LAW POINT
Delhi HC says homosexuality not a crime
On July 2, 2009, India took a giant, albeit belated, step towards globalization when the Delhi High Court delivered a historic judgement to amend a 149-year-old colonial-era law—Section 377 of the IPC—and decriminalize private consensual sex between adults of the same sex. It is the biggest victory yet for gay rights and a major milestone in the country’s social evolution. India has become the 127th country to take the guilt out of homosexuality.
In a judgement that has aroused strong reactions from religious and political groups, the court declared that Section 377 IPC—where it ‘‘criminalized consensual sexual acts of adults in private’’—violated fundamental rights to personal liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution), equality (Article 14) and prohibition of discrimination (Article 15).
A bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar clarified that the provisions of Section 377, enacted in 1860 to deal with an unspecified range of ‘‘unnatural offences’’, would hereafter be restricted to non-consensual penile ‘‘non-vaginal sex’’ (rape by a homosexual) and ‘‘penile non-vaginal sex involving minors’’ (paedophilia).
Upholding the petition filed by Naz Foundation, the court ruled: ‘‘Indian constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans-genders) are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.’’
LEGISLATION
Education Bill
Seven years after Parliament approved an amendment to the Constitution making education for children between the age of six and 14 a fundamental right, the apex legislative body has passed the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, 2009.
Though an initial draft of the legislation had been prepared by the NDA government, progress was slow with early elections. With the BJP-led alliance voted out, the task of honouring the commitment was left to the UPA government. A draft law was prepared by a committee headed by the current Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal.
Once the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill becomes an Act, the 86th Amendment to the Constitution will be notified. As of now, free and compulsory education is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Both the Centre and States will be responsible for the finances. The Centre will prepare the capital and recurring expenditure and provide it as grants-in-aid to each State from time to time. The share between the Centre and States will be decided later.
The cost to the exchequer will be nearly Rs 12,000 crore every year. Even private, unaided schools will get assistance, as 25% of their seats will have to be reserved for poor children in the neighbourhood. However, the Bill is clear that schools which got land at a concessional rate and were anyway obliged to give reservation to 25% poor children in the neighbourhood will not be compensated. Compensation will be based on per-child expenditure by government on education. Currently, per-child cost borne by government is about Rs 3,000 per annum.
The legislation has a host of features that stress not only on reaching out to every child in the 6-14 age group, but also on quality and accountability of the State and education system. To ensure that the law gets effectively implemented, the Bill has provisions that prohibits teachers from undertaking private tuition and not letting them being used for non-educational purposes. To ensure that parents have equal stake in the system, the Bill provides for school management committees in all government and aided schools. Women have been given 50% reservation in the school committees. Each committee will monitor and oversee the working of the school, manage its assets and ensure quality.
Every State government would have to compulsorily define and set up neighbourhood schools to educate every child aged six to 14 years. For this, the States will receive financial assistance from the Centre. The Centre has left it to States to define “disadvantaged groups”, mandating the inclusion of disabled children in this category.
The law puts the onus on States to notify its historic requirements—no child can be expelled from school or be put through any exam, not even class V and VIII boards; no child can be denied admission to any school for lack of birth or transfer certificate; no capitation fee can be charged. Also, the States will have to ensure no non-teaching work is given to teachers and quality teachers are recruited; untrained teachers would have to upgrade themselves in five years.
For the first time, quality of schools has been mandated under law, with the government listing minimum infrastructure requirements on the part of schools. It has asked the States to identify schools that don’t conform, asking them to do so in three years or face de-recognition.
There is also a provision that teacher vacancy should never exceed more than 10% of the total strength. To monitor implementation of the law, the Bill proposes a National Advisory Council at the Centre and State advisory council in each State capital. In case of complaints of non-compliance, the initial complaint would go to local authority and should be resolved within 90 days.
Nuclear Bill on civil liability
The proposed bill on nuclear civil liability—very high on the US priority list with India—to cover accidents in nuclear installations will limit monetary accountability of the operator to Rs 300 crore, while damages in excess will be borne by the Indian government.
The limited liability clause could bring cheer to multinationals who are looking at billions of dollars worth of business in India. Fixing the liability on operators is important to US firms who are looking to supply nuclear reactors at Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat as otherwise they cannot avail of insurance. With operators, not suppliers, responsible for liability commitments, US firms can go ahead with their business contracts.
The proposed Bill, besides limiting the liability of the operator, gives flexibility to central government to decrease compensation amount on the operator. But in what could be of significance, the Bill states that in each case where the government decides to decrease the liability, it “shall not be less than Rs 100 crore”. The amount of liability shall not include any interest or cost of proceedings.
The bill debars civil courts from entertaining any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the claims commissioner is empowered to adjudicate.
The setting up of a six-member nuclear damage commission has been proposed to look into the claims. The chairperson and members of the commission shall be appointed by the central government on the recommendation of a three-member committee headed by the cabinet secretary and having secretaries from the department of atomic energy and the ministry of law as the other two members.
The chairperson of the commission will be a person who will be qualified to be a judge of a High Court.
POLITICAL
No dilution in foreign policy, says Manmohan
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, July 17, 2009, had difficulties in selling the idea of an engagement with Pakistan where the action on terror was delinked from the composite dialogue process. He claimed that there was no dilution on India’s stand on cross border terrorism and that ‘meaningful dialogue’ with Pakistan would depend on steps taken by Islamabad to end cross border terrorism.
BJP leader Arun Jaitley, during his clarification, had pointed out that India’s consistent position on cross-border terrorism and use of terms like State-sponsored terrorism were at variance with what is stated in the joint statement on delinking terror issues from the composite dialogue process. He further pointed out that India’s national commitment is going to be the joint statement and not other statements.
The Indo-Pak joint statement said that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”’ This is followed by a line that says India is “ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.”
The reference to Baluchistan in the joint statement also invited criticism as Pakistan for long has accused India of fomenting trouble. There is acknowledgment that New Delhi’s concession to Pakistan will enable it to claim parity with India as a terror victim.
Mr Singh in a statement in both Houses of Parliament maintained that a “meaningful dialogue” would depend on Islamabad fulfilling its pledge on terrorism “in letter and spirit”. “It has been and remains our consistent position that the starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan is a fulfillment of their commitment, in letter and spirit, not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India,’’ he said.
The Prime Minister further said that India would take the call on broadening the dialogue with Pakistan. “Whether, when and in what form we broaden the dialogue with Pakistan will depend on future developments,’’ he said, and added that the foreign secretaries would meet often and report to the Foreign Ministers who will meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
Mr Singh further maintained that he got an assurance from Mr Gilani on bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack to justice and that he had been told that there is growing consensus within Pakistan against the terror infrastructure.
Invoking his predecessor Atal Behari Vajpayee, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, on July 29, 2009, silenced the critics of his recent foreign policy initiatives in the Opposition, asserting that there was no dilution in India’s stand on terror while strongly pitching for remaining engaged with Pakistan in the larger interest of peace in South Asia.
Setting at rest fears that India had capitulated to Pakistan by agreeing to delink terror from the composite dialogue process, the Mr Singh explained ‘’this is not correct. The joint statement emphasised that action on terrorism cannot be linked to dialogue. Pakistan knows very well that action on terror is an absolute and compelling imperative that does not depend on the resumption of dialogue.’’
On the controversial reference to Balochistan in the joint statement, he said his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani raised the issue during their Sharm-el Sheikh meeting. “I told him we are willing to discuss all these issue because we know we are doing nothing wrong. I told PM Gilani that our conduct is an open book.”
Underlining that dialogue was the best way to move forward, he asserted that India was not diluting its resolve to defeat terrorism by talking to any country. “Unless we talk directly talk to Pakistan, we will have to rely on third parties to do so,” a route which has its own limitations.
In this context, he cited the example of Vajpayee, recalling how his predecessor demonstrated political courage of visiting Lahore in 1999, which was followed by the Kargil conflict, and the hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane to Kandahar. Still Vajpayee invited then Pakistan Pervez Musharraf to Pakistan in July 2001 and tried to make peace.
Noting that the global scenario was changing fast, he narrated how the US and Iran had also come to the negotiating table after 30 years of hostilities. “Unless we want to go to war with Pakistan, dialogue is the only way out,” he added.
SCANDALS
R.K. Anand is guilty: SC
Talking tough on the deteriorating professional standards among lawyers, the Supreme Court upheld the punishment awarded to the noted criminal lawyer R.K. Anand for influencing a key witness in the BMW hit-and-run case. The court asked the Bar Council of India and the Bar Councils of the States to take remedial measures for restoration of the professional standards among lawyers for proper dispensation of criminal justice system in the country.
Dismissing the appeal of Anand, a bench comprising Justice B.N. Agrawal, Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Aftab Alam said, “the sting recordings were rightly made the basis of conviction and the irresistible conclusion is that the conviction of R.K. Anand for contempt of court is proper legal and valid calling for no interference”.
The court sought within two months a reply from Anand as to why his punishment should not be enhanced which may include a jail term and extending of his period of prohibition from appearance in the Delhi High Court and its sub-ordinate courts. “He does not show any remorse for his gross misdemeanour and instead tries to take on the High Court by defying its authority,” the bench said entertaining the plea of enhancement of Anand’s punishment in the case.
The bench, however, allowed the appeal of special public prosecutor I.U. Khan who was convicted for criminal contempt for colluding with the defence in the case. The court also set aside the fine slapped on Khan and asked the full court of the Delhi High Court to consider the issue of stripping of Khan’s status of a senior advocate.
The Delhi High Court, on August 21, 2008, had prohibited both Anand and Khan by way of punishment, from appearing before it and its sub-ordinate courts for a period of four months. It, however, left them free to carry on their other professional work, such as consultations, advises, conferences, opinion etc. It had also said the both Anand and Khan had forfeited their right to be designated as senior advocates and recommended to the full court to divest them of the honour.
TERRORISM; LAW & ORDER
ISI spreading terrorism in India, says US
A top US military strategist has affirmed that Pakistan has been fomenting terrorism in India and Afghanistan, endorsing New Delhi’s and the Indian Army’s long-held view at a time when the two neighbours are sparring over the issue. The damning public US indictment of Pakistan’s use of terrorism came from US Admiral Mike Mullen, who told the Arabic television network Al Jazeera, ahead of his meeting with General Deepak Kapoor, that in the long run the ISI has to change its strategic thrust, which has been to foment chaotic activity in its border countries.
When the surprised anchor asked, ‘‘What do you mean when you say the ISI has had a strategic thrust to foment chaos in bordering countries?’’ Mullen did not mince words. ‘‘What I mean is that they have clearly focused on support of ... historically, of militant organizations both east and west. I mean that’s been a focus of theirs in Kashmir, historically, as well as in FATA. And I think ... that fundamentally has to change.’’
Mullen’s observations are critical because Pakistan has lately taken to accusing India of fomenting insurgency in Balochistan and even backing the Taliban to offset its indictment in Kashmir, charges that have been scoffed at in both New Delhi and Washington. The prevailing Pakistani narrative, encouraged by some of its high officials, is that India and Afghanistan are in cahoots with Washington in destabilizing Pakistan, including the use of Pakistan’s own proxy, Taliban, against it.
Islamabad has also complained repeatedly to the US about the strong Indian influence in Afghanistan where Pakistan is now largely despised, except in Taliban strongholds. There is palpable agitation in Pakistan over closer military ties between New Delhi and Washington, even though many in India itself are still leery and distrustful about the US.
Kasab confesses, names Pak masters
Springing a surprise on the 65th day of 26/11 attack trial, lone surviving Pakistani terrorist Mohammad Ajmal Kasab pleaded guilty before a special court on the charges of executing the terror strikes in Mumbai along with his accomplices, that claimed over 180 lives. He followed up his confession with a plea for an early sentence.
22-year-old Kasab, who had earlier backed off from his police confession admitting his role in the Mumbai mayhem stating that it had been made under duress, confessed before the court mid-way through the hearing, admittedly upon discovering that Islamabad had accepted his Pakistani nationality. He confirmed to the judge that that he was not confessing under duress.
Kasab’s confession began right from his journey from Karachi on the Lashker-e-Taiba-orchestrated terror mission and narrated the entire sequence of events leading up to Mumbai carnage, including terror training of the attackers at Pakistani camps, their boarding the rogue ship Al Husseini from Pakistani waters, hijacking an Indian vessel midsea and then landing on the Mumbai coast in a boat along with nine other terrorists. Importantly, he claimed that an Indian named Abu Jindal had taught Hindi to the Mumbai attackers during their training in Pakistan.
Kasab, in his confession, described in detail how the 10-member LeT attack team split into smaller groups after landing in Mumbai, with he getting paired with terrorist Abu Ismail, and the two went on to fire indiscriminately at the CST station, before proceeding to Cama Hospital, killing ATS chief and Mumbai top cops Vijay Salaskar and Ashok Kamte, and then driving away to Girgaum Chowpatty.
Kasab’s sudden confession came as a complete surprise to the prosecution. Special public prosecutor admitted he was “surprised” at the “unexpected” confession, but added nevertheless that it had come has a big victory for the prosecution. Even Judge Tahiliyani seemed to have been taken aback by Kasab’s decision to plead guilty and called lawyers from both sides to figure out the significance of the under-trial’s statement.
Pakistan, however, questioned the “quality” of Kasab’s confessions. “They (confessions) are no evidences. These were provided by a person who is behind the bars. We cannot crackdown on people based on his statements,” Pakistan’s Defence Minister told a private TV channel. The statement has raised questions about Pakistan’s sincerity.
Maoists plan to take battle to new fields
If the Centre has its action plan ready to deal with Maoists, the Red ultras have a counter-plan in place which talks about expanding their “guerrilla war to new areas” to “disperse the enemy force (security personnel) over a sufficiently wider area”.
Taking note of what Home Ministry has planned to counter them, the politburo of CPI (Maoist)—an umbrella organisation of naxal outfits in the country—in its meeting on June 12, 2009 came out with a detailed plan, asking its armed wing, People Liberation of Guerrilla Army (PLGA), to carry out “tactical counter-offensives” keeping in mind strengths and weaknesses of government forces.
A copy of the naxals’ plan was seized by security agencies during operations in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa. It explains how the ultras are fanning out to different States to deviate police and paramilitary forces from Abhujmaad—an area comprising nearly 4,000 sq km of dense forest in Chhattisgarh, considered to be the Maoists’ safest base.
Though the politburo considered government forces to be “superior”, it noted that that it would be difficult for the Centre to send enough forces required by each state in near future as raising of central forces would take time. “Keeping this in mind, we have to further aggravate the situation and create more difficulties for the enemy (security) forces by expanding our guerrilla war to new areas, on the one hand, and intensify the mass resistance in existing areas so as to disperse the enemy forces over a sufficiently wider area,” the Maoists’ politburo said. Realising that any mistake on their part would be utilised by government forces to isolate them, the politburo has issued certain dos and don’ts for its cadre.
Mumbai blasts case
A special court set up under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) has found three persons guilty of carrying out two bomb blasts at Zaveri Bazaar and the Gateway of India in Mumbai on August 25, 2003 and has sentenced them to death.
Judge M.R. Puranik of the special court found the three—Hanif Sayyed, 46, his wife Fahmeeda, 43, and Ashrat Ansari, 32—guilty. Three other persons had been let off earlier by the court. One of the three, the daughter of the Sayyed couple who was a minor at the time of the incident, was made an approver in the case. This is said to be the first instance of a couple being found guilty under POTA. The two have another daughter who was four years old at the time of the incident.
The blasts claimed the lives of 52 persons injured 184 others. According to the prosecution, the trio was responsible for attempting to set off a series of bomb blasts across Mumbai in retaliation for the 2002 post-Godhra riots in Gujarat. They were part of an outfit called the Gujarat Revenge Force formed to carry out the attacks.
Apart from the blasts at Gateway of India and the Zaveri Bazaar, the three had allegedly planted explosives at the Santa Cruz Export Processing Zone in December 2002 and in a BEST bus some weeks before the deadly blasts. While the bomb at SEEPZ was defused, the blast in the bus claimed two lives.
Investigators probing the blasts had first picked up Ansari whose interrogation led them to the Sayyed couple and their daughter. Two others, Rizwan Ladoowala and Hassan Batterywala, who were also arrested in connection with the case, were let off following an order of the Supreme Court in 2008. According to the prosecution a third accused Nisar Ahmed, who was the brain behind the blasts, was killed in an encounter shortly after the others were arrested.
Pak admits LeT hand in Mumbai attack
Pakistan has finally admitted the complicity of Lashker e Taiba in the 26/11 terror strikes on Mumbai and has filed a charge-sheet against the plotters of the attack.
The second and supplementary charge-sheet in the 26/11 case, filed by the Pakistani investigating authorities in the Adiala court, names five LeT operatives, including operations chief Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and communications head Zarar Shah, as accused in planning and launching the Mumbai strikes. The five—Lakhvi, Shah, Abul Al Qama, Shahid Jamir Riaz and Hamad Amin Sadiq—will be tried in the anti-terror court in the garrison city of Rawalpindi. The trial will held in camera within the high-security Adiala Jail for security reasons.
The supplementary charge-sheet came close on the heels of Pakistan’s admission in a fresh 36-page dossier submitted to India, that LeT indeed was the terror outfit that had launched the daring attack on November 2008. This was after investigations by Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) confirmed the findings of the Indian probe linking LeT bosses in Pakistan to the 26/11 mayhem. While the latest charge-sheet names Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi as the main mastermind, Zarar Shah is described as the leader in charge of LeT’s communications and Ajmal Amir Kasab identified as a Pakistani national.
Delhi HC says homosexuality not a crime
On July 2, 2009, India took a giant, albeit belated, step towards globalization when the Delhi High Court delivered a historic judgement to amend a 149-year-old colonial-era law—Section 377 of the IPC—and decriminalize private consensual sex between adults of the same sex. It is the biggest victory yet for gay rights and a major milestone in the country’s social evolution. India has become the 127th country to take the guilt out of homosexuality.
In a judgement that has aroused strong reactions from religious and political groups, the court declared that Section 377 IPC—where it ‘‘criminalized consensual sexual acts of adults in private’’—violated fundamental rights to personal liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution), equality (Article 14) and prohibition of discrimination (Article 15).
A bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar clarified that the provisions of Section 377, enacted in 1860 to deal with an unspecified range of ‘‘unnatural offences’’, would hereafter be restricted to non-consensual penile ‘‘non-vaginal sex’’ (rape by a homosexual) and ‘‘penile non-vaginal sex involving minors’’ (paedophilia).
Upholding the petition filed by Naz Foundation, the court ruled: ‘‘Indian constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans-genders) are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.’’
LEGISLATION
Education Bill
Seven years after Parliament approved an amendment to the Constitution making education for children between the age of six and 14 a fundamental right, the apex legislative body has passed the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, 2009.
Though an initial draft of the legislation had been prepared by the NDA government, progress was slow with early elections. With the BJP-led alliance voted out, the task of honouring the commitment was left to the UPA government. A draft law was prepared by a committee headed by the current Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal.
Once the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill becomes an Act, the 86th Amendment to the Constitution will be notified. As of now, free and compulsory education is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Both the Centre and States will be responsible for the finances. The Centre will prepare the capital and recurring expenditure and provide it as grants-in-aid to each State from time to time. The share between the Centre and States will be decided later.
The cost to the exchequer will be nearly Rs 12,000 crore every year. Even private, unaided schools will get assistance, as 25% of their seats will have to be reserved for poor children in the neighbourhood. However, the Bill is clear that schools which got land at a concessional rate and were anyway obliged to give reservation to 25% poor children in the neighbourhood will not be compensated. Compensation will be based on per-child expenditure by government on education. Currently, per-child cost borne by government is about Rs 3,000 per annum.
The legislation has a host of features that stress not only on reaching out to every child in the 6-14 age group, but also on quality and accountability of the State and education system. To ensure that the law gets effectively implemented, the Bill has provisions that prohibits teachers from undertaking private tuition and not letting them being used for non-educational purposes. To ensure that parents have equal stake in the system, the Bill provides for school management committees in all government and aided schools. Women have been given 50% reservation in the school committees. Each committee will monitor and oversee the working of the school, manage its assets and ensure quality.
Every State government would have to compulsorily define and set up neighbourhood schools to educate every child aged six to 14 years. For this, the States will receive financial assistance from the Centre. The Centre has left it to States to define “disadvantaged groups”, mandating the inclusion of disabled children in this category.
The law puts the onus on States to notify its historic requirements—no child can be expelled from school or be put through any exam, not even class V and VIII boards; no child can be denied admission to any school for lack of birth or transfer certificate; no capitation fee can be charged. Also, the States will have to ensure no non-teaching work is given to teachers and quality teachers are recruited; untrained teachers would have to upgrade themselves in five years.
For the first time, quality of schools has been mandated under law, with the government listing minimum infrastructure requirements on the part of schools. It has asked the States to identify schools that don’t conform, asking them to do so in three years or face de-recognition.
There is also a provision that teacher vacancy should never exceed more than 10% of the total strength. To monitor implementation of the law, the Bill proposes a National Advisory Council at the Centre and State advisory council in each State capital. In case of complaints of non-compliance, the initial complaint would go to local authority and should be resolved within 90 days.
Nuclear Bill on civil liability
The proposed bill on nuclear civil liability—very high on the US priority list with India—to cover accidents in nuclear installations will limit monetary accountability of the operator to Rs 300 crore, while damages in excess will be borne by the Indian government.
The limited liability clause could bring cheer to multinationals who are looking at billions of dollars worth of business in India. Fixing the liability on operators is important to US firms who are looking to supply nuclear reactors at Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat as otherwise they cannot avail of insurance. With operators, not suppliers, responsible for liability commitments, US firms can go ahead with their business contracts.
The proposed Bill, besides limiting the liability of the operator, gives flexibility to central government to decrease compensation amount on the operator. But in what could be of significance, the Bill states that in each case where the government decides to decrease the liability, it “shall not be less than Rs 100 crore”. The amount of liability shall not include any interest or cost of proceedings.
The bill debars civil courts from entertaining any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the claims commissioner is empowered to adjudicate.
The setting up of a six-member nuclear damage commission has been proposed to look into the claims. The chairperson and members of the commission shall be appointed by the central government on the recommendation of a three-member committee headed by the cabinet secretary and having secretaries from the department of atomic energy and the ministry of law as the other two members.
The chairperson of the commission will be a person who will be qualified to be a judge of a High Court.
POLITICAL
No dilution in foreign policy, says Manmohan
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, July 17, 2009, had difficulties in selling the idea of an engagement with Pakistan where the action on terror was delinked from the composite dialogue process. He claimed that there was no dilution on India’s stand on cross border terrorism and that ‘meaningful dialogue’ with Pakistan would depend on steps taken by Islamabad to end cross border terrorism.
BJP leader Arun Jaitley, during his clarification, had pointed out that India’s consistent position on cross-border terrorism and use of terms like State-sponsored terrorism were at variance with what is stated in the joint statement on delinking terror issues from the composite dialogue process. He further pointed out that India’s national commitment is going to be the joint statement and not other statements.
The Indo-Pak joint statement said that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”’ This is followed by a line that says India is “ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.”
The reference to Baluchistan in the joint statement also invited criticism as Pakistan for long has accused India of fomenting trouble. There is acknowledgment that New Delhi’s concession to Pakistan will enable it to claim parity with India as a terror victim.
Mr Singh in a statement in both Houses of Parliament maintained that a “meaningful dialogue” would depend on Islamabad fulfilling its pledge on terrorism “in letter and spirit”. “It has been and remains our consistent position that the starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan is a fulfillment of their commitment, in letter and spirit, not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India,’’ he said.
The Prime Minister further said that India would take the call on broadening the dialogue with Pakistan. “Whether, when and in what form we broaden the dialogue with Pakistan will depend on future developments,’’ he said, and added that the foreign secretaries would meet often and report to the Foreign Ministers who will meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
Mr Singh further maintained that he got an assurance from Mr Gilani on bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack to justice and that he had been told that there is growing consensus within Pakistan against the terror infrastructure.
Invoking his predecessor Atal Behari Vajpayee, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, on July 29, 2009, silenced the critics of his recent foreign policy initiatives in the Opposition, asserting that there was no dilution in India’s stand on terror while strongly pitching for remaining engaged with Pakistan in the larger interest of peace in South Asia.
Setting at rest fears that India had capitulated to Pakistan by agreeing to delink terror from the composite dialogue process, the Mr Singh explained ‘’this is not correct. The joint statement emphasised that action on terrorism cannot be linked to dialogue. Pakistan knows very well that action on terror is an absolute and compelling imperative that does not depend on the resumption of dialogue.’’
On the controversial reference to Balochistan in the joint statement, he said his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani raised the issue during their Sharm-el Sheikh meeting. “I told him we are willing to discuss all these issue because we know we are doing nothing wrong. I told PM Gilani that our conduct is an open book.”
Underlining that dialogue was the best way to move forward, he asserted that India was not diluting its resolve to defeat terrorism by talking to any country. “Unless we talk directly talk to Pakistan, we will have to rely on third parties to do so,” a route which has its own limitations.
In this context, he cited the example of Vajpayee, recalling how his predecessor demonstrated political courage of visiting Lahore in 1999, which was followed by the Kargil conflict, and the hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane to Kandahar. Still Vajpayee invited then Pakistan Pervez Musharraf to Pakistan in July 2001 and tried to make peace.
Noting that the global scenario was changing fast, he narrated how the US and Iran had also come to the negotiating table after 30 years of hostilities. “Unless we want to go to war with Pakistan, dialogue is the only way out,” he added.
SCANDALS
R.K. Anand is guilty: SC
Talking tough on the deteriorating professional standards among lawyers, the Supreme Court upheld the punishment awarded to the noted criminal lawyer R.K. Anand for influencing a key witness in the BMW hit-and-run case. The court asked the Bar Council of India and the Bar Councils of the States to take remedial measures for restoration of the professional standards among lawyers for proper dispensation of criminal justice system in the country.
Dismissing the appeal of Anand, a bench comprising Justice B.N. Agrawal, Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Aftab Alam said, “the sting recordings were rightly made the basis of conviction and the irresistible conclusion is that the conviction of R.K. Anand for contempt of court is proper legal and valid calling for no interference”.
The court sought within two months a reply from Anand as to why his punishment should not be enhanced which may include a jail term and extending of his period of prohibition from appearance in the Delhi High Court and its sub-ordinate courts. “He does not show any remorse for his gross misdemeanour and instead tries to take on the High Court by defying its authority,” the bench said entertaining the plea of enhancement of Anand’s punishment in the case.
The bench, however, allowed the appeal of special public prosecutor I.U. Khan who was convicted for criminal contempt for colluding with the defence in the case. The court also set aside the fine slapped on Khan and asked the full court of the Delhi High Court to consider the issue of stripping of Khan’s status of a senior advocate.
The Delhi High Court, on August 21, 2008, had prohibited both Anand and Khan by way of punishment, from appearing before it and its sub-ordinate courts for a period of four months. It, however, left them free to carry on their other professional work, such as consultations, advises, conferences, opinion etc. It had also said the both Anand and Khan had forfeited their right to be designated as senior advocates and recommended to the full court to divest them of the honour.
TERRORISM; LAW & ORDER
ISI spreading terrorism in India, says US
A top US military strategist has affirmed that Pakistan has been fomenting terrorism in India and Afghanistan, endorsing New Delhi’s and the Indian Army’s long-held view at a time when the two neighbours are sparring over the issue. The damning public US indictment of Pakistan’s use of terrorism came from US Admiral Mike Mullen, who told the Arabic television network Al Jazeera, ahead of his meeting with General Deepak Kapoor, that in the long run the ISI has to change its strategic thrust, which has been to foment chaotic activity in its border countries.
When the surprised anchor asked, ‘‘What do you mean when you say the ISI has had a strategic thrust to foment chaos in bordering countries?’’ Mullen did not mince words. ‘‘What I mean is that they have clearly focused on support of ... historically, of militant organizations both east and west. I mean that’s been a focus of theirs in Kashmir, historically, as well as in FATA. And I think ... that fundamentally has to change.’’
Mullen’s observations are critical because Pakistan has lately taken to accusing India of fomenting insurgency in Balochistan and even backing the Taliban to offset its indictment in Kashmir, charges that have been scoffed at in both New Delhi and Washington. The prevailing Pakistani narrative, encouraged by some of its high officials, is that India and Afghanistan are in cahoots with Washington in destabilizing Pakistan, including the use of Pakistan’s own proxy, Taliban, against it.
Islamabad has also complained repeatedly to the US about the strong Indian influence in Afghanistan where Pakistan is now largely despised, except in Taliban strongholds. There is palpable agitation in Pakistan over closer military ties between New Delhi and Washington, even though many in India itself are still leery and distrustful about the US.
Kasab confesses, names Pak masters
Springing a surprise on the 65th day of 26/11 attack trial, lone surviving Pakistani terrorist Mohammad Ajmal Kasab pleaded guilty before a special court on the charges of executing the terror strikes in Mumbai along with his accomplices, that claimed over 180 lives. He followed up his confession with a plea for an early sentence.
22-year-old Kasab, who had earlier backed off from his police confession admitting his role in the Mumbai mayhem stating that it had been made under duress, confessed before the court mid-way through the hearing, admittedly upon discovering that Islamabad had accepted his Pakistani nationality. He confirmed to the judge that that he was not confessing under duress.
Kasab’s confession began right from his journey from Karachi on the Lashker-e-Taiba-orchestrated terror mission and narrated the entire sequence of events leading up to Mumbai carnage, including terror training of the attackers at Pakistani camps, their boarding the rogue ship Al Husseini from Pakistani waters, hijacking an Indian vessel midsea and then landing on the Mumbai coast in a boat along with nine other terrorists. Importantly, he claimed that an Indian named Abu Jindal had taught Hindi to the Mumbai attackers during their training in Pakistan.
Kasab, in his confession, described in detail how the 10-member LeT attack team split into smaller groups after landing in Mumbai, with he getting paired with terrorist Abu Ismail, and the two went on to fire indiscriminately at the CST station, before proceeding to Cama Hospital, killing ATS chief and Mumbai top cops Vijay Salaskar and Ashok Kamte, and then driving away to Girgaum Chowpatty.
Kasab’s sudden confession came as a complete surprise to the prosecution. Special public prosecutor admitted he was “surprised” at the “unexpected” confession, but added nevertheless that it had come has a big victory for the prosecution. Even Judge Tahiliyani seemed to have been taken aback by Kasab’s decision to plead guilty and called lawyers from both sides to figure out the significance of the under-trial’s statement.
Pakistan, however, questioned the “quality” of Kasab’s confessions. “They (confessions) are no evidences. These were provided by a person who is behind the bars. We cannot crackdown on people based on his statements,” Pakistan’s Defence Minister told a private TV channel. The statement has raised questions about Pakistan’s sincerity.
Maoists plan to take battle to new fields
If the Centre has its action plan ready to deal with Maoists, the Red ultras have a counter-plan in place which talks about expanding their “guerrilla war to new areas” to “disperse the enemy force (security personnel) over a sufficiently wider area”.
Taking note of what Home Ministry has planned to counter them, the politburo of CPI (Maoist)—an umbrella organisation of naxal outfits in the country—in its meeting on June 12, 2009 came out with a detailed plan, asking its armed wing, People Liberation of Guerrilla Army (PLGA), to carry out “tactical counter-offensives” keeping in mind strengths and weaknesses of government forces.
A copy of the naxals’ plan was seized by security agencies during operations in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa. It explains how the ultras are fanning out to different States to deviate police and paramilitary forces from Abhujmaad—an area comprising nearly 4,000 sq km of dense forest in Chhattisgarh, considered to be the Maoists’ safest base.
Though the politburo considered government forces to be “superior”, it noted that that it would be difficult for the Centre to send enough forces required by each state in near future as raising of central forces would take time. “Keeping this in mind, we have to further aggravate the situation and create more difficulties for the enemy (security) forces by expanding our guerrilla war to new areas, on the one hand, and intensify the mass resistance in existing areas so as to disperse the enemy forces over a sufficiently wider area,” the Maoists’ politburo said. Realising that any mistake on their part would be utilised by government forces to isolate them, the politburo has issued certain dos and don’ts for its cadre.
Mumbai blasts case
A special court set up under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) has found three persons guilty of carrying out two bomb blasts at Zaveri Bazaar and the Gateway of India in Mumbai on August 25, 2003 and has sentenced them to death.
Judge M.R. Puranik of the special court found the three—Hanif Sayyed, 46, his wife Fahmeeda, 43, and Ashrat Ansari, 32—guilty. Three other persons had been let off earlier by the court. One of the three, the daughter of the Sayyed couple who was a minor at the time of the incident, was made an approver in the case. This is said to be the first instance of a couple being found guilty under POTA. The two have another daughter who was four years old at the time of the incident.
The blasts claimed the lives of 52 persons injured 184 others. According to the prosecution, the trio was responsible for attempting to set off a series of bomb blasts across Mumbai in retaliation for the 2002 post-Godhra riots in Gujarat. They were part of an outfit called the Gujarat Revenge Force formed to carry out the attacks.
Apart from the blasts at Gateway of India and the Zaveri Bazaar, the three had allegedly planted explosives at the Santa Cruz Export Processing Zone in December 2002 and in a BEST bus some weeks before the deadly blasts. While the bomb at SEEPZ was defused, the blast in the bus claimed two lives.
Investigators probing the blasts had first picked up Ansari whose interrogation led them to the Sayyed couple and their daughter. Two others, Rizwan Ladoowala and Hassan Batterywala, who were also arrested in connection with the case, were let off following an order of the Supreme Court in 2008. According to the prosecution a third accused Nisar Ahmed, who was the brain behind the blasts, was killed in an encounter shortly after the others were arrested.
Pak admits LeT hand in Mumbai attack
Pakistan has finally admitted the complicity of Lashker e Taiba in the 26/11 terror strikes on Mumbai and has filed a charge-sheet against the plotters of the attack.
The second and supplementary charge-sheet in the 26/11 case, filed by the Pakistani investigating authorities in the Adiala court, names five LeT operatives, including operations chief Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and communications head Zarar Shah, as accused in planning and launching the Mumbai strikes. The five—Lakhvi, Shah, Abul Al Qama, Shahid Jamir Riaz and Hamad Amin Sadiq—will be tried in the anti-terror court in the garrison city of Rawalpindi. The trial will held in camera within the high-security Adiala Jail for security reasons.
The supplementary charge-sheet came close on the heels of Pakistan’s admission in a fresh 36-page dossier submitted to India, that LeT indeed was the terror outfit that had launched the daring attack on November 2008. This was after investigations by Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) confirmed the findings of the Indian probe linking LeT bosses in Pakistan to the 26/11 mayhem. While the latest charge-sheet names Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi as the main mastermind, Zarar Shah is described as the leader in charge of LeT’s communications and Ajmal Amir Kasab identified as a Pakistani national.
No comments:
Post a Comment