PDA

View Full Version : ANSAL PLAZA



jataljaat
November 7th, 2002, 02:17 AM
dear members
the point is again raised on the police functioning after the ansal plaza shootout in delhi tat it was stage managed.
wat r d views of jatland members??
cheers
singh

harvindermalik
November 7th, 2002, 02:54 AM
is desh nai kise ugrwadi tai khatra na h..es desh ka nash yo media aale karange..agar polish phle mar de .. to plan tha.. bad mai shoot kre to..police nikkmi.. in new channels aalai nai apni biskut ki adv. bechni h.. inke trike dekho..train hadse ki lasho ko dikate h..niche likhte h ye tshvi execlusive h hamare channel.. k aachchi bat sai? fer uske bich mai break kr kai ..saman bechan lagjya sai.. ansal plaza mai jo mare gye.. ve koun the yo to bera na pr itna pakka h ki koi badhiya aadmi to na the..

abhishek
November 7th, 2002, 03:30 AM
I think I agree with harvinder free media is the biggest problem in India. Their zeal for one upmanship is extremely dangerous for our country. One of the main culprits in Gujrat was media. It gave exaggerated accounts of the event that took place and ignited the communal unrest. And the present case is also manifestation of that tendency.

jataljaat
November 7th, 2002, 07:25 AM
well, i got my answer.this is wat i felt bout the whole episode.free media is indirectly disturbing communal peace n harmony n every sphere of society..
but media has positive sides too..we cant ingore the educative role of media..they bring the far off problems in common eye..
it was media which bring out the tehalka episode and the corruption which was taking place in the highest order..
i think the major problem is with our political system....
1)partition of india.
2)emergency by indira gandhi to save her govt.
3)ram mandir issue which take hundreds of lives in its deadly web..
4)riots happening every noe n then in states..
5)anti sikh riots in 1984..
6)terrorism in punjab,jammu kashmir..
7)bodo's in assam, ltte problem...private
communal armies in several states..
8)scams involving politicians for the last 50 yrs
wat are we fighting with...........
no one has the answer..wait n watch situation..is that all????????????????????????????????????
cheers
singh

amitdahiya
November 8th, 2002, 06:42 PM
I think there may be another explanation as well. Many individuals and organisations seek international recognition and award( read also as reward) ever since the trend on Globalisation became uncontrolled.

Many NGO's have come up and they run a parallel campaign of agitating, criticising and often even undermining many institutions and agencies responsible with the running of our society, development. science and indeed our state. These NGO's too receive foreign funding for very carefully disguised social causes.

I remember one organisation in South India which was receiving money for treeplanting from a small european nation in an area where the Govt was already distributing saplings free of cost. Later it was found that the head of the institution was caught while committing an armed robbery in rural bank. The purpose was shocking. It was found after subjecting him to extreme interrogation that the raid was conducted to fund the LTTE.At that time India was at war with the LTTE. On many occasions I have seen members of that organisation participating in protests at various places in the country including our capital.They also attend seminars and conferences at the highest levels .

I think that there is something to the conspiracy theory that there are many entities in the world who are nervous about the shape of Indias emerging identity and through their agents they seek either to slow down our pace or stop our progress.
Success against Terrorism it would seem is not meant to be one of our areas of capability.
Regards
Amit Dahiyabadshah

rsdalal
November 8th, 2002, 07:44 PM
Amit Dahiya ji,
Apki bat make sense. Apko yadd hoga. 1998 me bhee kafee logon(Indians) ne protestet kiya tha govt ke tests ka. just because these NGO wanted to have some recognisation at international level. and because of that they get lots of invitations to seminars/confreneces in developed countries. They call it developing links with international bodies. This is the easiest and unexpensive way of achieving this.
...Ranvir

urmiladuhan
November 9th, 2002, 06:12 AM
I think media and the governance in India is still immature as comapared
to west. During the recent Chechen militant
encounter in Moscow, the Russians way of handling explosive situations was much more thought through reagrding liberties for media. Even though the Russian military did a bad job of using the toxic sleep inducing gas- how much do we hear about the down side of the governments operation? Not at all! The Russian government has not allowed free access to media, because they claim it was an issue related to the security of their country and hence media was largely kept out until government decided to release whatever information it deemed fit. After all, a country needs to preserve its image as a responsible country where law prevails! On the other hand, in Gujrat, it was free for all!! How much more irresponsible can a government get?
I don't know if majority of our politicians are
aware of the true image India has abroad at any point of time. That can explain why they
do not hesitate to go to any lengths in defaming each other at the cost of national image. This is very shameful indeed.

parul
November 20th, 2002, 06:03 PM
[ November 18, 2002]

Encounters Real and Fake
Ansal Plaza gets murkier

By Praful Bidwai

It is not usual for journalists, even those holding strong beliefs,
to become public-interest litigants. So it is only with considerable
deliberation that Kuldip Nayar and I decided last fortnight to
approach the National Human Rights Commission with a complaint
concerning what the police call their ³encounter², at Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi¹s posh shopping mall on the Diwali weekend, in which two
³Pakistani terrorists² were gunned down.

The last time I initiated a public-interest litigation was 21 years
ago, when I moved the Bombay High Court in the pavement-dwellers¹
case. What impelled me this time was the extraordinary nature of the
circumstances of the Ansal Plaza ³encounter². Both Mr Nayar our most respected journalists, with a distinguished record of
defending human rights<, and I, had been uneasy about the police
version of the events. Then, on November 6, The Asian Age published a
story quoting a Dr H. Krishna who claimed to be an eyewitness to the
event. He was emphatic that the ³terrorists² did not come to the
Plaza in a Maruti car as alleged; they were brought by the police;
they were unarmed, barely able to walk; the police killed them at
point-blank range.

Our complaint said that the salient facts, including Dr Krishna¹s
account, are disturbing enough to warrant an impartial inquiry. The
NHRC chairman, Justice J.S. Verma, passed an order within minutes of
our meeting him. He issued notice to the Delhi police commissioner
and ³anti-terrorism² Special Cell to respond to the adverse
allegations, and directed them to provide ³immediate and adequate
protection² to Dr Krishna.

Since then, the ³encounter² controversy has become more heated murky. Doubts have been cast on Dr Krishna¹s integrity and character
by raking up old (apparently long-closed) cases filed by estranged
relations. But the central issue is not his character, but his role
as a witness, hinging on his presence at Ansal Plaza. The Special
Cell insists he was not present in the Plaza basement. It backs its
stand by citing ³technical information² from a cellular telephone
company. The police haven¹t disclosed the material facts. Rather,
they have been leaking them selectively to ³sympathetic² publications
and reporters.

The issue has got politicised with BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley
accusing Nayar, me, and other ³so-called human rights activists² of
being ³the overground face of the underground². The VHP wants us
prosecuted as ³terrorist accomplices². Equally nasty statements have
come from other sangh parivar figures. The VHP has even demanded that
the NHRC be renamed National Terrorists¹ Rights Commission. And now,
Prime Minister Vajpayee himself has rationalised human rights
violations by saying (Nov 11) that ³tough decisions² have to be taken
while fighting terrorism, sometimes ³even infringing some of our
freedoms and abridging some of our human rights temporarily S so that
our future generations can live in peace and harmony.²

This is a remarkably frank admission of what the Indian state (like
some others) practises. Clearly, the parivar has made the ³encounter²
a loyalty test: Patriotism requires that we support the police; those
who don¹t are working hand-in-glove with terrorists. The posture you are either with the VHP-BJP, or against the Indian nation rooted in unspeakable arrogance. It equates crass Hindutva with
genuine patriotism, based on India¹s pluralist-secular Constitution.
But let¹s leave aside the BJP-VHP¹s defamatory statements. What
matters now is the numerous contradictions in the ³encounter²
theory witness. Consider the following:

? Police Commissioner R.S. Gupta said the police didn¹t have the
registration number of the terrorists¹ car (The Times of India, Nov
6). Joint Commissioner Neeraj Kumar told The Indian Express (Nov 4)
they had no details on ³the make or S numberS [only] a rough
description of the two menS² But hands-on Assistant Commissioner and
³encounter specialist² Rajbir Singh said: ³We had S the car number²
(TOI, Nov 4). The car was stolen in July, but the FIR for the theft
was lodged two days after the ³encounter².

? The police claimed the terrorists had two pistols, an AK-56 rifle
(in a bag) and only 60 rounds of ammunition. If they wanted to wreak
large-scale havoc in a prime shopping-mall, why didn¹t they carry
RDX, grenades and more AK-56s? The two men were clever enough to
enter India, travel to Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Kashmir in
disguise, and concoct false identities, but so stupid as to leave
their diaries in their pockets!

? The police say the terrorists fired 24 bullets, but they haven¹t
shown any spent cartridges. No policeman suffered even a scratch.
Worse, contrary to all professional and ethical norms, the police
handled the alleged terrorists¹ weapons without gloves in the full
glare of TV cameras. As even a schoolchild knows, this is not done if
you want to preserve fingerprints.

? The police first claimed the ³encounter² lasted 15 to 20 minutes
and involved 30-35 Special Cell operatives, many of them armed with
AK-56 guns. Although these have small (30-round) magazines, they fire
at the very rapid rate of 600 bullets a minutes. But instead of the
huge number of holes such firing would leave in the basement walls,
there are only 13 such holes. Later, the police disclosed that they
fired a total of 52 rounds, and the ³terrorists² another 24. However,
they still cannot account for a good 41 of the 76!

? The police delayed ordering autopsy on the two bodies by over 72
hours. They claimed there was a month¹s delay in the December 13 case
too. In fact, that autopsy was done on December 17. They said they
referred the present matter to the Home and Foreign ministries; the
clearance would take 20 days. Then, on November 9, they hastily
ordered an autopsy. The only publicly-disclosed sentence in the
autopsy report gives an extra-medical opinion ³haemorrhage² were caused by ³firearms², and ³could have been
sustained in a police encounter². Doctors cannot determine this.

? The police claim that 19 eyewitnesses ³confirm² their account. But
none of those paraded on TV on say they actually saw the terrorists
shooting.

? The police failed to summon independent ballistic experts. They
claim they were tracking the terrorists for three months. But they
didn¹t know their whereabouts even a few days before the
shootout
? Pictures show one dead man clutching his pistol. Ballistic experts
and physiologists say that under heavy fire, the victims¹ first
reaction ³is to release whatever they are holding². It is hard to
believe the weapon wasn¹t planted after the event.

The Delhi police have a lot of answering to do. They claim, on the
strength of cellphone records, that Dr Krishna only reached Ansal
Plaza two hours after the encounter. According to an IIT-Chennai
telecom expert, cellphone records can only give the approximate
location (with 1 to 1.5 kilometres) of a user. More precise
information (within, say, 100-150 metres) can only be obtained if
calls are tracked on the basis of advanced authorisation in Dr Krishna¹s case, short of an odious deal with the police. The
fact that the user¹s record shows s/he accessed one cell (one of many
transceivers in a mobile network) does not prove s/he was nearest
that cell. If one cell is busy, the call is diverted to another.

The murky nature of these events has impressed itself firmly on the
public mind. Thinking people everywhere are asking: Was this
encounter calculated to spread fear and insecurity, and thus
³normalise² the use of indiscriminate force? Why does the Home
Minister appear at the site of each terrorist event? Is he trying to
create the impression that he alone can defend citizens against
terrorism? Is there a deeper game? Why should a policeman, even Mr
Rajbir Singh ³encounter² without the assurance of apex-level political support?

These troublesome questions must not be ducked. Too many people are
being killed after being designated ³terrorists². In J&K, no fewer
than 1,296 have been shot dead this year. Andhra alone records 250
³encounters² a year. In Uttar Pradesh, there were 150 custodial
deaths in 2000. In India, each year, over 2,000 habeas corpus
petitions are filed but largely ignored. This is unacceptable.
Terrorism must be fought a lawless, barbaric, state fights it with summary, brutal and cruel
methods
Even wars have to be fought lawfully. Rules of warfare are
incorporated in various Geneva Conventions and international
treaties. The state cannot summarily extinguish human life. The
police have no right whatever to do so. That is the function only of
a court of law. A state that kills terrorists on mere suspicion
itself practises terrorism. Many condone this on the assumption that
a few ³excesses² are permissible because the real enemy is Pakistan.
This view is dangerously wrong. Tomorrow¹s ³terrorist² Cell¹s target brutality than against militant terrorism.
_____

rsdalal
November 20th, 2002, 07:33 PM
This artical is crap and Kuldeep Nayar is not doing any good to the Country, except he just create hurdles. Article talks about law and order should be followed by police.
In my opinion police have done a very good job.
These journalists make too much out of these cases, if these two terrorists were two inocent boys where is there parents, why they do not claim their bodies ?

harvindermalik
November 25th, 2002, 01:06 AM
Geneva Conventions and international
treaties...kya sari baten police ko hi follow karni hai???!!!!baki koi treaty in patrkaaro pr in terrorists pr na asar karti!!!!!
ye petrkaar chhahe jis pr gand uchhle.. in pr pota bhi na lagna chhahiye...ye ugarwadi chahe jise mare inko human rights bhi chahiye... jo log human ki kimat hi na samzte ho un ko kis bat ke human rights chahiye...