Thursday, November 29, 2012

Through all the tears for Bal Thackeray - Indian Express

Through all the tears for Bal Thackeray - Indian Express:

Through all the tears for Bal Thackeray


  
Employment Rights Lawyers  www.hoyerlaw.comWrongful Termination and Wage Cases  Free ConsultationAds by Google

Dear Justice (Markandey) Katju, as a former judge of the highest court in the country and as a defender of free expression in your current capacity as chairperson, Press Council of India, you are understandably outraged by the criminal conduct of the Maharashtra police in arresting two women from Palghar in Thane district last week for having “dared” to express their disapproval on Facebook of the bandh enforced by sainiks following Bal Thackeray’s “unacceptable” demise. You have shot off a strong letter to Maharashtra’s chief minister, Prithviraj Chavan, demanding suspension and arrest of the policemen who buckled under threats of the Sena’s musclemen. You have said that if he failed to act, you will conclude that as CM, he is unable to run the state.
Since it’s unlikely that the CM will come clean on the subject, I am making bold to respond as his self-appointed spokesperson for this moment: Respected sir, you are perhaps unaware of the decades-old power-sharing parampara of Maharashtra. Anyone from the state can tell you that it has long been the political arrangement in the state to encourage the Shiv Sena to run a parallel government. Since its inception the Sena’s thokshahi (“constructive violence”, sainiks on the rampage) has been an integral component of Congress’s lokshahi (democratic governance).
But maybe you are right, Justice Katju. Now that a million tears have been shed, it’s time perhaps to spare a thought for our ailing democracy and shed a tear for the “idea of India” too. Perhaps we should be outraged not only by last week’s criminal conduct of a few policemen in Palghar, but our collective complicity for so long.
In less than a month, Mumbaikars will recall how Bombay’s Muslims were “taught a lesson” 20 years ago under the benign gaze of the then Congress government of Maharashtra and the watchful eyes of the then defence minister Sharad Pawar. As in the case of the massacre of innocent Sikhs in 1984, there has been no punishment worth the mention for the perpetrators and the masterminds of the mass crimes committed during December 1992- January 1993.
By draping the deceased in the national flag and extending full state honours during the last journey of the former Sena chief, the ruling Congress-NCP alliance has chosen to dishonour and desecrate that sacred document that we, the people of India, gifted ourselves over 60 years ago. Next month, as Mumbai commemorates the ravaging of cosmopolitan Bombay 20 years ago, the question is sure to be asked: Does the national flag bear no relation to the rule of law principle enshrined in the Constitution?
In the midst of the January 1993 carnage, a leading national daily had published a lead editorial stating the obvious: it’s a “pogrom” whose target were the city’s Muslims. Shocked by the scale and intensity of the violence and police complicity, a group of prominent Bombayites led a delegation to the then chief minister, Sudhakarrao Naik, to demand Thackeray’s arrest. “If I do that Bombay will burn,” pleaded the CM. “But sir, Bombay is already burning!” the delegation members exclaimed, to no avail.
Several days later, the highly respected late judge of the Bombay High Court, Justice Bakhtawar Lentin, told the then prime minister, Narasimha Rao, during his inspection tour of the metropolis: “Sir, in the last few days the streets of Bombay have resembled the streets of Nazi Germany”. As the sole outcome of media reports and citizens’ outrage, Naik was replaced by Sharad Pawar as chief minister.
Justice B.N. Srikrishna, then a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court, was appointed to probe into the causes behind and the role of different actors in the violence that claimed over a thousand lives and Muslim property worth hundreds of crores. In its report released in 1998, the Srikrishna Commission concluded: “There is no doubt that the Shiv Sena and Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organising attacks on Muslims and their properties under the guidance of several leaders of the Shiv Sena from the level of Shakha Pramukh to the Shiv Sena Pramukh Bal Thackeray who, like a veteran general, commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organised attacks against Muslims.”
It should come as no surprise to you, Justice Katju, to learn that having buried the recommendations of Justice Srikrishna long ago, the Congress-NCP government has now sent out a clear message to Uddhav and Raj Thackeray: follow Balasaheb! Politicians apart, perhaps this is also an appropriate moment for your brother judges to introspect.
And what can one say of the refusal of the Bombay High Court in 1994, and the Supreme Court subsequently, to entertain a petition seeking directions to the Maharashtra government to prosecute Thackeray for numerous “hate-Muslims” editorials published in the Saamna as a build-up to the pogrom of 1992-93?
“Hindutva is the Maoism of the Indian elite,” wrote a political commentator three years ago. Prominent representatives of this elite were present at Shivaji Park last Sunday shedding copious tears in homage to the departed “Hinduhriday Samrat” (emperor of Hindu hearts). It’s your turn to cry, beloved country.
The writer, general secretary of Muslims for Secular Democracy, is co-editor, ‘Communalism Combat’

'via Blog this'

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist - Speakeasy - WSJ

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist - Speakeasy - WSJ:

'via Blog this'

Sunday, November 25, 2012

FOCUS: Damn Right, George Bush Should Face Criminal Proceedings

FOCUS: Damn Right, George Bush Should Face Criminal Proceedings:

Damn Right, George Bush Should Face Criminal Proceedings

By Katherine Gallagher, Guardian UK
19 November 12

Though signatory to the convention against torture, Canada neglected to investigate George Bush. Will the UN now act?

ne thing brings together these four men - Hassan bin Attash, Sami el-Hajj, Muhammed Khan Tumani and Murat Kurnaz: they are all survivors of the systematic torture program the Bush administration authorized and carried out in locations including Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantánamo, and numerous prisons and CIA "black sites" around the world. Between them, they have been beaten, hung from walls or ceilings, deprived of sleep, food and water, and subjected to freezing temperatures and other forms of torture and abuse while held in US custody.
None was charged with a crime. Two were detained while still minors. And one of them remains at Guantánamo.
This week, in a complaint filed with the United Nations committee against torture, they are asking one question: how can the man responsible for ordering these heinous crimes, openly enter a country that has pledged to prosecute all torturers regardless of their position and not face legal action?
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) filed the complaint on the men's behalf. The country in question is Canada, visited last year by former US President George W Bush during a paid speaking engagement in Surrey, British Columbia.
Bush's visit drew hundreds in protest, calling for his arrest, and it also provided bin Attash, el-Hajj, Tumani and Kurnaz the opportunity to call on the Canadian government to uphold its legal obligation under the UN convention against torture, and conduct a criminal investigation against Bush while he was on Canadian soil.
To this end, the four men, submitted a 69-page draft indictment (pdf) that CCR and CCIJ had presented to Canada's attorney general ahead of Bush's arrival in support of their private prosecution. The submission included thousands of pages of evidence against Bush, consisting of extensive reports and investigations conducted by multiple US agencies and the UN. The evidence is overwhelming - not to mention the fact that Bush has admitted, even, boasted of his crimes, saying "damn right" when asked if it was permissible to waterboard a detainee, a recognized act of torture.
Canada should have investigated these crimes. The responsibility to do so is embedded in its domestic criminal code that explicitly authorizes the government to prosecute torture occurring outside Canadian borders. There is no reason it cannot apply to former heads of state, and indeed, the convention has been found to apply to such figures including Hissène Habré and Augusto Pinochet. A criminal investigation into the allegations was the lawful thing to do. It was also what Canada had agreed to do when it pledged its support to end impunity for torture by ratifying the convention.
But Canada looked the other way. Not only did federal Attorney General Robert Nicholson refuse to investigate Bush, but the attorney general of British Columbia swiftly intervened to shut down a private criminal prosecution (pdf) submitted to a provincial court in his jurisdiction the morning of Bush's visit.
Thanks to the Obama administration's call to look only "forward" - even in the face of torture that demands a proper reckoning - and a court system in the US that has readily closed its doors to torture survivors, the crimes of the Bush era are effectively beyond the reach of justice in the US. But the immunity - the impunity - granted to these criminals here should not follow them into other countries, particularly those that are signatories to international laws and treaties against torture.
If the UN convention against torture is to have any hope of fulfilling its mission of preventing torture, the committee must send countries like Canada a clear message: it is their legal obligation to ensure there is no safe haven for torturers; and any action to the contrary makes these states effectively complicit in furthering impunity for some of the worst crimes of the past decade.
These four survivors are asking the UN to enforce its own convention, nothing more and nothing less. They call upon the UN, unlike Canada, to unequivocally reject a worldview in which the powerful are exempt from rules, treaties and prohibitions against senseless acts of barbarity. Will the UN now hear their call?


'via Blog this'