Thursday, August 28, 2008

A mass rally participated by people from different section taken out to mark the 43rd Hunger Marchers’ Day




1965 heroes remembered fittingly
By Our Staff Reporter
IMPHAL, Aug 27: Remembering the student leaders who sacrificed their lives during the August 27, 1965 agitation against artificial scarcity of rice in Manipur, the 43rd Hunger Marchers’ Day was observed today along with taking out a mass rally and paying befitting tributes to the martyred student leaders.
After offering floral tributes and paying homage to the martyred student leaders namely Nilamani, Nabakumar, Chaobhal and Pramodini at their Pishum Chinga Macha memorial, the mass rally was taken out till THAU ground at Thangmeiband where a public meeting was held.
Organised under the aegis of All Manipur Students’ Union (AMSU) as in the past, today’s function was also attended by representatives of Democratic Students’ Alliance of Manipur (DESAM).
Presided over by AMSU president Khamba Laishram, the public meeting proceeded with Vice Chancellor of Manipur University Prof C Amuba taking the dais as chief guest and DESAM president H Ashir-jit Luwang, former AMSU presidents Y Priyokumar, RK Itocha, L Gojendra and S Budhichandra as guests of honour.
The meeting also adopted three resolutions. The first resolution stated that AMSU would fight against hike in the prices of essential commodities with the co-operation and support of the people. The second resolution stated that AMSU would continue its anti-drug campaign along with the support and co-operation of the teachers and students and the third resolution said that AMSU would fight against violation of human rights with the support of the people.
Earlier giving the key note address, general secretary of AMSU Premananda Tongbram recalled the events leading to the students’ agitation against artificial scarcity of rice in 1965.
Speaking as chief guest, Prof C Amuba observed that while paying homage to the student leaders who laid down their lives during the course of agitation against artificial scarcity of rice in 1956, attention should also be given to the problems of rise in the price of essential commodities today.
The main message and objective behind observing the Hunger Marchers’ Day should be unmasking the evil forces which are trying to usurp the rightful shares of the people, he added.
In his presidential address, Khamba Laishram pointed that AMSU has been observing Hunger Marchers’ Day every year to remind the people that AMSU is always at the beck and call of the people in taking up social causes
DESAM president Ashirjit Luwang, who also spoke at the occasion noted that the significance of the Hunger Marchers’ Day is not only for AMSU but for all the people of Manipur.
In the light of ever escalating price of essential commodities and people under the control of big businessmen, observance of Hunger Marchers’ Day has become all that more relevant today, he said, while exhorting the people to stand up as one against such evils in society.
Apart from former presidents of AMSU, leaders of civil organisations spoke at the meeting.

Arming villagers won’t solve Manipur problems

Arming villagers will not bring any solution to the situation rather it will lead to destruction. The state government’s recommendation of setting up Special Police Officers (SPOs) is obviously dangerous instead the state government should recruit villagers as regular police personnel, sociologist Nandini Sunder of Delhi School of Economics said while delivering a lecture on “Arming Villagers: The Chhatisgarh Experience” organized by the Centre for Manipur Studies, Manipur University at the University Recreation Hall in Imphal.

The talk programme was organised in the wake of the state government decision to set up SPOs in Heirok in Thoubal district and Lilong Chajing in Imphal West.

Prof Nandini pointed out that the outcome after some of Chhatisgarh villagers were armed against Naxalites by the government was the total breakdown of law and order and civil administrations. She said that atmosphere of terror with impunity to commit murders, rapes, and arsons are the results after arming them.

She also said that the use of Adivasis as human shields by the government forces against Maoist is another upshot Chhatisgarh had experienced after arming its villagers. Prof Nandini further said that dividing the fabrics of the society and destroying the traditional ways of life is also the essential effect on the social life of the Chhatisgarh villagers once they were provided arms by the government.

It may be mentioned that SPOs had been set up in Chhatisgarh and Jammu and Kashmir in an attempt to protect villagers from the rebels’ incursion. Each of the SPOs in Chhatisgarh and Jammu and Kashmir were enjoying Rs 1,500 per month as a token honorarium.

Prof Nandini Sunder pointed out that the SPOs in both the states have been complaining of irregularities in payment of their salaries.

She also opines that a mass based open discussion should have been organized before the arming of the villagers.

Prof Nandini Sunder, who had her education from the universities of Oxford and Columbia, serves at the sociology department of the Delhi School of Economics, was a part of the group of intellectuals who filed a case in the Supreme Court against arming of villagers in Chhatisgarh.

Singur: Where Do I stand?

Ratan Tata today expressed his dismay in Kolkata on the ongoing violence and agitation in Singur, the village outside Calcutta where Tata Motors is building a factory to make world's cheapest car - Nano. It is a big decision for Tata Motors, and I am sure they will consider all aspects and pull out only if the project is completely unworkable. This is a big moment for West Bengal too - the state of India I come from - as a pull-out will land a significant blow on the state's future prospects of inviting investment and development. It is a moment to decide, which side one's in, even if someone is as distant as I am. However, it isn't easy to take sides, considering the issues and personalities involved, and this is why so many Bengalis worldwide are in a state of confusion over this issue.

Let me explain. At about $2500, Tata Nano cars are bound to change the urban middle class of India - their consumption pattern, the way they shop and ultimately they think about their life. It was an interesting decision from Tata Motors to build this factory in West Bengal in the first place. West Bengal isn't known for its friendliness to industries, due to its leftist government who have actively sponsored industrial action and scared away most of the industries from the state in the past. But Tata's decision, partially facilitated by his excellent relationship with the state's Chief Minister, was an important step - a signal that West Bengal's industrial isolation was finally over, and spawned a new sense of optimism about the state and its prospects.

It is sad that it has to come to this. The state Government made a series of mistakes in implementing the deal. Out of their desperation to get Tatas to invest, they spread out a deal incredibly sweet - 900 acres of prime land near Calcutta [and on the main transport links] at a throwaway price. However, while part of this understandable and goes on to show the relative positions on the negotiation table [every state in India wanted the Tatas and this high profile factory; it was the prize project that could change West Bengal's perception as an industry friendly state], the government made a series of mistakes in communicating the details of the deal, underestimating the potential problems in acquiring land and the reaction of the media. All the Chief Minister, Budhdhadev Bhattacharya, the prime architect of the deal was concerned about was some prime time minutes for himself, projecting him as the turnaround artist for West Bengal, with the likes of Ramkrishna Hegde of Karnataka, among others. The way the communication exercise was handled goes on to show how complacent and inefficient the party in Government has become after thirty years of rule - they lost touch with people and their sense of accountability altogether.

Apart from the naivety of the Government, the other problem arose when the opposition leader, Ms Mamta Banerjee, a rable rousing loser, chose to make this deal an issue and wanted to fight for 'farmers' rights'. Ms Banerjee has proved herself to be an opportunist of the worst kind - she went in to launch a statewide agitation against this factory in Singur. Soon, the project was no longer the central issue at all - it became a referendum against the left rule and surely there are lots of people in the state who would love to see this government go. However, what Ms Banerjee did not realize, or did not want to realize, is that she was playing with fire - subverting this project will reinforce the industry-wary image of West Bengal and permanently damage its future. She did not care, precisely because she believed that she can not win an election anyway - all she wanted is some prime time minutes for herself and spoil Budhdhdev's party.

So, the state of West Bengal was caught between a Prime Time hungry Chief Minister and Prime Time hungry opposition leader. So were the Tatas, because the resulting violence and disorder is now threatening their project and will potentially delay the launch of the car. This car has now got world's attention - I have seen all big-name publications covering the news of the '$2500 car' - and such delay will be a huge embarrassment and cause competitive disadvantage, because many other companies have a budget car in their works.

It will indeed be very harmful for the state if Tatas have to pull out now. Mamta Banerjee's grasp over economic issues were always a suspect, but her comment that the Government should go ahead and allocate the 600 acres of land earmarked for the Tata factory, but return the other, 300 acres or so, earmarked for ancillary units, to the farmers, leaves me clueless. Does she think that ancillary units are not needed? Or does she think the job creation will happen in the main factory, and ancillary units have no impact on local jobs? And, who does she think will own and run the ancillary units? Tatas will have a choice of the states, but the ancillary units are owned by local entrepreneurs, who face potential ruin after investing in the units for last year or so. This will have a long term impact on the local economy, more harmful than just the loss of investor confidence and will result in real ruination of real lives, and I am sure Ms Banerjee does not care about this at all.

So, I am on state government's side, wants the Tata factory to happen, right? Only partially, in the fact that I want the Tata factory to happen. It is too big a cost for the state to back-paddle. But the State Government has messed up big time, and will only be saved by Mamta's foolishness. The true issues with this deal are not whether the factory should stay. The true issues are whether this is the right model of development - will such big name factories solve the state's employment problem? Hardly. The state government is as much biased against small industry as Mamta Banerjee. Their model of development is completely off the mark - in fact, they don't have any model except some cheap mimicry of the other pioneering Indian state chief ministers. They lack the vision and the perspective, and an intent to secure the future. As enterprise isn't something they care for, so is environment. Millions of small cars on the street and heavy industry around the city suburbs will not be a model of development in near future. Cities will have to compete with their environment and energy efficacy. Left parties voted against the nuclear deal recently shows us how much they remain tied to the past; their big industry model of development exemplifies how they continue to suffer from their failure of imagination.

BMW Case: The story so far

The much-publicised trial in the BMW hit-and-run case is nearing its end with judgment being reserved for September 2. The case dates back to January 10, 1999 when Sanjeev Nanda, the grandson of former Admiral S.M. Nanda, who was allegedly driving a BMW and was returning from a party in Gurgaon with his friends Siddharth Gupta and Manik Kapoor had rammed into a petrol pump near Lodhi Road. The crash resulted in the death of six people —Rajan Kumar, a CRPF constable, Ram Raj, a home guard, Peru Lal, Nasir, Gulab and Mehdi Hasan. Metronow brings you the various twists in the case over the last nine years.

Nanda’s unconditional “assistance package”

A good 20 days after the incident, Sanjeev Nanda’s family offered an unconditional “assistance package” to the families of the victims. Ignoring the fact that the case was in court, the family went ahead and paid the families compensation. They gave Rs. 10 lakh to each family. The compensation was given at a time when Sanjeev Nanda was still in police custody.

The Delhi Police sought the government’s permission to appoint city lawyer I.U. Khan as special public prosecutor in the case to match

the powerful set of lawyers representing Sanjeev Nanda which included R.K. Anand, D.C. Mathur and Ramesh Gupta. For eight years, the prosecution failed to get any evidence against the accused with Kulkarni as the only witness. All the other witnesses turned hostile. After recording Kulkarni’s statement in 2007, a sting operation conducted by a private television channel caught Anand, the defence counsel for Nanda and prosecutor Khan in collusion. The sting showed both attorneys trying to bribe Kulkarni into changing his testimony that implicated Sanjeev Nanda in the case. Khan was soon dropped from the case and Rajeev Mohan was

recommended as the new special public prosecutor.

Sunil Laxman Kulkarni: key witness & his story

Initially Sunil Kulkarni, a Mumbai-based businessman was dropped from the list of witnesses because of contradictory statements. Kulkarni later emerged as key witness in the case. He came up as a witness about six days after the incident.

His statement was recorded by the police under section 164 CrPC after which he stood by his words. However, when the trial in the case began and statement of three witnesses had been recorded, Kulkarni moved an application in the court of Additional Session Judge P.K. Bhasin in 1999 stating that he needed protection as the police was harassing him.

He also claimed in the application that the initial statement given by him was given under police duress. Kulkarni had claimed that the police were adamant on nailing Nanda as an accused. Soon after, the prosecution dropped him as a witness, predicting that he would turn hostile.

In 2007, however, prosecution once again recalled him. Kulkarni said in his statement that, “I did not see Sanjeev Nanda driving the vehicle.” However, he identified Nanda

as the man who was one of the three present on the night of the incident. In the court, too, he identified Nanda in the court as one of the men he saw that night. Kulkarni added, “I also heard someone say, ‘Lets rush Sanj, Sidh’”.

He also testified in court that three persons, who were inside the car. But he failed to identify who was driving the car.



What Khan failed to bring to the notice of the court

Evidence that prosecutor I.U. Khan failed to bring to court’s notice were brought out by Rajiv Mohan. This included key scientific evidence. Around nine finger prints were collected from the car, out of which two were collected from the steering wheel. The police had collected samples of blood stains found on the steering wheel and on Nanda’s shirt— seized after the incident—were of the same blood group.

Nanda, whose blood group —B+, was collected by the police during the investigation. The blood sample obtained from Nanda, however, was not analysed and thus got putrefied. They have again asked for Nanda’s blood sample. However the blood on the steering wheel is now putrified.

The wait is almost over, after almost a decade finally the judgment in the BMW case will be pronounced on September 2. Let’s hope justice delayed for so long is not justice denied.

Our question to you is: Do you think after so many twists, justice will finally be served in the BMW case?

Villains of the Valley - kashmir issue

Let there be no dispute over this simple fact: India is being banished from the Valley of Kashmir. Separatism is the mildest of words one can use to describe the soaring hate, which continues to be further accentuated by the flags of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan fluttering over erupting streets.


How certain countries colonise without firing a single shot! Or more aptly perhaps, how certain countries allow emotional secession with such stoic detachment! Shocking? Not to anyone in South Block. Not yet.

You may say this is the moment for all honourable men to come together for the sake of the Nation Endangered. To the shame of us all, in India of the moment, honour and nation are incompatible. It is not politically viable to be honourable.

And the nation is negotiable when immediate political dividends are higher. Nothing illustrates this truism better than Jammu and Kashmir, where India has vanished from the minds of those politicians who swear by Kashmiriyat and other such sonorous abstractions.

A divided Kashmir shows how far we have come in disowning the nation. If in the Valley it has exposed the communal instincts of the so-called mainstream politicians and provided an easy cause to professional separatists, in Delhi it has brought to the fore the UPA Government’s art of selective secularism—an art that has to be perfected on the eve of elections.

It is as if the entire political class needs the prism of religion to see a Kashmir they can comprehend. They have set the stage for those for whom India is only a second thought to play out their secessionist agenda.

And don’t blame it on God. Blame it on men who misread, mislead and misrepresent. A brief history of the Amarnath land dispute will tell us that much. The Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) comes into existence in 2001, when Farooq Abdullah is the chief minister.

In 2005, the then governor S.K. Sinha, as chairman of the board, writes to chief minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed asking for land to accommodate the rising number of pilgrims. The forest minister passes an order allotting 40 hectares of land to SASB for temporary use.

While the government awaits clearance from various agencies, someone moves the high court for speedy allotment of land to the board. The court asks the state Government to permit the SASB to develop the forest land for the Amarnath pilgrims. Following an appeal by the state, a division bench of the court amends the earlier order stating that the use of the land “would remain limited for the duration of the yatra”.
Nothing much happens for the next three years. In June this year, the Ghulam Nabi Azad cabinet approves unanimously “the diversion of forest land measuring 39.88 hectares for raising prefabricated structures only for camping purposes of pilgrims without going in for construction of permanent structures”.

The order also makes it clear that “the proprietary status of the land shall remain unchanged” and it will be “returned to the Forest Department when it is no longer required by the SASB”. A deceptive calm follows, and it lasts just two days.

Then begins the campaign, quite incendiary in nature, and it goes like this: the Hindus are coming, it’s cultural invasion, it’s demographic sabotage, the land will be used for permanent settlement…The state Government, on its part, fails to convince the Valley that there is no transfer of ownership— a fatal communication gap.

The separatists—or secessionists?—have been waiting for a provocation. They get one and nobody bothers to read the fine print. Such anti-India veterans and wholesale merchants of hate as Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq hit the streets and declare war on the country which still indulges them.

National Conference President Omar Abdullah and PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti, driven by the fear of losing their political space in the Valley to the Hurriyat, join the anti-national movement and demand the revocation of the order.

Mehbooba threatens withdrawal of support to the Government if the order is not revoked by June 30. Azad succumbs. Sinha has been replaced by N.N. Vohra, a former home secretary and a favourite of the prime minister. The Congress high command—read 10 Janpath—decides to repeat what it is traditionally good at: minority appeasement.
And it has a trust vote to win in Parliament and every vote counts, including Mehbooba’s and Omar’s. Governor Vohra becomes a servile instrument of his political employer and the order is revoked.

Nothing more has been required for the emotional as well as cultural Balkanisation of the state. The economic blockade initiated by the protagonists of the Amarnath cause has only helped the mobilisation of anti-India—which means pro-Pakistan— sentiment in the Valley.

No nationalist— not to speak of the Government—has come forward to the rescue of India. The most visible flag in Srinagar has the Islamic crescent on it. Suddenly, Mirwaiz, Geelani, Yasin Malik and Omar are united in their cause.

When they mention “New Delhi”, it sounds like an imperial foreign capital. It’s the cry of azadi all over again. The secessionists, whom “New Delhi” lets flourish in the Valley, now demand the release of all political prisoners and demilitarisation of the state.
Kashmir is falling apart, and it seems the Centre cannot hold. Or short-term political expediency has triumphed over longterm national interest. The tragedy of the Valley cannot be reduced to the size of that anodyne comedy called Shivraj Patil.

Then he also happens to be the home minister of India, and going by what he says—which is as revealing as Bushisms—and does, we still don’t know what his idea of internal security is. He should be doing something more tolerable. And for the National Security Adviser, Kashmir is not a favourite destination.

Even the nationalism of the nationalists has a political subtext. BJP leader L.K. Advani may be right when he says that “the problem in Jammu and Kashmir today is not Hindu versus Muslim; nor is it even Jammu region versus the Valley. It is essentially nationalists versus the separatists.”

The Saffronites, by championing the cause of the shrine board, have turned the crisis into a real estate dispute between the aggrieved Hindu and the appeased Muslim.

The reality is much more frightening: the real estate at stake is bigger than those 40 hectares. The territorial ambition of the secessionists— what else does azadi mean?— has made Kashmir a disputed land, at least for a section of its inhabitants.

A Government that governs by communal appeasement and a political class that betrays the nation for the expansion of the votebank have only added to the force of hate. It’s a war within, and those who have the mandate to keep the unity of India intact are supplying the ammunition. The villains of the Valley are the enemies of the Republic as well.