Pages

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Indian Malaysians seek compensation from UK - Indian Express


Indian Malaysians seek compensation from UK - Indian Express:

'via Blog this'

A group representing Indian Malaysians have filed a suit against the British government seeking compensation of USD 1 million for each of the 1.8 million Indians in the country for allegedly failing to protect them when Malaysia was granted independence in 1957.

The claim was filed in the High Court by Malaysian exiled human rights lawyer Waytha Moorthy yesterday. No date has been set for a hearing, but the Foreign Office has been asked to provide "crucial papers", a spokeswoman for Moorthy said.

According to Moorthy, Indian Malaysians face human rights abuses and live unprotected and in "continuous colonisation" under the rule of the Malay-Muslim majority.

This current situation for the Indian community is, he argued, the direct legacy of the then British Government who gave the Muslim population special rights and privileges in perpetuity in Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia, "effectively establishing a system of apartheid which has marginalised Malaysian Indians ever since".

He said: "In India, at the time of partition, the British Government gave rights to minorities. In Malaysia, minority racial and religious groups were hung out to dry.

"The result is that 45 per cent of the population is still being marginalised, humiliated and discriminated against when it comes to jobs, education and finance".

Moorthy added: "Indians in Malaysia are suffering great hardship. The British Government needs to take responsibility, apologise, make reparation, and send out a strong message that the way the Malay Government is acting is morally wrong". Indian labourers were sent to Malaya since the mid-nineteenth century.

Moorthy is the chairman of Hindraf, a group seeking equal rights for Malaysians of Indian origin. The group is banned in Malaysia.

http://www.hinducurrents.com/topic/connection/p-waythamoorthy---36308/hindu-rights-action-force/


Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Former President Pratibha Patil pardoned seven rapist- murderers !



Before demitting office in June 2012, Past President of India Pratibha Patil had pardoned seven rapist-murderers, who were awarded death penalty by the sessions courts - and those death sentences were upheld by the respective State High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. But Pratibha patil accepted their mercy petitions on the recommendation of the Ministry of Home Affairs, then headed by P. Chidambaram. 


These criminals are Bandu Baburao Tidake (Karnataka), Dharmendra Singh, Narendra Yadav, Bantu and Satish (Uttar Pradesh); Molai Ram, Santosh Yadav (Madhya Pradesh). 

Read their crimes herebelow-

(1) Molai Ram and (2) Santosh Yadav (Madhya Pradesh): Santosh Yadav was serving a rape sentence in the Central Jail, Rewa (MP). He was asked to do some work in the garden of the jail quarters. Molai Ram was on duty as a guard at jailor R.S. Somvanshi's quarter on 20 February 1996. Jailor Somvanshi's daughter Naveena (16) was alone at home as her father had left for work while her mother had gone to her parents' house along with her son. The two raped Naveena, a student of Class X. After raping her, they killed her and threw the body in a septic tank in a nearby cattleshed. Her body was recovered the next day. It was found that she had died of strangulation and stab injuries. The two were given death in 1999. Pratibha cancelled the death punishment.

(3) Satish (UP): In August 2001, Satish raped a six-year-old girl Vishakha and then killed her. The girl, a student of Meerut's Sarvodaya School, had left home for school on 16 August 2001, but did not return. Her body was discovered from a sugarcane field the next morning. Satish was seen by eyewitnesses as riding a bicycle with the little girl seated on the handlebar the day the girl disappeared. The case was considered to belong to the "rarest of rare category" and Satish was given a death sentence in February 2005.


(4) Bandu Baburao Tidke (Karnataka): Tidke was a sugarcane cutter in Maharashtra's Beed. He came to Huliyala in Karnataka's Bagalkot district in 2002 where he stayed at an ashram, posing as a swami. The same year, he dragged a 12-year-old school girl to his room, raped her and killed her. He then escaped to Shirdi, leaving her body there. He was arrested the same year. He was given the death sentence in 2005 by the Bagalkot district court and sent to Hindalga jail in Belgam. Patil took the decision to pardon him in June 2012. 


(5) Bantu (UP): In this case the victim was a five-year-old girl, Vaishali. On 4 October 2003, one Naresh Kumar, his brother Vishal and niece Vaishali were attending a "Devi Jagran" in village Basai Khurd in Agra district. Naresh Kumar's neighbour Bantu was there too. He took out the child saying he would give her a balloon. When Vaishali did not return for a long time, a search was launched for her. Vaishali and Bantu were found next to a pond at 9.30 pm. Bantu was caught in a naked state. He had raped and repeatedly tortured Vaishali in the worst possible way. She was rushed to a hospital but was declared brought dead. Bantu was given death by the trial court, a judgement that was upheld by the high court and the Supreme Court.


(6) Dharmendra Singh and (7) Narendra Yadav (UP): Dharmendra Singh and Narendra Yadav of Agra were convicted for killing five members of a family, including three minors, in 1994. The dispute started over property. One Chandra Mohan had purchased 13.5 bigha land and half a haveli from Dharmendra's grandfather. The other half of the haveli was used by Dharmendra, who was not happy with the co-ownership. Chandra Mohan's niece Rita (15), was often teased by Dharmendra's friend Narendra, but she did not return his advances. Chandra Mohan once gave a thrashing to Narendra.Narendra hatched a conspiracy with Dharmendra to rape Rita and kill the family members. The duo killed Chandra Mohan and five others on the night of 26 May 1994. Rita was raped before the murder.


The Supreme Court held the crime to be "ghastly, premeditated, and one which fell in the rarest of the rare category". In 2004, the then Home Minister L.K. Advani rejected the mercy appeal. But P. Chidambaram's MHA recommended that, "This was a crime driven by greed, lust and family feud, not uncommon in many parts of India." Having regard to all the factors, especially their age and the fact that both have been in the prison for 15 years, home minister P Chidambaram opined that "it would be appropriate to commute the sentence of death of one of life imprisonment." 

During Patil's tenure, the Ministry of Home Affairs commuted to life the death sentences of 35 criminals involved in 19 cases. In June, a Rashtrapati Bhavan spokesperson had said: "Article 72 does confer on the President the power to grant clemency. However, in the exercise of these powers, the President is not supposed to act on her own judgment but is mandated to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the government, which is binding on the Head of State"

Patil's predecessor A.P.J. Abdul Kalam had rejected the petition of Dhananjoy Chatterjee convicted of raping and killing a school girl, and he was hanged in Kolkata in 2004. After Dhananjoy Chatterjee no rape convict has been hanged – because P Chidambaram concluded, “such offences are not uncommon” and Prathibha Patil approved Home Ministry’s recommendation. 

Murder is punishable with life sentence or death under Section 302 IPC. Gang Rape under Section 376 IPC is punishable with life imprisonment. And in the recent case of rape inside bus in Delhi, maximum sentence that can be awarded by the court is only life imprisonment. Because gang rape and attempt to murder can be punished with maximum of life imprisonment only and not death sentence ! 

Hence the public outcry to amend the law to provide death penalty to rapists is very proper and justified. The pardoning power of the President under the Constitution should also be suitably amended to exclude death penalties upheld by the Supreme Court. Once the highest Court awards death sentence, it should be implemented within a week. Death penalties should be executed in public. But will the Cental Govt listen ?

Monday, December 24, 2012

India's supermen in Black - News - India Today



Meet India's supermen in black: When people like Robert Vadra get into trouble, only a handful of lawyers are called to bail them out : Gyanant Singh, News - India Today:


When a dispute or controversy in politics, business, sports or even in the private lives of public personalities makes headlines, top lawyers of the country cannot remain away from the headlines.

The recent high-stake cases pertaining to the gas dispute between the Ambani brothers, the 2G scam, the privacy case filed by industrialist Ratan Tata, the Vodafone tax case, the Sahara-SEBI dispute, the CWG scam, the Presidential Reference, the PIL against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and the asset cases involving top politicians have only brought to the fore the leaders among the men in black.

The cases have also shown that there are not many who rule the roost. As part of legal strategies, some prospective litigants even hire more lawyers than they actually need to ensure that the opponent is unable to use the services of the best lawyers. It is because of this that sought-after lawyers are roped in just when controversies start brewing.

Here we profile some of the most sought-after lawyers and force to reckon with when they are either supporting or opposing a case in the Supreme Court or any other court. However, the outstation services come with a price which could be two, three, five or even ten times the amount they normally charge. The fees charged by them also vary depending on the case and the client. Apart from bearing the cost of the entourage, the outstation visits could also come with conditions like hiring a private plane. And getting them during vacations is possible only at astronomical rates.

The list does not include government law officers and some veterans who are now very selective with the cases they take up.

Ram Jethmalani - Senior Counsel, Rajya Sabha MP and former law minister




Indulgence: His love for badminton is legendary. Jethmalani has an indoor badminton court built in his MP's bungalow that is the envy of Lutyens' Delhi. He drives around in a Mercedes.

Fees: Rs.40 lakh for taking up a case and Rs.10 to Rs.20 lakh per appearance thereafter

Ram Jethmalani, at 90, has the distinction of being one of the oldest active lawyers of the country and at 18 he was the youngest member of the bar. An exception was carved out for him to enable him join the bar at 18 because the minimum age for enrolling as a lawyer was 21 then.

He keeps judges spell bound by his arguments and his ability to cite precedents which are embedded in his memory. He represented the Gujarat government in matters pertaining to the 2002 riot cases. Recently he also appeared for Ramdev in the case pertaining to police highhandedness in dispersing the crowd at Ramlila grounds. He also represented the 2G accused. He is now representing the Ansals in the Uphaar cinema fire tragedy case.

K.T.S. Tulsi - Former Additional Solicitor General of India and Senior Counsel



Indulgence: He likes hosting lavish parties, watching sports and collecting vintage cars

Fees: Approximately Rs.5 lakh per appearance. But he provides free assistance to needy people

Senior counsel K. T.S. Tulsi enrolled as a lawyer in Punjab after taking a law degree in 1971 but he decided to focus on the criminal side in 1980s and hasn't looked back since then. He has a big list of highprofile clients including Robert Vadra.

Unlike most criminal lawyers, he does not mind being on the side of the prosecution. He took up the job of a special prosecutor in terror cases in Punjab in the 1980s when no one wanted to take up cases against terrorists.

At a time when he was in great demand as a lawyer for accused, he took up the Uphaar tragedy case on behalf of the victims and against the mighty Ansals. His free assistance to the victims of the tragedy continues even to this day. He made headlines when he refused to argue cases for the Gujarat government after Chief Minister Narendra Modi justified the Sohrabuddin encounter - a case in which he was defending the state government before the Supreme Court.

Tulsi recently took up the case of Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar who is facing death sentence for a terror attack in Delhi. The idea was not to re-open the case but to save Bhullar from the gallows. He has sought commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground of inordinate delay of eight years by the President in deciding his mercy plea.

Aryama Sundaram - Designated Senior Counsel



Indulgence: Golf, collecting art, cigars and reading

Fees: Approximately Rs.5 lakh per appearance

Aryama Sundaram is a corporate lawyer who has represented the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) in a number of cases. He represented the voice of the industry in the Presidential Reference seeking clarification on the mode of allocation of natural resources by the government.

Sundaram also takes up constitutional law and media related cases. He was a lawyer in the S. Rangarajan case which resulted in one of the landmark judgments on the freedom of speech and expression.

He recently appeared for FICCI during the hearing on the Presidential Reference.He has represented the BCCI in a case which cleared the decks for board secretary N. Srinivasan to take over as the President of the board. The apex court in the case turned down a plea to restrain Srinivasan from taking over the top post till it was decided whether an IPL team owner could be allowed to become an office bearer of the board.The restraint was sought by the former BCCI President A. C. Muthiah.

P.P. Rao - Senior Counsel
Indulgence: A former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Rahul Gandhi's lawyer has an Audi A8

Fees: Minimum of Rs.5 lakh per appearance

An expert on constitutional law, even judges cannot ignore Rao's interpretations. He is sought after in election matters too.

Rao took his law degree from the Osmania University and started his career by teaching in the University of Delhi. He, however, switched over to practice in 1967 and became an advocate-onrecord in the Supreme Court in 1969 and was designated a senior by the Supreme Court in 1976.

He has the central government and several state governments in the list of his clients. Though the government has its own team of law officers, it roped in Rao to place its view point before the Supreme Court in the 2G case. His services were availed to defend the President's Rule imposed by the government after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. He recently appeared for former Railway Minister Jaffer Sharief in a corruption case against him.

Congress scion Rahul Gandhi has also bestowed his trust in Rao who has been seeking action against the petitioner who defamed Gandhi by filing a writ against him.

Harish Salve - Senior Supreme Court Counsel and former Solicitor General of India


Indulgence: He must have an Apple product within 48 hours of its launch. Salve loves to play the piano, enjoys jazz and drives a Bentley.

Fees: Approximately Rs.4.5 lakh per appearance

Harish Salve is undoubtedly one of the best and most expensive lawyers in the country. And going by his career graph as a lawyer, Nagpur-born Salve now belongs to where he is - Delhi, the seat of the apex court of the country. Salve shifted to Delhi in 1976 and joined eminent lawyer Soli J. Sorabjee's chamber in 1980 and set up an independent practice in the mid 80s. He was designated as a senior counsel by the Supreme Court in 1992 and was appointed the Solicitor General of India in 1999.

His stakes touched the pinnacle recently when he won the over Rs.1,1000 crore Vodafone tax case against the government before the Supreme Court.

Salve has appeared for one of the Ambani brothers in the gas dispute between them. He defended Keshub Mahindra when the CBI filed a curative petition to revive culpable homicide charges in the Bhopal gas tragedy case. Ratan Tata, who has approached the Supreme Court against alleged violation of his right to privacy with the publication of the Radia tapes, has also availed his services. Recently, he represented the CII in the Presidential Reference.

He represented the Delhi Police in the matter concerning the mid-night crackdown on supporters of Baba Ramdev who was protesting against corruption and his able defence led to Ramdev's indictment as well. His success story has made Salve the first choice of litigants who can afford him. But it is not always for the money. Salve is the amicus curiae in the Gujarat riot case and in environment matters heard by the green bench of the apex court. He appeared against the accused in the Uphaar fire tragedy case. According to a lawyer who has known him since 1980s, Salve has been successful because he is very convincing and never seems to be forcing his view on the judge.

Mukul Rohatgi - Senior Counsel and former Additional Solicitor General

Indulgence: An avid collector of supercars, Rohatgi loves travelling and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. He drives a Bentley, has Souzas on his walls and a holiday home in Goa.

Fees: Minimum of Rs.5 lakh per appearance

The number of cases that Mukul Rohatgi argues everyday shows the trust litigants bestow in him.

On Mondays and Fridays, when miscellaneous matters are taken up by the Supreme Court, Rohatgi can be seen rushing along the court corridors to get from one courtroom to another. He handles a wide spectrum of matters which include both civil and criminal cases and his clients include politicians, actors and corporate leaders.

He had a roaring practice in the Delhi High Court when he was appointed the Additional Solicitor General in 1999. He thereafter shifted to the Supreme Court and carved out a place for himself.

He is very polite outside the courts but he means business once he is in court representing a client. He argues in the literal sense of the term and ensures that his voice is heard even if it is at the cost of shouting down his opponent.

He recently defended BJP leader Varun Gandhi against invocation of preventive detention by the then Mayawati government for his hate speech. The order under the National Security Act (NSA) was revoked on court orders.

He appeared, opposite Salve, for the younger Ambani brother in the gas dispute between the two brothers. He has defended several politicians, including Jayalalithaa, in corruption cases. He has also argued on behalf of the Gujarat government in the matters concerning riots in the state.

He has been representing the Commonwealth and 2G scam accused as well. A lawyer who knows him well said his success mantra was his confidence. He can argue for an hour even after a short briefing of a few minutes.

Sushil Kumar - Designated Senior Counsel


Indulgence: Kumar reads spiritual books and is influenced by J. Krishnamurti's life and works. And he reads court cases even in his free time.

Fees: Minimum of Rs.5.5 lakh per appearance

One of the leading criminal lawyers in the country, Sushil Kumar is the only lawyer seen in a sherwani in the corridors of the apex court.

He presently represents A. Raja and Kanimozhi in the 2G scam case and has also argued for Suresh Kalmadi, an accused in the CWG scam.

He has appeared for the Ansals in the Uphaar fire tragedy case and for the hotel chain Sarvana Bhavan proprietor P. Rajagopal who was facing a life sentence for murder. Kumar's services had also been sought for Afzal Guru in the Parliament attack case and for terror accused Abdul Naseer Maudany. He is a formidable opponent for a prosecution lawyer as he can easily make holes in the prosecution theory and win his clients the benefit of doubt. Junior lawyers say there are many who can get notice on an appeal but when it comes to final arguments on merits, one needs Kumar to get an acquittal.

Gopal Subramanium - Former Solicitor General of India and Senior Counsel
Indulgence:Subramanium has an Audi A8, but more than cars, it's culture and ethnic crafts that interest him. He also has has an impressive collection of books.

Fees: Minimum of Rs.5 lakh per appearance

Gopal Subramanium made his mark as the Solicitor General of India at a time when the government's decisions came up for scrutiny before the Supreme Court and he maintained his record after he resigned. He has a roaring practice and is probably making more money than he did before.

He recently appeared on behalf of the state in the Mumbai attack case in which Kasab's death sentence was confirmed. He is also appearing on behalf of the state in the 1993 Bombay blasts case before the Supreme Court. After resigning as SG, he appeared in a case against the appointment of SEBI chief. He also appeared as amicus curiae in the Gujarat encounter cases.

The Uttar Pradesh government fielded him when a petition against Formula - I was filed just ahead of the event. He is presently appearing for Novartis in the highstake patent case pertaining to a cancer drug.

-- The fee rates cited for these lawyers are based on independent inquiries made by Mail Today


Read more at:http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/meet-india-supermen-in-black/1/225634.html


'via Blog this'

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Sting Operation - "they asked for it" - Delhi police Attitude towards Rape victims

The shockingly insensitive 'they asked for it' stance of Delhi cops towards rape victims, exposed by an NDTV-Tehelka sting operation is an SOS to the khakhi top brass in the country. The thinking betrays a deep rooted prejudice, perhaps at one level even connivance with the perpetrators, an anti-victim, male chauvinistic, sexist, mindset and either cynicism or impotence of those black sheep meant to protect; and when that fails, to investigate and prosecute. I'm using the term black sheep because not all cops are bad. Some take an extreme position and mete out their own 'justice' to criminals accused of rape. No right thinking person will hold a brief for this either.

For starters, how many women would feel safe in an average police station in the country? The record of custodial rapes is another story in itself. But to suggest that the victim "deserved" to be raped is the most perverse form of escapism. No citizen deserves a crime. Every citizen deserves safety and protection. It's only criminals who deserve punishment. What's frightening is that almost all the cops exposed are Inspectors, who are invariably the investigating officers of crime. The police station constitutes the cutting edge of the department. So when these key players in the criminal justice system make excuses and indulge in a shameless blame game, wouldn't it embolden criminals? Don't we also run the risk of botched up investigation? An investigation into a rape calls for forensic expertise - meticulous collection of evidence ranging from blood, finger nails and skin to semen samples and strands of hair. It also calls for circumstantial evidence to puncture the trademark defence - alibi. If an officer carries the baggage of preconceived notions about the victim, wouldn't that itself be a perfect setting for investigative oversight and ultimately, an acquittal?

It's not the job of an officer to dole out character certificates or sit in judgment over the version of an alleged victim. That's for the court to adjudicate. But if a cop rustles up weak evidence, the public prosecutor would be helpless in preventing a chargesheet from falling by the wayside, from witnesses turning hostile and sometimes, even the victim giving up. Take a look at where the law stands on the issue of 'character'. Under Section 54 of the Evidence Act, the bad character of an accused person is not relevant. Much more irrelevant in the case of a victim! Even a commercial sex worker can be raped. So what are those talking through berets? And look at what the Supreme Court had to say about the testimony of rape victims. In State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh, the apex court made it clear that the victim's evidence alone is sufficient to convict. The rationale was telling: "In a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court to make a humiliating statement against her honour". Criminal trial can be quite traumatic for a rape victim.


What I find most ridiculous is the argument on dressing as a trigger for a crime of passion. Lust, like beauty, also lies in the eye of the beholder. Actor-politician Khushbu made an interesting point. "There are scores of women who are harassed although they are clad in traditional attire". Public prosecutors will tell you it's not always lust that drives a person to rape. Sift through the clutter of Section 375 Indian Penal Code cases and you will come across other factors like a perverse desire to show authority or to demonstrate superiority over hapless victims. What else would explain the gang rapes of tribal women in Tamil Nadu's Vachhathi village two decades ago? A conviction of 169 officers came just last year! Just recently, an 82-year-old woman was allegedly raped by a 32-year-old man. It took a public outcry and medical reports for the police to take the word of relatives seriously and arrest the man accused of committing the crime. The outrageous 'dress logic' also came to the fore a few years ago when a Vice Chancellor of a University in Chennai banned jeans and T-Shirts on the campus because "professors may get distracted". 

The reference to loose morals is equally frivolous. Whose morals, please? By whose standards? Here's another grossly misrepresented provision of law, that is reflected in movies. An unmarried couple found together in a hotel room. A knock at the door. And the next scene is of the duo being driven away in a police jeep! The Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act does not apply to consenting adults. It only makes living out of earning through prostitution, involving soliciting in a public place, an offence. The Supreme Court has even recognised live in relationships. Consensual sex, as long as the girl is above sixteen, is not the business of a man in khakhi. The police-public ratio is terribly skewed in our country. The crime graph is rising. And the curriculum in our police training academies needs an overhaul and a definite inclusion of gender sensitisation modules. The cops have their task cut out. Georges Clemenceau once quipped: "war is too serious a matter to be left to military men". Perhaps sermonising is too complicated a task for the police!



Friday, December 21, 2012

John Grisham - A Bio



Long before his name became synonymous with the modern legal thriller, he was working 60-70 hours a week at a small Southaven, Mississippi, law practice, squeezing in time before going to the office and during courtroom recesses to work on his hobby—writing his first novel.

Born on February 8, 1955 in Jonesboro, Arkansas, to a construction worker and a homemaker, John Grisham as a child dreamed of being a professional baseball player. Realizing he didn’t have the right stuff for a pro career, he shifted gears and majored in accounting at Mississippi State University. After graduating from law school at Ole Miss in 1981, he went on to practice law for nearly a decade in Southaven, specializing in criminal defense and personal injury litigation. In 1983, he was elected to the state House of Representatives and served until 1990.

One day at the DeSoto County courthouse, Grisham overheard the harrowing testimony of a twelve-year-old rape victim and was inspired to start a novel exploring what would have happened if the girl’s father had murdered her assailants. Getting up at 5 a.m. every day to get in several hours of writing time before heading off to work, Grisham spent three years on A Time to Kill and finished it in 1987. Initially rejected by many publishers, it was eventually bought by Wynwood Press, who gave it a modest 5,000 copy printing and published it in June 1988.

That might have put an end to Grisham’s hobby. However, he had already begun his next book, and it would quickly turn that hobby into a new full-time career—and spark one of publishing’s greatest success stories. The day after Grisham completed A Time to Kill, he began work on another novel, the story of a hotshot young attorney lured to an apparently perfect law firm that was not what it appeared. When he sold the film rights to The Firm to Paramount Pictures for $600,000, Grisham suddenly became a hot property among publishers, and book rights were bought by Doubleday. Spending 47 weeks on The New York Times bestseller list, The Firm became the bestselling novel of 1991.

The successes of The Pelican Brief, which hit number one on the New York Times bestseller list, and The Client, which debuted at number one, confirmed Grisham’s reputation as the master of the legal thriller. Grisham’s success even renewed interest in A Time to Kill, which was republished in hardcover by Doubleday and then in paperback by Dell. This time around, it was a bestseller.

Since first publishing A Time to Kill in 1988, Grisham has written one novel a year (his other books are The Firm, The Pelican Brief, The Client, The Chamber, The Rainmaker, The Runaway Jury, The Partner, The Street Lawyer, The Testament, The Brethren, A Painted House, Skipping Christmas, The Summons, The King of Torts, Bleachers, The Last Juror, The Broker, Playing for Pizza, The Appeal, The Associate, The Confession and The Litigators) and all of them have become international bestsellers. There are currently over 275 million John Grisham books in print worldwide, which have been translated into 40 languages. Nine of his novels have been turned into films (The Firm, The Pelican Brief, The Client, A Time to Kill, The Rainmaker, The Chamber, A Painted House, The Runaway Jury, and Skipping Christmas), as was an original screenplay, The Gingerbread Man. The Innocent Man (October 2006) marked his first foray into non-fiction, and Ford County (November 2009) was his first short story collection.

Grisham lives with his wife Renee and their two children Ty and Shea. The family splits their time between their Victorian home on a farm in Mississippi and a plantation near Charlottesville, VA.

Grisham took time off from writing for several months in 1996 to return, after a five-year hiatus, to the courtroom. He was honoring a commitment made before he had retired from the law to become a full-time writer: representing the family of a railroad brakeman killed when he was pinned between two cars. Preparing his case with the same passion and dedication as his books’ protagonists, Grisham successfully argued his clients’ case, earning them a jury award of $683,500—the biggest verdict of his career.

When he’s not writing, Grisham devotes time to charitable causes, including most recently his Rebuild The Coast Fund, which raised 8.8 million dollars for Gulf Coast relief in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He also keeps up with his greatest passion: baseball. The man who dreamed of being a professional baseball player now serves as the local Little League commissioner. The six ballfields he built on his property have played host to over 350 kids on 26 Little League teams.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Cyber-Warfare - How real are its implications ?

The Economist.com
EVEN as anxiety about jihadi terrorist threats has eased, thanks to the efforts of intelligence agencies and drone attacks’ disruption of the militants’ sanctuaries, fears over Western societies’ vulnerability to cyber-assaults have grown. Political and military leaders miss no chance to declare that cyberwar is already upon us. America’s defence secretary, Leon Panetta, talks of a “cyber-Pearl Harbour”. A senior official says privately that a cyber-attack on America that “would make 9/11 look like a tea party” is only a matter of time.
The nightmares are of mouseclicks exploding fuel refineries, frying power grids or blinding air-traffic controllers. The reality is already of countless anonymous attacks on governments and businesses. These seek to disrupt out of malice, or to steal swathes of valuable commercial or security-related data. Some experts believe that such thefts have cost hundreds of billions of dollars in stolen R&D.

Many of these attacks are purely criminal. But the most sophisticated are more often the work of states, carried out either directly or by proxies. Attribution—detecting an enemy’s fingerprints on a cyber-attack—is still tricky, so officials are reluctant to point the finger of blame publicly. But China is by far the most active transgressor. It employs thousands of gifted software engineers who systematically target technically advanced Fortune 100 companies. The other biggest offenders are Russia and, recently, Iran (the suspected source of the Shamoon virus that crippled thousands of computers at Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and Qatar’s RasGas in August).

America and its allies are by no means passive victims. Either America, Israel or the two working together almost certainly hatched the Stuxnet worm, found in 2010, that was designed to paralyse centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz uranium-enrichment plant. The Flame virus, identified by Russian and Hungarian experts this year, apparently came from the same source. It was designed to strike at Iran by infecting computers in its oil ministry and at targets in the West Bank, Syria and Sudan.

Boring, not lurid

For all the hype, policies on cyber-warfare remain confused and secretive. The American government is bringing in new rules and a clearer strategy for dealing with cyber-threats. Barack Obama is said to have signed in October a still-secret directive containing new guidelines for federal agencies carrying out cyber-operations. It sets out how they should help private firms, particularly those responsible for critical national infrastructure, to defend themselves against cyber-threats by sharing information and setting standards.

The directive is partly a response to the stalling of cyber-legislation in the Senate. Republican senators argue that it imposes too great a regulatory burden on industry, which is already obliged to disclose when it is subject to a cyber-attack. It is also meant to govern how far such bodies as the Department of Homeland Security can go in their defence of domestic networks against malware attacks.

The Pentagon is also working on more permissive rules of engagement for offensive cyber-warfare, for example to close down a foreign server from which an attack was thought to be emanating. General Keith Alexander heads both Cyber Command (which has a budget of $3.4 billion for next year) and the National Security Agency. He has often called for greater flexibility in taking the attack to the “enemy”. The emergence of new cyber-warfare doctrines in America is being watched closely by allies who may follow where America leads—as well as by potential adversaries.

However, Jarno Limnell of Stonesoft, a big computer security firm, says that all levels of government in the West lack strategic understanding on cyber-warfare. So, although questions abound, answers are few. For example, it is not clear how much sensitive information about threats or vulnerabilities government agencies should share even with private-sector firms that are crucial to national security. Often the weakest link is their professional advisers, such as law firms or bankers who have access to sensitive data.

Almost all (roughly 98%) of the vulnerabilities in commonly used computer programmes that hackers exploit are in software created in America. Making private-sector companies more secure might involve a controversial degree of intrusion by government agencies, for example the permanent monitoring of e-mail traffic to make sure that every employee is sticking to security rules. Government hackers may also like to hoard such vulnerabilities rather than expose them. That way they can later create “backdoors” in the software for offensive purposes.

Also controversial is the balance between defence and attack. General Alexander stresses that in cyber-warfare, the attacker has the advantage. Mr Limnell says that, although America has better offensive cyber-capabilities than almost anybody, its defences get only three out of ten.

Setting rules for offensive cyber-warfare is exceptionally tricky. When it comes to real, physical war, the capability may become as important as air superiority has been for the past 70 years: though it cannot alone bring victory, you probably can’t win if the other side has it.

China has long regarded the network-centric warfare that was developed by America in the late-1980s and copied by its allies as a weakness it might target, particularly as military networks share many of the same underpinnings as their civilian equivalents. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) talks about “informationisation” in war, “weakening the information superiority of the enemy and operational effectiveness of the enemy’s computer equipment”. China’s planning assumes an opening salvo of attacks on the enemy’s information centres by cyber, electronic and kinetic means to create blind spots that its armed forces would then be able to exploit. Yet as the PLA comes to rely more on its own information networks it will no longer enjoy an asymmetric advantage. Few doubt the importance of being able to defend your own military networks from cyber-attacks (and to operate effectively when under attack), while threatening those of your adversaries.

But to conclude that future wars will be conducted largely in cyberspace is an exaggeration. Martin Libicki of the RAND Corporation, a think-tank, argues that with some exceptions cyber-warfare neither directly harms people nor destroys equipment. At best it “can confuse and frustrate…and then only temporarily”. In short, “cyber-warfare can only be a support function” for other forms of war.

Four horsemen

Besides the cyber element of physical warfare, four other worries are: strategic cyberwar (direct attacks on an enemy’s civilian infrastructure); cyber-espionage; cyber-disruption, such as the distributed denial-of-service attacks that briefly overwhelmed Estonian state, banking and media websites in 2007; and cyber-terrorism. Gauging an appropriate response to each of these is hard. Mr Limnell calls for a “triad” of capabilities: resilience under severe attack; reasonable assurance of attribution so that attackers cannot assume anonymity; and the means to hit back hard enough to deter an unprovoked attack.

Few would argue against improving resilience, particularly of critical national infrastructure such as power grids, sewerage and transport systems. But such targets are not as vulnerable as is now often suggested. Cyber-attacks on physical assets are most likely to use what Mr Libicki calls “one-shot weapons” aimed at industrial control systems. Stuxnet was an example: it destroyed perhaps a tenth of the Iranian centrifuges at Natanz and delayed some uranium enrichment for a few months, but the vulnerabilities it exposed were soon repaired. Its limited and fleeting success will also have led Iran to take measures to hinder future attacks. If that is the best that two first-rate cyber-powers can do against a third-rate industrial power, notes Mr Libicki, it puts into perspective the more alarmist predictions of impending cyber-attacks on infrastructure in the West.

Moreover, anyone contemplating a cyber-attack on physical infrastructure has little idea how much actual damage it will cause, and if people will die. They cannot know if they are crossing an adversary’s red line and in doing so would trigger a violent “kinetic” response (involving real weapons). Whether or not America has effective cyber-weapons, it has more than enough conventional ones to make any potential aggressor think twice.

For that reason, improving attribution of cyber-attacks is a high priority. Nigel Inkster, a former British intelligence officer now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, highlights the huge risk to the perpetrator of carrying out an infrastructure attack given the consequences if it is detected. In October Mr Panetta said that “potential aggressors should be aware that the United States has the capacity to locate them and hold them accountable for actions that harm America or its interests.”






He may be over-claiming. Given that cyber-attacks can be launched from almost anywhere, attribution is likely to remain tricky and to rely on context, motive and an assessment of capabilities as much as technology. That is one reason why countries on the receiving end of cyber attacks want to respond in kind—ambiguity cuts both ways. But poor or authoritarian countries attacking rich democratic ones may not have the sorts of assets that are vulnerable to a retaliatory cyber-attack.

The difficulty is even greater when it comes to the theft (or “exfiltration”, as it is known) of data. For China and Russia, ransacking Western firms for high-tech research and other intellectual property is tempting. The other way round offers thinner pickings. In 2009 hackers from an unnamed “foreign intelligence agency” made off with some 24,000 confidential files from Lockheed Martin, a big American defence contractor. As a result they could eavesdrop on online meetings and technical discussions, and gather information about the sensors, computer systems and “stealth” technology of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This may have added to the delays of an already troubled programme as engineers tried to fix vulnerabilities that had been exposed in the plane’s design. Investigators traced the penetrations with a “high level of certainty” to known Chinese IP addresses and digital fingerprints that had been used for attacks in the past. Less than two years later, China unveiled its first stealth fighter, the J-20.

Theft from thieves

As Mr Libicki asks, “what can we do back to a China that is stealing our data?” Espionage is carried out by both sides and is traditionally not regarded as an act of war. But the massive theft of data and the speed with which it can be exploited is something new. Responding with violence would be disproportionate, which leaves diplomacy and sanctions. But America and China have many other big items on their agenda, while trade is a very blunt instrument. It may be possible to identify products that China exports which compete only because of stolen data, but it would be hard and could risk a trade war that would damage both sides.

Cyber-disruption has nuisance value and may be costly to repair, but it can be mitigated by decent defences. Cyber-terrorism has remained largely in the imagination of film-makers, but would be worth worrying about if it became a reality. Stonesoft’s Mr Limnell reckons that, though al-Qaeda and its offshoots show little sign of acquiring the necessary skills, they could buy them. Mr Libicki is more sceptical. Big teams of highly qualified people are needed to produce Stuxnet-type effects, which may be beyond even sophisticated terrorist groups. Also, the larger the team that is needed, the more likely it is to be penetrated.

The Obama administration’s attempt to develop a more coherent—and perhaps less secret—doctrine of cyber-warfare is sensible so long as it is not just an excuse for hyping something that, as far as is known, has yet to kill anybody. The idea that offence beats defence is also suspect. If more attention were paid to fixing the security flaws in Western software, cyber-attackers would have fewer entry points. And more effort should be put into solving the attribution problem. Getting caught is a deterrent that state actors take seriously. But given that the essence of cyber-warfare is ambiguity and uncertainty, gaining clarity and certainty will be exceptionally difficult. That makes policy both hard to construct and harder still to explain

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Kerala’s Startup Village gets 1GBPS internet Connection, 2nd in the World



Kerala’s Startup Village gets 1GBPS internet Connection, 2nd in the World:

by ARUN PRABHUDESAI


While most other places in India struggle to get a decent 1 mbps connections, Kerala’s Startup Villagehas become only the 2nd place in the world to get a whooping 1 GBPS internet line. The only other place that has 1 GBPS connectivity is Google sponsored Startup Village in Kansas City, USA, which was launched last year and is part of Google Fibre Network.






Startup Village, based out of Kochi in Kerala is India’s first Public Private Partnership model Technology Business Incubator for product startups.

To give you a perspective of what speed a 1 GBPS internet connectivity can deliver – you can watch over 200 HD movies streaming online simultaneously or download the entire HD movie in less than 30 seconds.
How has it been possible?

Startup Village being located at Kochi, gives it a distinct advantage – There are 2 undersea cables (used for internet backbone) that terminate at Kochi that allowed quick procurement of High-Speed internet connectivity.






Kochi Startup Village Chairman said “Startup Village aims to build the elements of a world class tech ecosystem to realize the dream of a Silicon Coast in India. Apart from 100% teledensity and literacy, the submarine landing station at Kochi creates a perfect backdrop to try this ambitious pilot to effectively change the tech start-up policies in India to be at par with Silicon Valley”.

by ARUN PRABHUDESAI
'via Blog this'

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Freedom of Expression on Face Book and its Aftermath....

Minister of State for Communications and IT Milind Deora on Tuesday slammed the police for “acting in haste” by arresting two young girls for their Facebook post questioning shutdown of the city for Bal Thackeray‘s funeral and called for checks to prevent misuse of the IT Act.

“Question isn’t about amending 66A of the IT (Information Technology) Act, it’s about preventing misuse by the police, who clearly acted in haste and applied wrong sections of IPC & IT Act,” Deora wrote on social networking Website Twitter.

Police had on November 18 arrested 21-year-old Shaheen Dhada under section 66A of IT Act and section 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) for posting a message on Facebook questioning the shutdown in the city for Shiv Sena patriarch Bal Thackeray’s funeral.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/milind-deora-criticises-cops-over-fb-post-case-529419.html
Firstpost said - It is hard to see how Shaheen Dhada violated the two sections of the law under which she has been charged – Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (“outraging religous feelings of any class”) or even the draconian Section 66A of the IT Act (“sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.”) – with her contemplative post, or what crimes Renu Srinivasan committed in merely ‘liking’ the post.

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/arrests-over-facebook-posts-why-were-on-a-dangerous-slide-528537.html
The message posted by Shaheen read: “With all respect, every day, thousands of people die, but still the world moves on. Just due to one politician died a natural death, everyone just goes bonkers. They should know, we are resilient by force, not by choice. When was the last time, did anyone showed some respect or even a two-minute silence for Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Azad, Sukhdev or any of the people because of whom we are free-living Indians? Respect is earned, given, and definitely not forced. Today, Mumbai shuts down due to fear, not due to respect.

Now consider this - 

Mumbaites shutting down their shops and offices and sitting at home fearing violence is one thing, and more than 20 Lakh people actually marching in the funeral procession is another. 

Any political party cant bring 20 lakh people for a funeral procession, the economics is just not workable. So by that yardstick late Thackeray had earned public respect and support, and its but natural for his supporters to react or overreact when someone publishes a statement, even before the deceased's funeral pyre had not even stopped burning.
IPC Section 297 - Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or.....with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded,.... or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies,....

http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/s297.htm
The statement, which is the subject herein, is posted in the course of the funeral procession, and so section 297 IPC is applicable. And how would we expect the police to handle the situation, when the whole City is on its nerves; one wrong step and everything will fall down. We should admire how the situation in its totality was handled by the Mumbai Police. 

And again The Indian Constitution protects freedom of speech as a facet of fundamental rights under Article 19, subject to reasonable restrictions, including decency and defamation. What becomes critical therefore is balance: The fine equilibrium required between protecting freedom of speech, fair comment and criticism (including investigative journalism and whistleblower action) on the one hand and transgression into malicious defamation of a person for oblique or political purposes on the other.

IT Act 2002 Section 66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc..- Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,-
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.


In the case of Mr. Srinivasan he had tweeted that “karthick chidambaram had amassed more wealth than vadra” and the police arrested him on the basis of an e-mail complaint lodged by Mr. Karti.
The same IT act was used to arrest a person in Pondicherry who supposedly posted comments against Karthi Chidambaram. 
What was the media doing then ?

http://www.firstpost.com/india/it-act-should-not-be-used-to-throttle-dissent-says-sibal-528414.html


..... it is doubly perverse for Kapil Sibal to claim in all innocence that he is “deeply saddened” by the arrest of the two young women and to insinuate that the IT Act, which he was instrumental in passing, was being misused on grounds of improper implementation.
The fact of it is that the IT Act that he fathered, and particularly the notorious Section 66A, was deliberately worded to give maximum potential for mischief. There have been far too many egregious instances of its misuse by discredited governments and politicians for Sibal to claim that these are random incidents of misuse of the law. Just last month, Finance Minister P Chidambaram’s son Karti had a Puducherry businessmen and anti-corruption activist hauled up by the police for a Twitter post in which the businessman alleged that Karti had “amassed more wealth” than Sonia Gandhi‘s son-in-law. 


Saturday, November 24, 2012

Investigation Blunders in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case | Causes | theweekendleader.com l

How a vital clue in Rajiv assassination case disappeared into thin air | Causes |:
By Sam Rajappa
19 Nov 2012

The wages of crime is punishment. In the scheme of things of the Congress First Family, the wages of selective crime is reward. This has been brought out clearly in the latest book of K Ragothaman, chief investigation officer of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, Conspiracy to Kill Rajiv Gandhi: From the CBI Files.

MK Narayanan, then chief of the Intelligence Bureau, had suppressed a vital piece of evidence in the form of a video tape.

The Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency set up to inquire into the conspiracy behind Rajiv’s assassination has been hibernating for more than a decade (Photos Courtesy: Nakkheeran)

Vazhapadi Ramamurthy, then president of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee, had arranged with a videographer to record the entire election meeting Rajiv Gandhi was to address at Sriperumbudur on the fateful night of 21 May, 1991. It contained vital clues leading up to ‘human bomb’ Dhanu blowing up Rajiv, how she gained access to the sterile zone three hours before her gruesome act, and the people with whom she mingled freely during the long wait till the Congress leader arrived. It was handed over to Narayanan on 22 May itself and he wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister Chandrashekhar the same day stating that the tape was being scanned to “IDENTIFY THE LADY” (in capital letters). The lady referred to was the assassin. D Karthikeyan, chief of the Special Investigation Team, restrained Ragothaman from pursuing the tape handed over to Narayanan.

When Karthikeyan was asked in a TV debate why he did not allow Ragothaman to pursue the impugned tape, he pleaded amnesia but he could remember all other incidents connected with the assassination in minute details. Narayanan’s letter has become a part of the Justice Verma Commission Report. He cannot deny having written it.

Causing disappearance of evidence in a capital offence is punishable with imprisonment for life under Section 201 of the IPC. And if the offence is committed by a public servant, which Narayanan was, he could be prosecuted under Section 204 IPC as well. The sole charge against Suba Sundaram, one of the 26 accused in the assassination case and sentenced to death by the trial court, was attempt to suppress evidence. A leading news photographer of Chennai, one of his assistants, Haribabu, was engaged by the assassination squad to photograph Rajiv’s Sriperumbudur meeting.

On hearing Haribabu’s death in the explosion, Sundaram wanted to retrieve the camera. Before he could reach the spot a police man picked it up. The prosecution maintained that had Sundaram retrieved the camera, he would have concealed the exposed film roll which turned out to be the vital clue in cracking the case. He was never in possession of the film, yet the SIT managed to get him convicted under Section 201. The Supreme Court freed him after 11 years in prison. He died soon after his release.

Narayanan was in possession of the tell-tale video tape which he willfully suppressed from the SIT. Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao, convinced of Narayanan’s culpability, not only superannuated him in 1992 but also ordered the CBI to register a criminal case against him.

Such was Sonia Gandhi’s clout with the government institutions even before she edged out Sitaram Kesari as Congress president and occupied his chair, the CBI could not proceed with Case No. 1 of 1995 registered against Narayanan.
The case was given a quite burial by Karthikeyan who has been taking instructions from Narayanan. After Narasimha Rao demitted office, Narayanan was brought back as National Security Adviser and when he and P Chidambaram, then Home Minister, fell out, he was elevated as the Governor of West Bengal, a sinecure he still enjoys.
Suppression of evidence was not the only misdemeanor of Narayanan in the assassination of Rajiv. From the time Sivarassan, leader of the assassination squad, reached Tamil Nadu in 1990, the Army intelligence had been keeping surveillance on his activities and the IB was kept informed. On 22 March, Sivarasan was asking Pottu Amman, LTTE intelligence chief in Jaffna, over the telephone, whether to try in Chennai or in Delhi. The taped conversation was promptly conveyed to Narayanan. Sivarasan was also in telephonic contact with Kittu, LTTE’s London representative.

On 7 May, Sivarasan and team conducted a dry run at a public meeting addressed by VP Singh in Chennai and kept Pottu Amman informed of its success. Sixteen pages of Sivarasan’s taped conversation with Pottu Amman made available to Narayanan were produced in court during the trial of the 26 accused. There is no record of any preemptive action taken by the IB in spite of the forewarning. To reward such a person, to say the least, is intriguing.

Immediately after the assassination, the Chandrashekhar government requested the Tamil Nadu Government to send a panel of three suitable names to select the chief of the SIT. K Mohandas, who had just retired as DGP (Intelligence) of the State police, was the first choice. Chandrashekhar showed the list to Sonia Gandhi. She rejected all the three names and asked for Devarayapuram Ramasamy Karthikeyan, a Karnataka cadre IPS officer who, like his mentor Mayankote Kelath Narayanan, had been a Gandhi family loyalist but with no record of any investigative achievement. Because of his proximity to the family right from Indira Gandhi’s time, he was given a three-year stint in Moscow as First Secretary in the Indian Embassy and a four-year stint in Sydney as Indian Tea Board representative.

After guiding the assassination investigation along the lines the Congress wanted, he was promoted to the coveted post of CBI Director and on retirement made the chief of the National Human Rights Commission. And as a crowning glory, he was awarded the Padma Sri.

At the time of the 1991 Lok Sabha election Tamil Nadu was under President’s rule. Governor Bhisma Narain Singh cautioned Rajiv against campaigning in the State for security reasons.


To whom did Sivarasan pay Rs.1.5 crore? One more question that begs an answer

The Congress had an alliance with the AIADMK and its leader Jayalalitha accepted full responsibility of campaigning for both the Congress and her party candidates and told Rajiv there was no need for him to visit the State. Rajiv conceded to the request of Maragatham, whom he called aunty, and even agreed to spend the night in Sriperumbudur, which was vetoed by the Governor. Sivarasan had given Rs. 5 lakhs to Lalith, son of Maragatham Chandrasekhar, Congress candidate for Sriperumbudur.
Lalith is married to a Sri Lankan woman who was staying with her parents in the Theosophical Society campus in Chennai before her marriage. Using this Sri Lanka connection, Dhanu, the human bomb, wormed her way into the Maragatham household and became a guest. The Statesman reported that Dhanu was a house guest of the Congress candidate. A criminal defamation case was filed against this newspaper and its correspondent in Chennai by Maragatham.
The case was dropped when documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the report. It is not the contention of this writer that Maragatham did everything that facilitated the assassination with any foreknowledge. But what made Karthikeyan cover up her tracks?

Karthikeyan has taken great pains in identifying the brand name of the nine volt battery used by Dhanu to detonate the belt bomb that killed Rajiv as ‘Golden Power’ and got the teenager, Perarivalan, used by Sivarasa as an errand boy to buy it from a shop in Chennai, the death sentence which was confirmed by the Supreme Court along with that of three other bit players. The battery containing cadmium compounds bound in zinc sheet was reduced to smithereens in the explosion, leaving hardly any trace.

But the SIT could not locate the hand bag found hanging on the shoulder of Dhanu seconds before the explosion. Sivarasan’s diary produced in the court had an entry showing he had paid Rs. 1.5 crore to some person and that Rs. 45 lakhs more was to be given to that person. The bomb Dhanu used to kill Rajiv had RDX which was supplied to military only and not available in the open market. Circumstantial evidence shows the Rs. 1.5 crore Sivarasan paid was to the person who supplied the RDX. Why didn’t Karthikeyan investigate this angle?

In any assassination of this nature, who benefited from it would form the main line of investigation which Karthikeyan and his team totally ignored. The moribund Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency set up to inquire into the conspiracy behind Rajiv’s assassination has been hibernating for more than a decade.

Will Manmohan Singh activate the MDMA? The nation wants to know the truth behind the conspiracy.

Sam Rajappa is Consulting Editor of The Weekend Leader



'via Blog this'

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Ireland's Inhumane Abortion Laws - From NYTimes.com

From India, Pressure on Ireland Over Abortion Laws By NIHARIKA MANDHANA
Cathal Mcnaughton/Reuters A candlelit vigil outside University Hospital Galway in Ireland on Nov. 15, held in memory of Indian dentist Savita Halappanavar, who died at the hospital.

The death of an Indian woman in Ireland who was reportedly refused a potentially lifesaving abortion has rekindled the debate on abortion laws in the predominantly Catholic nation and has sparked outrage in India.
“We are shocked that such a death was allowed to take place in this day and age,” said Sudha Sundararaman, the general secretary of the All India Democratic Women’s Association, by telephone. “We lost a life that could have been saved by medical intervention because of a religion-based law that goes completely against international laws.”
Reuters Savita Halappanavar in an undated family photo in Galway, Ireland.

Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old dentist who lived near Galway, Ireland, was 17 weeks pregnant when she was informed, on complaining of severe back pain, that she was having a miscarriage. Despite repeated requests for an abortion, she was told that Ireland is a Catholic country, said her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, and that it would be illegal to terminate a pregnancy while the fetus’s heart was still beating. A few days later, Dr. Halappanavar died of septicemia on Oct. 28 at the University Hospital Galway.

Protesters took to the streets of Ireland and New Delhi, raising banners and chanting slogans, in response to Dr. Halappanavar’s death, which many blamed on Ireland’s abortion laws, among the most restrictive in the world.

“I don’t think as a country we should allow a situation where women’s rights are put at risk in this way,” Eamon Gilmore, Ireland’s deputy prime minister, told Parliament on Thursday. “There is no question of equivocation. We need to bring legal clarity to this issue, and that is what we are going to do.”

Two inquiries have been set up to determine the cause of Dr. Halappanavar’s death.
On Friday, the Indian government too stepped in, promising to take up the matter with the Irish. “It is a sad issue,” said the foreign minister, Salman Khurshid, in a televised interview. “They have a legal framework that is rooted in religion. But there can’t be a bigger goal in religion than to save the life of a mother.”

The Irish ambassador to India, Feilim McLaughlin, met with M. Ganapathi, a secretary in the ministry of external affairs this afternoon. ‘He conveyed that there is a sense of angst in India caused by the fact that a life was cut short in its prime,’ said Syed Akbaruddin, the official spokesman for the external affairs ministry. The government of India also expressed hope that the probe would be thorough and independent, and that the Indian government would be kept informed about the progress and the outcome of the inquiry, Mr. Akbaruddin said. It was also conveyed, he said, that “we hope no other Indian meets the same fate.”

The Indian ambassador to Ireland also met with the Irish foreign minister on Friday. India will request that the Irish authorities share the results of the investigations. “We are taking one step at a time,” said Mr. Akbaruddin. “We want to first understand what the circumstances of the death were.”

But activists in India say there needs to be more action. “Minority and immigrant communities should lead a movement to protect their interests in the countries of their residence,” said Kirti Singh, an advocate in Delhi who works on issues of women’s rights.

The Indian government should also register a protest with the Irish authorities, she said, since an Indian did not receive adequate care from their medical system. “What happened was in violation of international law and our national laws,” she said.

The international position, she explained, is that a woman must have the right to an abortion if there is danger to her life. India’s abortion law, which was passed in 1972 and is broader in scope, allows abortions in several circumstances, including when the life of the mother is at risk, where rape is involved and even when contraception fails
.

Ms. Singh advocates expanding abortion rights even further, arguing that women shouldn’t have to justify their decision to end their pregnancies. “When we are fighting for broader rights in India, how can we allow something like this to happen?” she said.

Ireland’s laws place a near ban on abortion, a fraught and emotive social issue in that country. In 1992, in what is known as the “X-case” involving a 14-year-old rape victim, the Supreme Court ruled that abortions would be allowed when there was a “real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother.” Since then, successive governments, reluctant to stir the pot on an issue that could alienate conservative voters, have dragged their feet on legislation that would lay down precisely the circumstances in which an abortion would be legal. As a result, thousands of women seeking to terminate their pregnancies travel to nearby England and Wales, which have less stringent abortion laws.

Whether or not Dr. Halappanavar’s case induces a change in Ireland’s legal system, many in India say that Dr. Halappanavar’s family and the Indian government must demand justice. “If the investigation shows that the death was a consequence of the law, then we need to fight at the international level,” said Rajeev Chandrasekhar, an Indian parliamentarian. “Someone has lost their life. There must be accountability.”

This idea is not without precedent. In 2010, the European Court of Human Rights heard the case of a woman from Lithuania who was in remission from cancer and believed that there was a risk that her pregnancy would cause a relapse. She was also concerned about a risk to the fetus if she carried it to term.

Unable to get an abortion in Ireland, she decided to have one in England. She argued that by denying her an abortion, Ireland had violated her human rights by putting her life at risk. The court ordered Ireland to pay 15,000 euros ($19,000) in damages to the woman.
'via Blog this'

Monday, November 19, 2012

The dangers of getting married in India (From Asian Image)


There is a sizeable number of British Indians in UK and often our folks with Indian background in UK travel abroad to get married in India. Although there is a certain expectation regarding what lies ahead, sometimes not all is as rosy as it may seem.

The Royal weddings of India are a thing of the past and the Arun-Hurley weddings are not for the mere mortals. Weddings in India are marred with certain dangers and this article addresses just one of those. In the early 60’s Indian Government passed a Dowry Prohibition Act. In 1983, Indian Government passed an amendment to the Indian Penal Code at section 498a against the dowry practices in India. At that time the Indian community hailed its creation and expected the law to end the concept of dowry. Although this law was meant to protect wives, it has been abused blatantly, more so in the last decade.

Section 498A makes the assumption that the husband and his family are presumed to be guilty of the alleged crime. The legal system considers all complaints filed by the wives to be genuine and immediately actionable. The same is achieved easily as this law is a Cognizable offence and hence Investigation agencies have little or no way of rejecting a complaint as else it may affect their jobs under the pressure of National & State Commission of Women.

There is a guaranteed loss of dignity, liberty and freedom of husbands and their families. Since, this Section has been made non-bailable, they are arrested and jailed immediately requiring neither a prima facie investigation nor presentation of probable cause to the magistrate.

It won’t be wrong to say that filing this case is as easy as ordering a Pizza in London. There is no penalty or fine for the misuse of 498a or any legal repercussions even if the allegations are found to be fabricated with a bunch of lies. This law enjoys the status of less than 5% conviction rate and hence almost in 95% cases, the accused family gets harassed for years financially, socially, and emotionally undergoing the trial.

The law can easily boast of having the record of putting infants and kids behind bars as well as putting aged senior citizens above 90 years of age behind bars too. There has been large number of cases of such misuse of law from all across the world, especially from the developed countries. Non Resident Indians (NRIs) and those who are Citizens of developed countries seem to be most vulnerable to this misuse.

They face demands of thousands of pounds to withdraw cases and are also known to be coerced to give visas to the wives’ and their families. The basic reason for this is the unfounded view in India that everyone in developed countries is rich and is an easy bait to extort money and get visas. Looking at numerous false cases against people from abroad, even the Supreme Court of India has labelled it as “Legal Terrorism”.

There have been many instances where the police have arrested elderly parents and even grandparents, unmarried sisters, pregnant sister-in-laws and even children without proper investigation. Indian women have started to misuse this law to harass husband especially when faced with strained or failed marriages. In most instances, such women make false allegations out of vindictiveness or to extort money out of the husband. Such large scale abuse of this law by some unscrupulous women and their families has taken a huge toll on the personal and professional lives of Indians residing in UK.

One such person is Dr Dharmesh Khatri (name changed) who had to suffer huge losses financially and professionally. He lost a portion of his training, something which had never happened in his professional career. His wife Rashmi (name changed) often threatened him with money extortion if he did not obey her wishes. The stress of being in the marriage was such that he started contemplating suicide and suffered raised levels of thyroid hormones and required specialist medical input. Although he has been separated, the threats of false 498A continue. The reason that it is currently threats only is primarily because he had transferred money into her account before and after marriage on numerous occasions out of goodwill gesture and has records of these.

Mr Harish Mehta (name changed), a British Resident went to India with his wife and son for Diwali. Mr Mehta came back earlier due to workcommitments and his wife stayed back with his son for some more time.
His wife disappeared with his son and was not traceable. With the help of police, and after searching for more than 6 months, she was found. She filed a child custody case, which she lost. She then filed the false 498a case followed by Domestic Violence case against Mr Mehta and his family.
Mr Mehta is still fighting for these cases and has to fly to India frequently while he is on leave without pay. He and his family have been deprived from meeting his son. This has not only affected his health, but also broken him down financially and emotionally.

The legal system in India considers all complaints filed by women to be genuine by default and hence this law is being used as a weapon to blackmail, extort money from or seek revenge on residents in UK. Some such residents who married in India have been arrested, ill-treated and exploited in the name of dowry laws.

The abuse of this law has hampered the progress of hundreds of such men and their families whose intellectual abilities and professional skills are highly valued all across the globe. Many such British Indians trapped in false cases have to travel to India, wasting their valuable time, efforts and money to fight these cases and even ending up losing Jobs and even Arrested under “Red Corner Notices” and even sometimes extradited as a Criminal. Due to the shoddy legal system in India, such cases drag for years on end.

Although the Supreme Court of India has labelled it as “legal terrorism” and has suggested altering the law, due to political pressures the law continues to remain as it is and continues to be abused. Although, there is no foolproof method that one can take to protect oneself and his family members, few proper precautions can be taken.

If a British Indian does wish to get married to a woman from India, there are certain steps he can take as a precaution.
(a) Keep a record of all gifts taken and received during and after marriage (signed by both bride and groom). The list needs to be as per the Dowry Prohibition Act norms in India.
(b) If you are travelling to India, make copies of your passport, visa (if applicable) and all credit cards. Leave these copies with a trusted friend or relative in UK.
(c) Do not give anyone your tickets or passport in India.
(d) Register with the local Foreigners Registration Office upon arrival in India and let them know your expected date of departure.
(e) Inform the British Consulate and/or Embassy in India about your travel plans.
(f) If you suspect that you may be a victim of this abuse, inform the British Consulate and/or Embassy in India and finally
(g) Although not legally valid in India; consider a prenuptial agreement.

A support group has been formed in the UK for those who have unfortunately been trapped and have been victims in past. The support group meets often all across UK and provides legal and moral support to such people and their families. The support group has started an e-petition to the UK government at:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/30913




'via Blog this'

Sunday, November 18, 2012

1984 anti-Sikh riots: MP to petition Australian parliament - Yahoo! News India - And a Brief Background gathered Online

1984 anti-Sikh riots: MP to petition Australian parliament - Yahoo! News India:

A lawmaker will present a 'genocide petition' in parliament calling the Australian government to recognise the horrific violence that took place against the Sikh community in November 1984 in India following the assassination of prime minister Indira Gandhi. At least 3,000 Sikhs were killed in three days in the Indian capital New Delhi following the killing of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards on Oct 31, 1984.
Warren Entsch, an Australian federal member of parliament, will present the 'genocide petition' before the Australian parliament. It will be tabled before the House of Representatives during adjournment debate Nov 1, said a press communique from theSupreme Sikh Council of Australia. The petition will call upon Australian government to recognise that an organized campaign of horrific violence took place against the Sikh community in November 1984, and that these killings were "genocide" as per the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Warren Enstch, who is currently serving as the Chief Opponent Whip for the Liberal Party of Australia, said he decided to support the petition as he was "horrified" at the way Sikhs had been treated and at what is still going on today. "What drove me to act in particular was that the United Nations and world leaders, including the Australian parliament in February this year - have recognised an act of genocide in Srebrenica, Bosnia, in 1995, when 7,000 men and boys were massacred due to their Muslim faith," the North Queensland MP explained. "I thought to myself, if something of that nature could be recognised so quickly by the world community, it seems unreasonable that the Sikh community has had to wait for so long." Official records show that a total of 35,000 claims of deaths and serious injuries were filed by Sikhs who sustained attacks during November 1984. Out of which more than 20,000 claims were from attacks that took place outside Delhi and in the states of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir; Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, said the press note.


According to Harkirat Singh, general secretary, Supreme Sikh Council of Australia, the "Genocide Petition" has been signed by thousands of community members across Australia. The Sikh community in Australia has been a vibrant part of the Australian cultural mosaic since 1897. Hundreds of Sikhs will travel to Canberra from across Australia and will be present in the public gallery in the House of Representatives during the tabling of the petition by Warren Entsch, the press note added.


A Brief Background


As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_anti-Sikh_riots - the 1984 Sikh Genocide[2][3][4][5] or the 1984 Sikh Massacre was a pogrom directed against Sikhs in  northern India in response to the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards, there were more than 3,000 deaths.[4] CBI is of the opinion that the acts of violence were well organized with support from the then Delhi police officials and the central government headed by Indira Gandhi's son,Rajiv Gandhi. [6] Rajiv, who was sworn in as the Prime Minister after his mother's death, when asked about the riots said "when a big tree falls, the earth shakes"

The Delhi High Court, while pronouncing its verdict on a riots-related case in 2009, stated:[33]

“Though we boast of being the world’s largest democracy and the Delhi being its national capital, the sheer mention of the incidents of 1984 anti-Sikh riots in general and the role played by Delhi Police and state machinery in particular makes our heads hang in shame in the eyes of the world polity. ”

In Delhi, 442 of the rioters were convicted by the courts. 49 of these were sentenced to the life imprisonment, and another three to imprisonment of more than 10 years. As of June 2012, one more case was pending in a Delhi court. 6 Delhi Police officers were punished for lapses during the riots.[41]



The charred and hacked remains of the hundreds that perished in Trilokpuri's Block 32 on the smoky and dank evening of 2 November 1984 were stark testimony to the unimpeded and seemingly endless massacre.Soon after news of Mrs Gandhi's killing by her Sikh bodyguards spread, Hindu mobs swung into action - like they did elsewhere in the city armed with voters' lists - in Trilokpuri against the low caste Sikhs inhabiting one-roomed tenements on either side of two narrow alleyways barely 150 yards long.With local police connivance they blocked entry to the neighbourhood with massive concrete water pipes and stationed guards armed with sticks atop them.For the next three days marauding groups armed with cleavers, scythes, kitchen knives and scissors took breaks to eat and regroup in between executing their bloodthirsty mission.

Sikhs were killed in the main railway station (Photo: Ashok Vahie)
When as a reporter then with the Indian Express newspaper I along with two other colleagues visited the area on the eve of Mrs Gandhi' funeral, both lanes were littered with bodies, body parts and hair brutally hacked off, forcing us to walk precariously on tip-toe. It was impossible to place one's foot flat on the ground for fear of stepping on either a severed limb or a body.Earlier in the day two policemen on a motorcycle had emerged from Block 32 and reassured us that shanti or calm prevailed inside it and no untoward incident had occurred.A few hours later on returning to the spot we saw that the entire area was awash with blood, a large proportion of it black coagulated mounds over which flies buzzed lazily. It was also piled high in the open drains on either side of the tenements, never efficient at the best of times, alongside other human remains.


From - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8306420.stm


The 339-page inquiry report by former Supreme Court judge, GT Nanavati, was tabled in parliament which said that recorded accounts from witnesses and victims of the rioting "indicate that local Congress leaders and workers had either incited or helped the mobs in attacking the Sikhs". The investigation found "credible evidence" against current Congress minister for non-resident affairs, Jagdish Tytler, "to the effect that very probably he had a hand in organising attacks on Sikhs".

The inquiry recommended further investigation into Mr Tytler's role. The investigation also found "credible evidence" against Congress politician, Dharam Das Shastri, in instigating an attack on Sikhs in his area. It also recommended examination of some cases against another Congress leader, Sajjan Kumar, for his alleged involvement in the rioting.

Mr Kumar had been cleared of leading a mob by a sessions court in Delhi in 2002 because of lack of evidence. The inquiry said there was "absolutely no evidence" suggesting that Mrs Gandhi's son, former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, or "any other high ranking Congress leader had suggested or organised attacks on Sikhs". The report said that the police "remained passive and did not provide protection to the people" during the riots. "There was a colossal failure of the maintenance of law and order," the report said. Relatives of the victims of the riots who spoke to the BBC were sceptical about the investigation.
"What is the use of this report? It practically exonerates most of the Congress leaders we had accused of leading the mobs. Nothing will happen to the big leaders," said Gurdip Singh, whose father Harbhajan, was killed by the rioters.

From - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4130962.stm


In his final arguments, CBI prosecutor RS Cheema told the court that the riots which targeted a particular community were "backed by both the Congress government and police".

"There was a conspiracy of terrifying proportion with the complicity of police and patronage of local MP Sajjan Kumar," the prosecutor told Judge JR Aryan, who will eventually pass judgement in the case. 
Mr Cheema said that witnesses at the scene heard Sajjan Kumar tell a crowd that "not a single Sikh should survive".

Sajjan Kumar and five others on trial with him deny charges of being involved in the killing of six people at Delhi Cantonment - or military area - during riots that were sparked by the killing of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. The trial began after a government inquiry found "credible evidence" that some Congress party leaders incited crowds to attack Sikhs during the riots and that they were not spontaneous.

from 
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17811666
The case against Sajjan Kumar was registered in 2005 on a recommendation by Justice GT Nanavati Commission. CBI had filed two charge sheets against him and the other accused in January 2010. 

The trial court had framed charges against Sajjan Kumar and the five others under Sections 302 (murder), 395 (dacoity), 427 (mischief to cause damage to property), 153-A (promoting enmity between different communities) and other provisions of the IPC. Sajjan Kumar is facing trial along with five others - Balwan Khokkar, Kishan Khokkar, Mahender Yadav, Girdhari Lal and Captain Bhagmal - for allegedly inciting a mob against the Sikh community in Delhi Cantonment area.

From -
 http://zeenews.india.com/news/delhi/1984-anti-sikh-riots-sajjan-questions-key-witness-s-conduct_801596.html

Riots are always a blot on the conscience of any nation, and as much as we talk about the 2002 Godhra riots, the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 are also a bitter reminder of the bestiality that we, as a nation, are capable of. Twenty eight years have passed since the riots – that some reports suggest was orchestrated by the Congress. Yet victims who are fighting for justice, say precious nothing has been done to bring the guilty to book.
HS Phoolka, a senior lawyer who has been fighting the case for many years said that there has been very little actually done on the ground to ensure that justice is served, and said that there was every evidence to suggest that the guilty were protected – both then and now – by some very powerful people.” The cases were not registered at all. Even when they were registered, most of the cases were closed,” he told CNN-IBN.

Evidence suggests that several Congress leaders might have been complicit in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Will the victims get justice? AFP

Phoolka said that in addition to the paucity of cases that were actually filed, the investigations had been so badly conducted that even the courts had repeatedly criticised the police. He alleged that one of the prime accused, Sajjan Kumar was helped thanks to forged documents.

And the rot just didn’t stop at investigations and prosecution. The lawyer also referred to the Mishra committee report which clearly said that despite the availability of a 5000 strong army, they were not deployed to stop the riots. There is also evidence, according to him, that then Home Minister Narasimha Rao had agreed to call in the army to put an end to the carnage, but had been dissuaded by someone, possibly higher up in the Congress, to ignore the call.

From - http://www.firstpost.com/politics/1984-anti-sikh-riots-is-asking-for-justice-a-study-in-futility-512171.html

C-block, or the "widows' colony," as it is more commonly known, is where Surinder Kaur, 65, lives today after she sold her house in Sagarpur and moved next door to her sister Harjinder Kaur, 57, a few years ago. Every morning, the women have tea together in a two-room house, where the only picture is of a newlywed Harjinder and her husband, killed 25 years ago in one of the darkest chapters in Indian history.

The widows' colony in Tilak Vihar is a cheaply built and neglected cluster of homes, which were given by the government to hundreds of women and their children who survived what have become known as the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. But as the grim event's 25th anniversary nears at the end of this month, crime, addiction and prostitution have taken root in what was supposed to be a survivors' safe haven. Residents say this is because of the damage to the mental health of children who were witness to their parents' and siblings' murders and who grew up in impoverished homes and weren't given any medical help — physical or mental — for their problems. "They'll slice a blade right through you if they know you're new to the area," warns Harjinder. "Even the autorickshaw drivers refuse to come here."
Devender Singh, 26, an unemployed drug addict whose father was killed before his eyes in 1984, says his brother was murdered in the colony a couple years ago and that it's likely he'll meet the same fate. "We're all thieves and addicts here," he says. "When you get no work, what else will you do?" The lawless attitude of the young people is an echo, residents say, of India's broken justice system. The young people saw no punishment for the crimes committed against their families, so they see no justice for the crimes they'll commit in the future.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1931635,00.html#ixzz2C85VR1ym


'via Blog this'