|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << June23, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net]1) caste play ,2) oil pooling |
June26, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net]Shivm,Yogi,Parvez & Regi's posts >> |
|
[1] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com Date: Thu Jun 23, 2005 Subject: Mumbai Hutment Dwellers' Struggle: An Update [The monsoon has already set in. There's no move to provide immediate, even if temporary, relief. This is a very serious omission. The enumeration, if carried out as an exclusively bureaucratic process, would result in huge exclusion. The process would also be vitiated by usual corrupt and extortionist practices. The state government is hell bent on doing precisely that. At the next hearing, on July 11, the court must be requested to intervene a fair enumeration by forming a monitoring committee having representatives of the people's / hutment dwellers' organisations and also institutions like TISS / Nirmala Niketan, in addition to the bureaucrats. The committee must have power to lay down norms and hear grievances. This is a great opportunity to push for a rational and humane housing policy and true makeover of Mumbai - with affordable housing for the toiling multitude eliminating the abysmally subhuman living conditions those obtain today. Activists and experts must put their heads together to put forward a serious people's plan, at least in broad outlines, for true Mumbai makeover. Mere rejection of the government actions/moves would just not do. Vilasrao had gone to the court to use it as a foil against the directives from Sonia Gandhi. But things apparently are moving in a very different direction. The activists must be ready to make the fullest use of the unforeseen and unanticipated opportunity. It's time to put forward and assert the right to shelter as a basic human and also constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right in a constructive and positive manner.] NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PEOPLE'S MOVEMENTS (NAPM) Haji Habib Bldg., First Floor, A wing, Naigoan Cross Rd., DADAR (East), MUMBAI 400 014. E mail: <mailto:_sansahil@..._sansahil@..., <mailto: medha@...medha@... ---------------------------- Press Note: Mumbai, 22. June 2005 Today the Advocate General of Maharastra raised the issue of Mumbai's slumdwellers in the High Court of the honourable Chief Justice Shri. Bhandari and Justice Shri Vajefdharke. The State filed a notice of motion in a case from 1999. They wanted the approval of the Court in extending the cut-off date for providing temporary rehabilitation during the monsoon to slum dwellers that have resided in the city from 1-1-95 to 1-1-00. They have proposed to house the slum dwellers in Mankhurd Mandala in the eastern suburbs and Ambujawadi in the western suburbs. The Court said that the State has the right to decide about the aforementioned issue. There is no need to involve the Court. The Andolan has been making this point since the beginning, but the State government has been taking the stand that the approval of the Court is required. This has resulted in the delay of rehabilitation of evicted slumdwellers and in the non-compliance of the notices from Smt. Sonia Gandhi. Due to this, thousands of families have not yet been rehabilitated, despite the onset of the monsoon. The Advocate General of Maharastra has submitted that they want to rehabilitate families who arrived in Mumbai by 1-1-2000. The exact numbers will be affirmed after the ongoing survey is completed. The Court, without mentioning any cut-off date, stated that every citizen has the right to shelter and housing. No one can stop any citizen from entering Mumbai and there can't be any restriction on movement of people in a democratic state. Furthermore, the State has said there has to be an affordable housingpolicy for the poor. The State has to also provide houses to those that cannot afford to pay. The Chief Justice commented that the Court has not stopped the government in providing any form of immediate relief. He also requested the State, in order to fulfill its constitutional obligation of providing shelter to every citizen, to draft a comprehensive housing policy and submit it before the Court. The next hearing will be on 11th July. The Court asked the Advocate General to also initiate a dialogue with the concerned organisations within the next four days so that a consensus can be reached. The slumdwellers were represented by Advocates Mihir Desai and Vinod Shetty. The organisations Cityspace and Agni were represented by Shri Aspi Chinod and Shri K. K. Singhvi represented the BMC. The State has been talking about and is committed to providing immediate relief only to people who have proved that they have been residing in Mumbai prior to 1-1-2000, not until the end of the year 2000. But in reality, the State has made no arrangements. With only the pre-2000 slumdwellers in mind, the State has only said that each family will receive 150 sq. meters [it's actually sq. ft. and that too against payment of Rs. 15,000.00], but the land has not been leveled yet to allow for settlement and no structures have been built. It would have been better, if during the monsoon period, if the government would have permitted the people to resettle temporarily on the land from which they were evicted. The struggle will continue until the people are adequately resettled and their rights to housing are recognized. Mohan Chauhan Kaushilaya Salve Medha Patkar ------------------------------------------------------ [2] From: <aa5756@wayne.edu> Date: Fri Jun 24, 2005 Subject: A Friend Recommends This Important Article From Frontpagemag.com p.josephraju thought you might be interested in this story from FrontPageMag.com: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18500 ------------------------------------------------ [3] From: "Joe Raju" <aa5756@wayne.edu> Date: Thu Jun 23, 2005 Subject: MSNBC.com Article: Ethiopian girl reportedly guarded by lions "God is our refuge and our strength, a very present help in trouble." Psalm 46:1 Ethiopian girl reportedly guarded by lions A 12-year-old girl who was abducted and beaten by several men was found being guarded by three lions who apparently had chased off her captors, a policeman said Tuesday. http://g.msn.com/0MN2ET7/2?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8305836&&CM=Email This&CE=1 ------------------------------------------------------ [4] From: Mukul Dube <arhardal@netscape.net Date: Thu Jun 23, 2005 Subject: [Fwd: From *The Hoot*] Did I not send this yesterday or the day before? I had certainly meant to. MD ----- http://www.thehoot.org/story.asp? storyid=Web61952349Hoot10712%20PM1637&pn=1 Posted 15 June 2005 Untoo, the police and the press ----- Why did no one from the press attempt to get more information than was given out at briefings? Did any newspaper ask its people in Kashmir to make enquiries about anything connected with this case? ----- Mukul Dube A report in the *Pioneer* of 26 February 2005 begins, "Delhi Police have arrested a former Kashmiri militant and a Pakistani agent, Mohammed Ahsun Untoo, from Church Road in Cantonment Area on charges of spying." Note that the staff reporter describes Untoo thus, implicitly accepting the claims of the police as fact. Here is how subsequent paragraphs of the report begin: "Police have recovered..."; "Deputy Commissioner of Police (south-west district) Dependra Pathak said..."; "Sources said..."; "The special staff got a tip- off...". Clearly an energetic and mobile reporter. The report says that Untoo was paid Rs. 6 lakh by the Pakistan High Commission for handing over "defence secrets". One of the documents "recovered" was a schedule of patrolling drawn up in the late 1950s, which just happens to be available to anyone for the asking. Untoo was charged under two sections of the Official Secrets Act. He was arrested on 12 February, and "on the basis of information received from him", his "associate" Gulam Nabi Nagar was arrested in Srinagar on 17 February. [All spelling errors in the published report have been reproduced faithfully.] The *Asian Age* of the same date calls these individuals Mohammed Ahsun Untoo and Gulam Nabi Najar. Untoo is described as "the former launching commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist group" and the other man is "his militant operator", the place of his arrest having changed to Baramulla. The list of "recovered" documents is much the same, but mobile phones "operating from Pakistan- occupied Kashmir", "fake identity cards" and "fake curfew passes" make their appearance. The report in the *Hindu* of the same date tries to play half- safe but falls on its face. It describes Untoo as "a self- proclaimed human rights activist" but says that he was arrested for "allegedly passing on sensitive information...." A little later we have, "Untoo, a former Hizb-ul-Mujahideen militant, had joined the human rights division of the APHC in 1994." It is not clear whether this division of the APHC consists only of self- proclaimed human rights activists or if Untoo is the lone one who sneaked in. This report also contains this fascinating information: "[Untoo] had been arrested ... for being in possession of AK-57 assault rifles. But, he was later acquitted." I call it fascinating because it is the mother of all Rubik's Cubes. What was Untoo doing with rifles (note the plural)? Was he a gun-smith licensed to stock, sell and repair unlicensed fire-arms? Had the security forces set up a museum of captured weapons and employed Untoo as its curator? We are not told of the charge or charges of which he was acquitted. Why, above all, did the staff reporter of the newspaper put in this singularly meaningless morsel? I can think of no reason other than the opportunity it gave to speak of an arrest and of weapons. Untoo's acquittal was an unfortunate but necessary footnote. Only one report published on that date, that which appeared in the *Times of India*, is almost entirely consistent in speaking of statements and claims made by the police. That is, it does not apply the stamp of truth to that which it does not know to be the truth. The first three reports give the date of Untoo's arrest as 12 February, all speak of Delhi's south-west police district, the first speaks of the cantonment area and the second speaks of Srinagesh Garden, which is in the cantonment. These reports were published in English newspapers. Of the three reports I have seen which appeared in Hindi newspapers, I shall speak only of the remarkable piece of work which the *Dainik Bhaskar* had put out some days earlier, on 12 February 2005. [The translation is mine.] "The Crime Branch Joint Commissioner, Ranjit Narain, said that solid clues about the attackers had been found, and they would soon be arrested. He said their links extended to Jammu and Kashmir." We should pay attention to three things here. The first is that "attackers" (plural) were spoken of. The second is that, as this very report said, "Even today, the police could not record Geelani's statement. They spent the whole day wandering about the hospital." When the police were finally allowed to meet Geelani - they had been held back not by Geelani himself or by cruel fate, as they and the newspapers constantly suggested, but by the doctors treating him - he spoke unambiguously of a *lone* attacker. How could the Joint Commissioner have said what he did? That is the third thing to which we should pay attention: the dates on which things happened or were said to have happened. We shall now look at claims that Untoo had already been in the custody of the police - but had not been formally arrested - for some days when Shri Ranjit Narain spoke to the *Dainik Bhaskar*. The *Statesman* of 17 May 2005 reported that S. A. R. Geelani's lawyer Nandita Haksar told members of the press that Untoo had in fact been illegally picked up by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police from the Priya Guest House in Paharganj on 9 February. She said he was being tortured so that he would confess falsely to having attempted to murder Geelani. The *Asian Age* of the same date says that Untoo was "allegedly beaten, tortured and sodomised in police custody." It goes on, "Untoo's lawyer N. D. Pancholi has filed an application on his behalf seeking protection of his life and enquiry into the torture by the police." Nandita Haksar is reported to have announced that a letter from Untoo, in which he had described the treatment meted out to him by the police, had reached the All-India Defence Committee for Syed Abdul Rehman Geelani. Sampat Prakash, state president of the All Jammu and Kashmir Trade Union Centre, is reported to have said, "Untoo is a well known human rights activist and is the chairman of the Human Rights Forum in J&K." It is not known if he said that that Forum was a bogus organisation which issued fake identity cards to non-existent members. The *Hindu* of the same date reported that "social activists from various organisations ... demanded that Mohammad Ahsan Untoo ... be immediately released." His lawyer, N. D. Pancholi, was reported to have said at a press conference, "He has told us that he was picked up by the police on February 9. But the FIR against him has only been lodged on February 12. Why this gap? And he was tortured and sodomised." The report says also that Untoo was "compelled to sign on blank pieces of paper." The *Indian Express* of 16 May had given Daryaganj, not Paharganj, as the location of the Priya Guest House. It had also said that Untoo's letter had been smuggled out. It had reported that the police had described Haksar's claim as false, given that the FIR in the case had been registered at the Delhi Cantonment police station. It had not, however, reported Haksar or Pancholi as having said that the FIR had been filed in Visakhapatnam. They had said that Untoo had been in illegal detention for three days. Assuming that the FIR was filed three days late, what was to prevent its being filed several miles away from the place where he had been picked up? If space can be changed, so can time. The police version may be true, of course: after all, there is an *official* document to show that it is true. Anyone who claims that it contains lies must prove that. If such a person presents an alternative document, the truth of that document - not an official one - must be established. The advantage always lies with those who have the majesty of the Indian State behind them. 12 February, the day on which the police claim to have arrested Untoo, was a Saturday. He was therefore produced before the duty magistrate the next day, a Sunday. Apparently this procedure has become routine in such cases. The accused, being surrounded by policemen who may well have been physically unpleasant to him or her, is usually too frightened to say anything to the magistrate, who therefore records only what the police say. It is part of the job of a magistrate to ask after the condition and welfare of the person being produced: but it appears that in this instance, the duty magistrate did not do this. Untoo could not say to the representative of Justice what appears in the next paragraph. The application mentioned in the *Asian Age* of 17 May (see above) was either not filed or else not heard. It contains these complaints: that Untoo was stripped and beaten; that a scavenger was made to sodomise him; that alcohol was forced down Untoo's throat and he was compelled to sign blank pieces of paper; that the magistrate before whom Untoo was produced on 13 February "did not give an opportunity to [him] to complain about the torture"; that the police denied him access to a lawyer as well as medical assistance; and that there had been reports in newspapers which said that Untoo had been arrested in connection with the attempt on S. A. R. Geelani's life. Despite the efforts of the police, though, Untoo did not "confess" to having made an attempt on Geelani's life. Possibly because setting him free could have created all manner of problems, the Delhi Police put together an assortment of papers - unless it keeps such things ready for such situations - and booked him under the Official Secrets Act. Untoo's lawyer, N. D. Pancholi, had spoken to the press. This is evident from the fact that at least one newspaper knew about and mentioned the "Application for protection of life ..." just described. Geelani's lawyer, Nandita Haksar, had spoken to the press. Sampat Prakash had spoken to the press. Why, then, were the complaints listed above buried by all but a few newspapers? Why is it that no one from the press appears to have attempted to get more information than was given out to all who attended the briefings? Did any newspaper ask its people in Kashmir to make enquiries about anything connected with this case? Was Untoo really "masquerading" as a human rights activist? Were identity cards really "recovered" from him, and were they really "fake"? What of the "large number of secret military documents, maps", etc., also "recovered"? Was Untoo carrying them on microfilm or on compact disks? In half a dozen suitcases on the back of a camel secretly brought in from across the border, perhaps? If indeed the police did any of the things which are listed in N. D. Pancholi's application, it is a serious matter in a country which calls itself a democracy. If indeed the magistrate before whom Untoo was produced failed to do his or her duty, that is a considerably more serious matter, since it reflects on our judiciary, to which was given both an independent place and great power in 1947 and in 1950. I do not know if the press is unaware of these matters. I do not know if the press considers these matters inconsequential. I do know, though, that in either eventuality, the press must be called, at the very least, irresponsible. It could be given a good many worse names. So far as I can see, it took the easy route: don't think, just swallow and regurgitate. Practise your vaunted "investigative journalism" only where unimportant, expendable people are not involved. Go where the gold is. Many have been saying, and for long - the press statement released on 16 May by Sampat Prakash was hardly the first example - that it has become the policy of the Indian State to "catch and frame" or "catch and kill" Kashmiris. It is legitimate to ask if there has been no change in the attitudes and biases - or the policy - of the Indian State despite the change of government at the Centre a year ago. The press cannot claim that it is not involved here. Does it not see Kashmiris as Indians and, for that reason, people to be respected and cared for by the Indian State? Is it the same press which, three years ago, roundly castigated Modi, Gujarat and the Sangh Parivar for having committed crimes against humanity in their own country? Is it now so obsessed with the stock market, fashion, motor cars and the shenanigans of political leaders who have no discernible ideology, that it has decided that such ideals as truth and justice are archaic and no longer of any consequence? -- Mukul Dube D-504 Purvasha Anand Lok .. Mayur Vihar 1 .. Delhi 110091 +91 (0)11 22752067 or 22750240 uthappam@... .. 22752067@... |
|
| << June23, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net]1) caste play ,2) oil pooling |
June26, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net]Shivm,Yogi,Parvez & Regi's posts >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |