Rss

  • stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Archives for : IB

Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case – CBI chief partied with former IB boss he charged

ishrat1

Rajesh Ahuja, Hindustan Times  New Delhi, July 25, 2014

Four months after the CBI brought charges of conspiracy against former senior Intelligence Bureau official Rajinder Kumar in the alleged Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case, its director Ranjit Sinha and his deputy were at a party thrown by the ex-sleuth, HT has learnt.

Sinha and his deputy Anil Sinha’s presence at a function to celebrate Kumar’s son’s wedding showed collusion between the prosecuting agency and the accused, Vrinda Grover, the lawyer for Jahan’s mother Shamima Kauser, alleged.

“Ranjit Sinha by socialising with Kumar, whom the probe agency has charged in the Ishrat case with his apparent approval, has compromised the office of the CBI director,” Grover told HT. “He should be immediately removed.”

Ranjit Sinha declined comment, saying it was a private matter. “I don’t want to talk to you,” was Kumar’s response.

The trial is yet to begin in the sensational case as the home ministry is still to give the go-ahead to the CBI to prosecute Kumar, who retired from service last year.

The party was held on June 7 at an officers’ mess near the airport in the Capital, sources told HT. Many senior retired and serving government officials were present, sources who attended the function told HT.

The CBI chief’s deputy and agency’s special director Anil Sinha confirmed he was at the party but denied his presence amounted to a conflict of interest. The probe against Kumar has been completed, Sinha said.

The agency, Sinha said, had sent all the documents to the home ministry for the permission to prosecute Kumar.

“The CBI is not only an investigating agency but also a prosecuting agency and the trial in the case is yet to start,” Grover countered.

There was little hope for justice for Jahan as the CBI had compromised its institutional integrity, she said.

Mumbai girl Ishrat Jahan, 19, and three others were killed allegedly in a staged gunfight on June 15, 2004 in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The police claimed the four were Lashkar terrorists out to kill Narendra Modi, the then CM.

The encounter was fake and some 12 Gujarat Police officials planned and carried out the murders with four IB officials, including Rajinder Kumar, the CBI told the court in a February 7 charge sheet.

But the court hasn’t taken note of the charges against Kumar and three IB officials in the absence of the mandatory government sanction.

The CBI and home ministry, which administers IB, disagree over the documents required for the Centre’s go-ahead. The CBI has refused to share the case dairy with the ministry, which insists it cannot take a decision with going through it.

 

Read mor ehere- http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/cbi-chief-partied-with-former-ib-boss-he-charged-in-ishrat-case/article1-1244303.aspx

Related posts

This is not what India’s premier intelligence agencies should be doing

By HARTOSH SINGH BAL | June 27, 2014
The appointment of former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium as a Supreme Court judge was blocked on the basis of a questionable intelligence report, one of several such recent reports.
AP IMAGES
 1711 705

Single Page

On 20 June, the front page of the Indian Express had three stories sourced from the Intelligence Bureau or the Central Bureau of Investigation. The flier on the page stated that Raghu Raman, the CEO of the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), was not being given an extension due to an IB report documenting his “misconduct” with foreign nationals. The lead story dealt with a “categorical opinion” by the CBI arguing against Gopal Subramaniam’s elevation as a judge of the Supreme Court, and the third was a follow up of the impact on Greenpeace of the IB’s report that NGOs were stalling India’s economic growth. In each report the agency concerned seemed to echo the government line, and the news reports had faithfully reproduced the tenor of the allegations. Sceptism, if any, about the quality of intelligence, the veracity of the information or the convenience of the allegations, was relegated to a few opinion pieces carried on subsequent days.

The Indian Express was only reflecting a long-term trend in the media that is being exploited by the current government. Praveen Donthi, reporting on India’s “compromised security beat” in the December 2013 issue of The Caravan, had noted: “The price of access to early and ongoing information is a willingness to report it more or less as it comes, without too much regard for its provenance.” But even that does not explain the tendency of editors to go along with what their reporters bring back, even when the evidence seems to suggest the government had arranged to make the report available widely.

Editors in Delhi largely come in two shades. The first, and this is particularly true of television, consists of those who have been correspondents but over the years developed a far too easy access to Delhi’s power elite, which includes senior IB officials, and have become willing tools in the hands of a powerful ruling dispensation. The second consists of those who have never reported—though some may have spent their time writing on food or music, others have been restricted to the desk for much of their careers. Neither is good preparation for understanding how the IB functions.

I first encountered IB operatives while reporting in Punjab for the Indian Express from districts such as Ludhiana and Jalandhar. Everyone knew these inspector-level field operatives. They had been based in these towns for a long time and, perforce, had developed a good working relationship with most journalists and politicians. Often their demands extended to no more than knowing what had transpired at a press conference behind closed doors.

They were, for the most part, men who were good at their work, but though the border state was just recovering from militancy, much of their time was spent tracking political activity because their superiors had very little interest in the work the agency was really supposed to do. The reports they filed—and this is true even for the reports that have so conveniently begun surfacing after Narendra Modi has taken charge—were based as much on gossip and innuendo as they were on facts that could be substantiated. Leave alone meeting the standards of evidence in a court, if these reports were filed as news reports without the crutch of the IB name, any good editor would toss them aside.

The field operatives had a large dose of contempt for their IPS seniors in Delhi, who often had very little field experience in policing or intelligence but possessed the right family connections (what was once true of the RAW, which is derisively called the Relatives and Associates Wing, now extends to most intelligence setups in the country). In their view, these were the men who had failed to stand up to politicians. In a bid to promote their own careers, these IPS officers had taken to sourcing the kind of political information that had everything to do with the interests of a regime, but nothing to do with the interests of the state.

Writing on the functioning of Indian intelligence agencies, the executive director of the Institute of Conflict Management in Delhi, Ajai Sahni has made the same point in necessary detail: “The legitimacy and the effectiveness of intelligence agencies are best served where agencies make a clear distinction between the state and regime—though the state is, of course, represented by the transient regime. Legitimate intelligence operations serve the interests of the constitutional state, and are required to resist subordination to the partisan interests of particular regimes from time to time. National security and constitutional values are the touchstone against which legitimacy is to be defined. Intelligence agencies discredit themselves by misdirection; by providing false, misleading and ‘convenient’ intelligence—intelligence that conforms, not to the realities of the ground, but to the expectations of the political executive and other ‘consumers’; or by their willingness to lend themselves to partisan political abuse of powers, or to political and electoral manipulation.”

The recent IB report on Greenpeace, authored by a senior IPS officer in the IB, is a case in point of the dangers Sahni has flagged. In its conclusions it notes, “Many observers believe that the Greenpeace claim that it raises funds only from individuals appears suspect as the issues it supports clearly reveal a slant towards European Union’s pro-environmental agenda.” For one, it seems the IB has been unable to collect any real information that can raise a doubt about Greenpeace’s funding. Further, to detect anything underhand in the similarity of views held by the EU and Greenpeace is to ignore the fact the views Greenpeace represents have become politically influential in Europe and the EU only reflects this. The IB report thus is weak both on facts and interpretation, but our editors have had no hesitation in letting it play out over days on the front pages.

It is evident to most people with any semblance of common sense that IB reports do not just start appearing in public unless the agency or the government wants them to appear. In nearly twenty years of journalism, I have never seen IB reports become public in such profusion as they have in the first month of the Modi government, and in each case they serve to further a decision that the government seeks to implement in the face of criticism. It is also true that in twenty years, I have never seen editors, despite the fact that so many of them have done similar favours for the Congress in the past, so keen to please a new political dispensation.

Perhaps, it is best to invoke what KPS Gill, whose knowledge of policing in this country will not be contested by the Modi government, wrote in the December 2012 issue of the Indian Police Journal, “No policing and intelligence apparatus can perform its functions with requisite competence, if it is compromised by corruption, or where its officers and personnel are mixed up with the very people they are meant to monitor. Nor can an intelligence system fulfil its mandate if it is constantly looking to please political masters by telling them what they want to hear, rather than what is actually the case; or worse, when the agencies are directly involved in orchestrating political mischief—something neither State nor Central agencies are innocent of. On at least some occasions, the consequences of this last deviation have been devastating to the national interest.”

Today, we are at one such moment of deviation from the national interest, which differs vastly from the interests of this government.

– See more at: http://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/not-what-india%E2%80%99s-premier-intelligence-agency-should-be-doing#sthash.qzrNlrKb.dpuf

Related posts

#India – Home ministry has own list, different from IB’s, of donors and donees #WTFnews

,TNN | Jun 20, 2014, 06.10 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Barely six months before IB came up with its controversial report on “foreign-funded NGOs”, the home ministry had published a list of the top 15 foreign donor agencies. Barring Action Aid, none of those agencies have figured in IB’s assessment of the foreign donors allegedly seeking to “take down Indian development projects”.

Similarly, there is little overlap between the Indian NGOs named in the IB report of June 3 and the top 15 “recipient associations” listed in the home ministry’s December 2013 report on the “receipt and utilization of foreign contribution by voluntary associations” in the year 2011-12.

Greenpeace International and its Indian chapter, which are cited the most in the IB report, are conspicuous by their absence in the home ministry’s tables on the top foreign donors and recipient associations under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).

Other foreign donors named by IB but did not merit a mention in the home ministry report are Netherlands-based CORDAID as well as UK-based Amnesty International and Survival International. UK-based donor agency, Action Aid, is the only one common to both the home ministry list and IB report.

The latest available statistics under FCRA, thus, put in perspective IB’s suggestion that a “significant number” of foreign-funded NGOs had created an environment in which India’s GDP growth had been set back by “2-3%”.

According to the home ministry report, the top foreign donor in 2011-12 was the US-based Compassion International, which funds child sponsorship. Correspondingly, the top Indian recipient in that year was also an NGO engaged in child sponsorship, Chennai-based World Vision of India.

One of the entries in the home ministry’s list of foreign donors does have a clear corporate origin. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is, however, unlikely to be linked with any of the NGO-driven movements frowned upon by IB.

The leading foreign donors named by the home ministry include those that are religion-based: the US-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, US-based General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists and UK-based Ahmaddiya Muslim Association.

Likewise, the top 15 recipient associations listed by the home ministry include religion-based groups found to be engaged in a range of welfare activities: Kerala-based Believers Church India, Delhi-based Indian Society of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Aga Khan Foundation and Mata Amritanandamayi Math.

Other major NGOs in the home ministry’s list are Andhra Pradesh-based Rural Development Trust and Delhi-based entities such as Public Health Foundation of India and Plan International.

Not surprisingly, the home ministry’s list of “top 15 purposes” for which foreign contributions had been received and utilized range from rural development, welfare of children and construction of educational institutions and health facilities to non-formal educational projects , welfare of orphans and AIDS awareness.

The FCRA report of the home ministry bears out the IB report in one respect though. Namely, the countries from where a lot of the donations are flowing. Four of the top five countries listed by the home ministry have been mentioned in the IB report as well: US, UK, Germany and the Netherlands.

 Read mor ehere –  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Home-ministry-has-own-list-different-from-IBs-of-donors-and-donees/articleshow/36858672.cms

Related posts

Polinomics: Dissent is now a crime in India #WTFnews

Right to Dissent

Right to dissent

 17 Jun 2014 – 00:00
The IB report appears to have been deliberately leaked with a specific purpose — to create an atmosphere that would encourage some in the government to come down hard on dissenters and those whose views and activities they don’t like.

The IB report appears to have been deliberately leaked with a specific purpose — to create an atmosphere that would encourage some in the government to come down hard on dissenters and those whose views and activities they don’t like.

The report of the Intelligence Bureau on the “impact” that non-government organisations have on India’s “development” is a case of extreme paranoia on the part of a section of the country’s establishment. This section believes that those who are opposed to their notions of development — which include the proliferation of nuclear energy and widespread use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture — are not just anti-national but also acting at the behest of foreign powers who do not want India to develop.
Interestingly, many of those opposed to the activities of foreign-funded civil society organisations as well as those who actually run such NGOs belong to the country’s elite. One group which spares no effort in extolling the virtues of foreign direct investment, also conjures conspiracies when it comes to ascribing motives to those who speak up for those displaced by mining, irrigation and industrial projects. The first group firmly believes that growth is the mantra for the country’s economic problems. The other section espouses environmentally-friendly policies and believes that inequalities must come down if sustainable development is to take place.
The two groups represent contrasting worldviews. To use simplistic catch-phrases, one is Right-wing, neo-liberal and market-friendly while the other is Leftist, Luddite and emphasises redistribution before growth. One believes that encouraging the private sector is the best way forward while the other is in favour of government-sponsored welfare schemes for the poor. Both sections want to engage with the West and the rest of the world, but on different terms.
The current debate on the role of NGOs is reminiscent of the polarised discourse on Christian missionaries who “convert” tribals and poor Hindus by “alluring” them. The anti-missionary viewpoint can be found in the books written by Arun Shourie, including one entitled Harvesting Our Souls. The contrary view is that if the Indian elite have been less than fair to society’s underprivileged, why should they grudge the activities of those (including missionaries from India and abroad) who have tried to organise the poor. Many missionaries are perceived as activists. One such individual named in the IB report is Thomas Kochherry, who fought relentless to safeguard the interests of Kerala’s traditional fisherfolk and who passed away recently.
By criticising NGOs allegedly opposed to the “Gujarat model of development”, the IB — which one of the world’s oldest internal security agencies — may have sought to please Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In fact, one paragraph in the report seems to have been inspired (if not plagiarised) from a speech that Mr Modi made in September 2006 during the launch of a book with a rather revealing title: NGOs, Activists and Foreign Funds: Anti-Nation Industry.
On that occasion, Mr Modi had lashed out against those he described as “five-star activists” by remarking: “Funds are obtained from abroad; an NGO is set up; a few articles are commissioned; a PR (public relations) firm is recruited and, slowly, with the help of the media, an image is created. And then awards are procured from foreign countries to enhance this image. Such a vicious cycle… no one in Hindustan dares raise a finger, no matter how many the failings of the awardee…”
Mr Modi is in illustrious company. His predecessor Manmohan Singh was suspicious of NGOs using foreign funds who were opposed to the establishment of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant. Dr Singh and former agriculture minister Sharad Pawar were both opposed to NGOs who were resisting field trials for genetically-modified food crops. In January 2013, speaking at the centenary session of the Indian Science Congress in Kolkata, Dr Singh described the issues of nuclear energy and GM foods as “complex issues” that “cannot be settled by faith, emotion and fear but by structured debate, analysis and enlightenment.”
The tone of the IB report is not very different from the raving and ranting against an unseen “foreign hand” during the Emergency regime of Indira Gandhi between June 1975 and March 1977. It was during this period that the government enacted the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, which was amended during the second UPA government in 2010. While there are more than a million NGOs operating in the country, roughly 50,000 are currently registered under the FCRA. After the law was amended, the permission granted to some 4,000 NGOs to receive foreign funds was revoked.
It is nobody’s case that all foreign-funded NGOs are run by bleeding-heart activists who only have the welfare of the deprived and the indigent on top of their minds. There is no dearth of people who abuse their association with international civil society groups to go on expensive junkets across the world and live a rather good life. Such individuals can be found across different strata in Indian society. If anyone, including those who run NGOs, is found to be violating the law of the land, the law should be strictly enforced against such people and organisations.
But why is the voluntary sector being targeted at present? The IB report appears to have been written and deliberately leaked with a specific purpose — to create an atmosphere that would encourage some in the government to come down hard on dissenters and those whose views and activities they don’t like. It’s as simple as that.
This writer’s name figures in the IB report for having produced and directed a 45-minute documentary film in English and Hindi entitled Coal Curse/Koyla Ya Kala Shaap in 2013 which was financially supported by Greenpeace India. Both versions of the film are available for free viewing on YouTube. The film juxtaposes the Coalgate scandal (which was, incidentally, highlighted by the ruling party) with the larger socio-political and economic issues surrounding the use of coal. It includes a case study of the Singrauli region in central India, often described as the country’s “electricity hub”. The film argues that what represents an investment opportunity for both public sector and private corporate entities is a “resource curse” for local populations whose livelihoods have been devastated together with the ecology of the region. It is a separate matter altogether that I have been writing about and making documentary films on this subject for many years now.
In conclusion, one must assert that there are always certain exceptions to the rule and no action will ever be taken against particular NGOs. These are the now-defunct National Advisory Council headed by Sonia Gandhi and the nearly-90-year-old Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. There are also two other organisations that have received funds from foreign sources (including the Vedanta corporate group) whose activities are unlikely to be scrutinised by the ministry of home affairs, under which the IB operates. These are the Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Read mor ehere- http://www.asianage.com/print/305385

Related posts

Is Intelligence Bureau targetting NGOs that could oppose Narendra Modi?

Saturday, 14 June 2014 – 2:35pm IST | Agency: DNA
  •  Image for representational purposes only. RNA Research & Archives

India’s Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi seem to have one thing in common: both have high regard for Modi.

Modi, as chief minister of Gujarat in 2006, had lashed out at the ‘wealthy’ and ‘influential’ class of NGOs that ‘hire PR firms to continually build their image’ with ‘money coming from abroad’. The Indian Express has reported that the IB report has not only echoed his sentiments but copied a few sections as well.Modi had said this at a book release of ‘NGOs, Activists & Foreign Funds: Anti-Nation Industry’, which is a collection of articles on the so-called anti-Hindu agenda and corrupt practices of certain NGOs. The report has blatantly lifted a paragraph from the book: “Another conspiracy — a vicious cycle is set up. Funds are obtained from abroad; an NGO is set up; a few articles are commissioned; a PR firm is recruited and, slowly, with the help of the media, an image is created. And then awards are procured from foreign countries to enhance this image. Such a vicious cycle, a network of finance-activity-award is set up and, once they have secured an award, no one in Hindustan dares raise a finger, no matter how many the failings of the awardee.”

During the tempestuous election campaign, Modi had called the CBI ‘Congress Bureau of Investigation’. What should be the IB called then, Mr Modi?

However, the larger issue here is the palpable attempt of the new government to alarm the NGOs, which can be an impediment to corporates. The report alleges that Greenpeace has mounted “massive efforts to take down India’s coal-fired power plants and coal mining activity”. The report also accuses that opposition to several development projects in the country by a significant number of NGOs can hamper the economic growth by 2-3%. In fact, Greenpeace has been opposing the project to ensure the preservation forests, which the corporates want to wipe out to access the coal beneath. As far as the economic growth is concerned, Abhishek Pratap, Greenpeace’s senior campaigner, told Hindustan Times, “In 2013-14, Greenpeace received Rs 20 crore. More than 60% of our funds came from Indian supporters. Foreign contribution constitutes 37% of our funds. You can do the math – that is approximately Rs 7 crore. If India’s growth can be impacted by that – it’s laughable considering the massive outlay of corporations and foreign lobbies.”

It was speculated that the lavish election campaign undertaken by the BJP and Modi was funded by corporates. Moreover, his proximity to certain bigwigs has been evident. And in this context, when those bigwigs make profits in share market after Modi’s victory, it ought to raise a few eyebrows. By trying to muzzle the NGOs, it seems like a plan to ensure that no ‘lucrative’ projects are stalled in the future because of protests from the social sector.

Modi had categorically mentioned that the new regime will be the one for the poor, but here the walk seems completely different from the talk. The aim of preservation of the environment, about which the corporate sector could not care less, is being mocked at. One can only hope that the Modi sarkar, in its pursuit of coaxing the corporates, does not cause destruction so grave that we end up looking at the disastrous UPA-II with fond nostalgia.

This is not to suggest that all NGOs are as clean as a whistle. There are a few with hidden agendas and vested interests, and those should be scrutinized and investigated. But who will investigate the integrity of the NGOs? Surely cannot be the IB after this ‘copy-paste’ job. And what are the criteria to determine if the NGOs are clean or not? Foreign funding? Does an NGO become corrupt if it receives money from abroad?

Even Baba Amte received donations from overseas. So does Prakash Amte and Abhay Bang. Does that make them corrupt? Would it be fair if merely the nationality of the donor, not the character, ended up digging the grave of the NGO? And would it be alright to receive funds from Indians involved in murky deals? If Modi has a problem with funds being imported from outside, perhaps it is time to remind him that Gujarat chief minister Anandiben Patel’s daughter runs a non-profit organisation registered in the US.

Therefore, citing foreign funds and economic growth is just a façade. The aim seems to shun NGOs which could go against Modi’s projects. He has done that in Gujarat with Teesta Setalvad and Medha Patkar. Teesta was enmeshed with false cases against her, and Patkar was attacked more than once during her Narmada Bachao Andolan. Both were made to feel like a cat in a bunch of hounds. Now the scale has been widened by implementing it across India.

On April 19, Aakar Patel had written that Modi’s critics should expect no mercy once he assumes power. “Like all tyrants, Modi has a fundamentally primitive view of criticism. Those who oppose him, write against what he says and does, are enemies and he must fix them before they harm him. They should watch out”, he had written.

It seems NGOs were on top of that list.

Read mor ehere – http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standpoint-is-intelligence-bureau-targetting-ngos-that-could-oppose-narendra-modi-1995485

Related posts

Anti-nuclear activist rubbishes IB’s claims on foreign connection

By Newzfirst 6/11/14

 

Nagercoil (Tamilnadu) – Noted anti-nuclear activist Dr. SP Udayakumar Wednesday rubbished the claims of Intelligence Bureau that he and his NGO receive the funds from the US, UK, Germany and other countries only to ensure that some of the developmental projects run into troubled waters.

It is a ridiculous and libelous claim that I was contracted through NGOs and I was submitting “fortnightly reports” to them, Dr. Udayakumar said in a press statement.

The IB in its recent report to the Union Home Ministry had said that many out of the total 85,000 NGOs operating in the country are using foreign funds to indulge into a lot of mischievous activities to hamper social and economic development.

The IB reportedly mentioned that the most obvious interference was from an NGO that was found at the Kundankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu.

Dr. Udayakumar further said, “I am afraid this Fascist presupposition of the IB report is a precursor for stringent actions against individuals, groups, people’s movements and minorities. As I have been singled out in this report and mentioned by name, I fear for my life and for my family’s safety and security.”

The IB reports reportedly states: “An enquiry of Udayakumar had revealed a deep and growing connection with the US and German authorities. In July 2010, Udayakumar received an unsolicited contract from he Kirwan Institute for Study of Race and Ethnicity at the Ohio State University USA as a consultant on Group, Race, Class and Democracy Issues through NGOs. He was paid $ 21, 120 upto June 2011 in a US bank account in his name and was contracted to earn another $ 17, 600 upto April 2012 for fortnightly reports.”

“As a result, Udayakumar’s contact in Germany, one Sonntag Rainer Hermann (German national) was deported from Chennai on February 27, 2012. Hermann’s laptop contained a scanned map of India with 16 nuclear plants (existing or proposed) and five uranium mine locations marked prominently. The map also included contact details of 50 Indian anti-nuclear activists hand-written on small slips of paper with Blackberry PIN graph. The map was sent via email to five prominent anti-nuclear activists, including Udayakumar.”

Whereas, according to Dr. Udayakumar he was just working as an off-campus Research Fellow in the International Program of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, at the Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA for several years.

For the Kirwan Institute, I did several research and writing projects on globalization, racism, minority welfare, BRICS etc. I never did any research and writing project on India’s development or India’s nuclear program. I left that Research Fellow job in Spring 2011 when the Kirwan Institute reorganized itself under a new administration, he said.

He also rubbished the IB’s allegation that deported German national Sonntag Rainer Hermann was his “contact in Germany”.

“He was an acquaintance from Nagercoil, my hometown in Tamil Nadu. He was a hippie-type staying in a cheap hotel here in Nagercoil and participated in our anti-nuclear events. I did not receive any information or maps or monetary helps from him, nor did I give him any.” he said.

If he had done something illegal or dangerous why did the Indian authorities deport him hurriedly without taking any legal action? Dr. Udayakumar asked.

Appeal to the authorities:

Further Dr. Udayakumar also appealed to the Indian authorities to believe that ordinary citizens of India such as farmers and fisher folks have a mind of their own and can take an intelligent stand on issues such as setting up a nuclear power park or other such dangerous projects in their backyard.

Those of us who stand up, speak up and try to protect our poor and illiterate people’s land, water, air, sea, food security and nutrition security should not be considered and insulted as foreign stooges, money launderers, or smugglers, he said.

“The Indian authorities should acknowledge the simple fact that we do what we do because we love this country and its peoples. If this is how we –honest, responsible and law-abiding citizens– are treated, abused and harassed, this would only send wrong lessons to our youth and promote extremism and terrorism in this country.” he said.

Related posts

PRESS RELEASE -मोदी के पक्ष में माहौल बनाने के लिए आतंकवाद के नाम पर निर्दोषों को पकड़ रही है आईबी-रिहाई मंच #NOMOre_2014

RIHAI MANCH
Forum for the Release of Innocent Muslims imprisoned in the name of Terrorism
———————————————————————————-
मोदी के पक्ष में माहौल बनाने के लिए आतंकवाद के नाम पर निर्दोषों को
पकड़ रही है आईबी-रिहाई मंच

कल 24 मार्च को रिहाई मंच राजनीतिक दलों को सम्बोधित अपना मांग पत्र जारी करेगा

लखनऊ 23 मार्च /2014। रिहाई मंच ने इंडियन मुजाहिदीन के नाम पर राजस्थान
से 4 मुस्लिम युवकों की गिरफ्तारी को आईबी द्वारा चुनाव में आतंकवाद का
हौव्वा खड़ा करने के लिए किया गया सियासी ड्रामा करार दिया है। संगठन का
मानना है कि खुफिया एजेंसियां इस मुगालते का शिकार हो गई हैं कि मोदी
प्रधानमंत्री बनने जा रहे हैं और इसीलिए उनके जान का खतरा दिखाते हुए
झारखंड, बिहार, छत्तीसगढ़, उत्तर प्रदेश के बाद अब राजस्थान से इंडियन
मुजाहिदीन के नाम पर गिरफ्तारियां की जा रही हैं। एजेंसियों को लगता है
कि मोदी के प्रधानमंत्री बनने के बाद फिर उन्हें इशरत जहां, सादिक जमाल
मेहतर जैसे निर्दोषों को मारने की खुली छूट मिल जाएगी।

रिहाई मंच के अध्यक्ष मोहम्मद शुएब ने कहा कि जिस तरह से मोदी पर हमले का
हौव्वा आईबी खड़ा कर रही है उसमें इस बात से इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता कि
आईबी हिन्दुत्वादी गिरोहों के साथ मिलकर देश में आतंकी वारदातों को अंजाम
दे सकती है। जैसा उसने पटना की रैली में करवाया और फिर देशभर से मुस्लिम
नौजवानों को इस घटना के नाम पर पकड़ा। आईबी के इस टेरर प्लाॅट में देश के
वो इलाके जो मुस्लिम बाहुल्य हैं वहां के लोग निशाने पर हैं। इसीलिए
राजस्थान के साथ ही दिल्ली के जामियानगर इलाके को भी दुबारा बदनाम करने
की कोशिश की जा रही है।

सामाजिक संगठन अवामी कौंसिल के महासचिव असद हयात ने कहा कि आगामी लोकसभा
चुनाव में सांप्रदायिक ताकतों को रोकने के लिए सभी तथाकथित सेक्युलर
राजनीतिक दल कहते फिर रहे हैं कि मुस्लिम वोट ही इसे रोकेगा। इसलिए ऐसे
राजनीतिक दलों को चाहिए कि वे इन गिरफ्तारियों पर अपनी स्थिति स्पष्ट
करें। उन्होंने कहा कि एक तरफ मुजफ्फरनगर में मुस्लिमों को दंगे में झोका
गया तो दूसरी तरफ उन पर आतंकवाद का लेबल लगा कर राजनीितक ध्रुवीकरण का
उन्हें हथियार बनाया गया। राजस्थान में हुयी गिरफ्तारियां भी इसी
ध्रुवीकरण की राजनीति का हिस्सा हैं।

रिहाई मंच के प्रवक्ता शाहनवाज आलम और राजीव यादव ने कहा कि यासीन भटकल
आईबी का अपना माॅड्यूल है जिसे एजेंसियां इस्तेमाल कर रही हैं। इसीलिए
चुनाव से ठीक पहले उसे और उसके कथित साथियों को गिरफ्तार दिखाकर आतंकवाद
के सवाल को चुनावी एजेंडा बनाने की कोशिश की जा रही है। प्रवक्ताओं ने
कहा कि खुफिया एजंेसियों को पहले बताना चाहिए कि जिस बिजनौर निवासी नासिर
को लखनऊ से गिरफ्तार करने और उसके पास से भारी मात्रा में आरडीएक्स
बरामदगी का दावा किया था वह सात साल बाद कैसे बरी हो गया। उन्होंने कहा
कि जब भी ऐसे फैसले आते हैं जिसमें खुफिया एजेंसियों की झूठी कहानी अदालत
में बेनकाब हो जाती है तब जनता का ध्यान अपनी आपराधिक कार्रवाईयों पर से
हटाने के लिए वे आतंकवाद के नाम पर निर्दोषों को फंसाने के लिए ऐसी
गिरफ्तारियां करती हैं।

प्रवक्ताओं ने बताया कि रिहाई मंच 24 मार्च, सोमवार को साढ़े ग्यारह बजे
लोहिया भवन, नरही, लखनऊ से राजनीतिक दलों को सम्बोधित मांग व सुझाव पत्र
जारी करेगा।

द्वारा जारी-
शाहनवाज आलम, राजीव यादव
प्रवक्ता रिहाई मंच
09415254919, 09452800752
———————————————————————————-
Office – 110/46, Harinath Banerjee Street, Naya Gaaon Poorv, Laatoosh
Road, Lucknow
Forum for the Release of Innocent Muslims imprisoned in the name of Terrorism
https://www.facebook.com/rihaimanch

Related posts

Forensic officials colluded with Gujarat cops to show Ishrat encounter as genuine

ishrat1

Express news service : Ahmedabad July 13,2013

Evidence collected by CBI points at the forensic officials being in cahoots with the crime branch in proving the Ishrat Jahan killings to be genuine. Statements annexed to the chargesheet, filed on July 3, recount suspicious roles of former Assistant directors S G Khandelwal and Bharat Mistry (ballistics division) at the Gujarat Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to cover the tracks for the accused crime branch officials.

Interrogation of Mistry, who told CBI that he did not even visit the scene of crime, and evidence provided by the then scientific officer indicate this collusion. Statement of a retired scientific officer, Madhusudan Pathak, recorded on June 23, 2013 by CBI, a copy of which is with The Indian Express, says that Khandelwal “dictated” the site visitation report to Pathak where he missed reporting two empty cartridges found from the scene of crime on June 15, 2004.

Pathak, who took photographs of the scene of crime, told CBI that some of the photographs which he saved in a CD were also not called for examination by the ballistic team.

Pathak, who is a chemistry expert, states, “Today, I have been shown some photos of 9 mm empty cartridges lying on the road at the scene of crime. I do not know why Khandelwal missed out empties in the visitation note, although they were seen in some photographs. The 50 empties at the scene of crime were collected and seized as per the directions of Khandelwal.”

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts