no sympathy from them. Even the mill workers didn't join in.

That event, 30 years ago almost to the date, make what happened on August 11 and the response from politicians like Raj Thackeray unnerving. Because, the rhetoric Thackeray had used, eulogising ordinary policemen and attacking their officers, is an echo of that disturbing past. And it's too early to forget 1982.

One force, two reactions: In controlling 45,000, police show what they could’ve done on Aug 11

Mumbai News  www.mid-day.comFind out the freshest and  latest news of MumbaiAds by Google
   |
Print
Express news service : Mumbai, Wed Aug 22 2012, 01:33 hrs
Under attack from Raj Thackeray, Police Commissioner Arup Patnaik on Tuesday justified restraining policemen on August 11 after a protest meeting organised by Raza Academy, an Islamic organisation, turned violent.
“As Mumbai Police Commissioner, all police personnel are my family. While I am anguished there were attacks on them, the fingers of some policemen were on their triggers and I had to ensure they did not fire. The situation would have gone out of hand if they had. The situation had to be handled,” he said.
Patnaik said he would not comment on Thackeray’s attacks on him. “He has done what he had to as a politician. We have ensured that the rally was peaceful.”
The manner in which the police controlled some 45,000 protesters contrasted sharply with their showing at the same venue 10 days ago when a far smaller group had been allowed to run riot, with Patnaik preventing top officers from cracking down.
Former Mumbai Police chief Julio Ribeiro told The Indian Express: “A deployment of 650 policemen on August 11 is not small. However, it was clear that the police were caught by surprise and were not prepared for the violence that took place.”
As many as 5,000 police personnel were deployed for Tuesday’s protest, nearly eight times the number on August 11. Besides local police, three companies of anti-riot Rapid Action Force, fully prepared with gas masks, fibre shields and body armour, were stationed at the maidan. Rapid Intervention Vehicles were kept ready.
Police said a group “outside the venue” had sparked the August 11 violence by torching a media van. On Tuesday, IPS officers were seen marching outside the venue to ensure there was no “stationary crowd”. The area where media vans were parked was cordoned off with the SRPF standing guard.
On August 11, Patnaik gave Deputy Commissioner Ravindra Shisve an earful after the officer nabbed a rioter. On Tuesday, Shisve played a key role in the police arrangements, roping in and briefing volunteers from the MNS to help in controlling the crowd.
Rose for Raj
Constable Pramod Tawde surprised people at the rally when he climbed onto the stage and presented a yellow rose to Raj Thackeray, as a sign of his support.
Police sources said Tawde was likely to face action.
Tawde said: “Mumbai Police is probably the only workforce in the city not backed by a union. I would like to thank Raj Thackeray for making the police force feel there is someone who thinks about our welfare.”


Raj Thackeray blames 'illegal Bangladeshi migrants' for rioting

Mumbai News  www.mid-day.comFind out the freshest and  latest news of MumbaiAds by Google
   |
Print
Express news service : Mumbai, Wed Aug 22 2012, 01:31 hrs

Raj Thackeray played his signature anti-migrant card at the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) protest rally on Tuesday, blaming “outsiders and illegal Bangladeshi migrants” for the violence at Azad Maidan on August 11.
Thackeray demanded that Home Minister R R Patil and Police Commissioner Arup Patnaik resign for failing to control the rioters.
“I am standing here to express solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the police force and the media and to demand immediate resignation of Patil and Patnaik. If they have any shame, they should quit now,” Thackeray told the crowd of over 45,000 at Azad Maidan.
“They (Patil and Patnaik) have played with the morale of the police. Our policemen kept waiting for instructions to control violence. When a DCP caught hold of a rioter, Patnaik abused him and told him to let the offender go.”
Reacting to the assessment that he was trying to occupy the radical Hindutva space vacated by a mellowing Shiv Sena, Thackeray said the issue was not about Hindus and Muslims. “The only religion I understand is Maharashtra. My Marathi brothers were beaten up and my Marathi sisters gravely insulted that day,” he said.
Thackeray showed the crowd what was purportedly a Bangladeshi passport, which he claimed was recovered from Azad Maidan after the violence on August 11.
“I am sure that the violence was perpetrated by Bangladeshis living illegally in India and migrants from UP, Bihar and Jharkhand,” he said. “Anyone who attacks the police machinery should be heavily penalized irrespective of their religion. Where do you see the issue of Hindutva in this?”
His party, Thackeray said, would never cross the line and lift a hand against a policeman. At Chowpatty, thousands had begun to gather from well before dawn for the march to Azad Maidan, scheduled to begin at noon.
Thackeray said his party’s intention was to protest peacefully against the attack on police and mediapersons.
“In 2006, during a protest by Raza Academy in Bhiwandi, two policemen were killed and their bodies thrown into burning buses. Still they got permission for a public protest,” Thackeray said while criticizing the police for denying him permission for the rally. “Raza Academy was allowed to hold the protest despite their poor track record,” he said.
Thackeray also attacked the government for not paying compensation to the policemen injured in the August 11 attack. “How do we expect them (policemen) to stand up and fight when such a thing happens the next time?”
The MNS chief also criticized Assistant Commissioner of Police Vasant Dhoble for his moral policing attacks on innocent Mumbaikars, and Dalit leaders Mayawati, Ramdas Athavle and Prakash Ambedkar for not protesting against the vandalism of a Buddha statue in Uttar Pradesh last week.







Top cop Arup Patnaik may take action against Raj Thackeray

M News  wumbaiww.mid-day.comFind out the freshest and  latest news of Mumbai
Ads by Google
   |
Print
Agencies : Mumbai, Tue Aug 21 2012, 22:14 hrs
Mumbai Police Commissioner Arup Patnaik today said MNS chief Raj Thackeray's demand seeking his resignation on the issue of the Azad Maidan violence was "on expected lines" and stated that law would take its own course on the party's protest march without permission.
"It was on expected lines," he replied to a question on Thackeray demanding his resignation in the wake of the August 11 violence at Azad Maidan, in which two men were killed and 42 policemen injured while female cops were molested.
"I have never taken anything personally. I am the police commissioner and I did my duty of maintaining law and order and communal harmony today. It was a very difficult day and it went off fairly well," Patnaik said.
Indicating action against Raj's Maharashtra Navnirman Sena for carrying out march from Girgaum till Azad Maidan without police permission, Patnaik said, "Law would take its own course."
Special branch of the city police was checking if any unparliamentary language was used during the speech, he said.
"Raj Thackeray is a politician. They have their own agenda and objectives. There is a division of labour in any work. Here, my job is to maintain law and order and I confined myself to it," he reiterated.
The Mumbai Police chief stated that men in the uniform had been targeted many a times in the past and policemen should not lose their cool for such things. "It is not the first time that policemen were criticised," he said.
The police commissioner also raised doubts if "constable" Pramod Tawade's offering flowers to Thackeray was staged.
"We are gathering details about constable Tawade. In fact, I don't even know if he is from our department or a fake policeman. Let me find out. Whether he came on stage on his own or it was managed, we are looking into all these things. We are also seeking his medical details," Patnaik said. While speaking to media earlier today, Tawade claimed that senior policemen had tried to label him as a "madman".
Patnaik, however, refused to comment on Thackeray's criticism that the police commissioner had abused a Deputy Police Commissioner for nabbing rioters on the fateful day.
Tawade is being inquired on various counts, including his grievances, a police officer said, adding that if required, disciplinary action would be taken against him.


http://www.newslaundry.com/2012/08/dhobi-ghat-ep-9-assam-azad-maidan/