Internal Security Watch

[somnath]

Sorry, you dont follow news then. Tusharkant Bhattacharya, per his own admission, claims himself to belong to the maoist outfit.
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... cret-talks

Again, obviously while you go on about " due legal process", you dont really want to adhere to the same...An interview in a magazine may or may not be admissible evidence, but a court has to decide that..In his arguments against Tushar Bhattacharya, the PP can urely bring this interview up...That case has been going on for years..But till he is convicted, how can association with him be grounds for conviction of a third person?

Unfortunately, you dont believe in English semantics/logic? In the previous post, you claimed that C. Annadurai should have been imprisoned. I claimed that there was no such reason for sedition

there is no inconistency in what I said...Annadurai, in his original avatar, advocated secession (which was allowed) and a variety of incendiary means to achieve the goal (which were not allowed)...That did not mean that the govt of the say sent him to jail with a life imprisonment term..You argued that he "changed his mind" after the govt changed the law on secession..I was merely pointing out that you are not correct at all - the law was changed AFTER he had changed his mind, and made that famous speech in Parliament....Despite calls (and actions) that closely mirror the sort of stuff that Shiv Sena indulges in on locals and marathi language, the govt kept talking to him till he was coopted..

you are WRONG. Here is what Wiki states (Know your Civics 101):

Well, considering your recourse to Wiki for the apropriate references, maybe you should take the advice yourself a bit seriously? Criticism of court judgements, including Supreme Court judgements, have been deemd to be valid, legal and even advisable by multiple judgements of the Supreme Court..I am quoting a couple here..

In the matter of DR. D.C. SAXENA V. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA [1997] RD-SC 607 (19 July 1997) it was held that "a citizen is entitled to bring to the notice of the public at large the infirmities from which any institution including judiciary suffers from. Indeed , the right to offer healthy and constructive criticism which is fair in spirit must be left unimpaired in the interest of the institution itself. Critics are instruments of reform but not those actuated by malice but those who are inspired by public weal. Bona fide criticism of any system or institution including judiciary is aimed at inducing the administration of the system or institution to look inward and improve its public image. Courts, the instrumentalities of the state are subject to the Constitution and the laws and are not above criticism. Healthy and constructive criticism are tools to augment its forensic tools for improving its functions. A harmonious blend and balanced existence of free speech and fearless justice counsel that law ought to be astute to criticism. Healthy and constructive criticism are tools to augment its forensic tools for improving its functions. A harmonious blend and balanced existence of free speech and fearless justice counsel that law ought to be astute to criticism. Constructive public criticism even if it slightly oversteps its limits thus has fruitful play in preserving democratic health of public institutions. Section 5 of the Act accords protection to such fair criticism and saves from contempt of court. The best way to sustain the dignity and respect for the office of judge is to deserve respect from the public at large by fearlessness and objectivity of the approach to the issues arising for decision, quality of the judgment, restraint, dignity and decorum a judge observes in judicial conduct off and on the bench and rectitude."

In P.N. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shankar [AIR 1988 SC 1208] the apex court had held that administration of justice and judges are open to public criticism and public scrutiny. Judges have their accountability to the society and their accountability must be judged by the conscience and oath to their office, i.e., to defend and uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear and favour. Thus the judges must do, in the light given to them to determine, what is right. Any criticism about judicial system or the judges which hampers the administration of justice or which erodes the faith in the objective approach of the judges and brings administration of justice to ridicule must be prevented. The contempt of court proceedings arise out of that attempt. Judgments can be criticised. Motives to the judges need not be attributed. It brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Faith in the administration of justice is one of the pillars on which democratic institution functions and sustains. In the free market place of ideas criticism about the judicial system or judges should be welcome so long as such criticism about the judicial system or judges should be welcome so long as such criticism does not impair or hamper the administration of justice. This is how the courts should exercise the powers vested in them and judges to punish a person for an alleged contempt by taking notice of the contempt suo motu or at the behest of the litigant or a lawyer. In that case the speech of the Law Minister in a Seminar organised by the Bar Council and the offending portions therein were held not contemptuous and punishable under the Act. In a democracy judges and courts alike are, therefore, subject to criticism and if reasonable argument or criticism in respectful language and tempered with moderation is offered against any judicial act as contrary to law or public good no court would treat criticism as a contempt of court.

I know my country and its laws well enough, thank you very much...

Finally, the question is not whether the state has a right to prosecute Binayak Sen and push him to jail in case of a conviction...the question is whether it serves the larger strategic objective...Given the rank irrelevance of the doctor in the Maoist power structure, any student of insurgency movements and counter terrorism in India would say it doesnt...

[Arjun]

Karkare was like a God to Indian Muslims: Digvijay

Congress General Secretary Digvijay Singh seems determined to stir the communal cauldron with unabated controversial statements. On Monday at the book release function of senior Urdu journalist and writer Aziz Burney's 26/11 an RSS conspiracy in Mumbai , Singh said that slain Anti Terrorism Squad chief Hemant Karkare was a like a 'God to Indian Muslims'.

Singh also said that though he was present at function of Burney's book, he did not subscribe to its views that 26/11 was a conspiracy by the Hindu right wing RSS.

Doggy Raja is continuing to give legitimacy to this book that goes against the state's objectives in the fight against terror? Can't believe the depths to which the INC has sunk that the party has not reined him in. Obviously either one of the Family or MMS have their heads stuck firmly up their musharrafs...given that Sonia does not want the office of the PM to be denigrated, the only choice that leaves us with is that it is the Family that enjoys this perverted position.

I guess I kind of agree with Somnath on one point - if the state indeed wants to make an example of an anti-national 'empathiser' of terrorists, Doggy Raja should have been the first one, rather than Binayak Sen.

[GuruPrabhu]

Karkare was like a God to Indian Muslims: Digvijay

Isn't Doggy Raja committing blasphemy there, how can someone be like God when even a passing comment about the prophet attracts a violent response. Perhaps the relevant quarters haven't given due notice to Doggy's comments.
I can see a lot of shoes coming Doggy Raja's way

[somnath]

If I were a Maoist propagandist, I would only have to say this:

1. 2 years for Union Carbide honchos
2. Bail for Aurobindo Rakhkhowa
3. 3 year delayed investigation on A Raja
4. 18 years and counting for 6th Dec 1992 - criminal cases against LK Advani etc
5. Ministerships for the Bellary brothers
6. Life term for Dr Binayak Sen
Democratic India, anyone?

Someone, I think Stan mentioned earlier that this "battle" would be won when we have a larger middle class. In fact, it is the middle class that is most repelled when someone like Binayak Sen is targeted. Call it class consciosness, but it evokes stronger passions in urban drawing rooms to see "one of us" being treated in this fashion. And Dr Sen is not just any one of us, he represents the brightest of us with the noblest ideals - gold-medallist from CMC but spending 2 decades treating tribals in Chattisgarh...(Imagine the police affidavit alleged he is not a "practising" doctor!). The govt, and there is little to suggest that the Central govt was keen on this outcome, is only going to face more challenges in the battle for public perceptions now..When Mamta Bannerjee denounces Green Hunt, we shrug her off as another opportunistic politician (which she is , of the absolute third rate variety)..When news of Azad's encounter death comes in, we barely acknowledge the brouhaha made by Swami Agnivesh - good riddance is the dominant perception..When news of another landmine blast comes in, we recoil and thirst for blood against the naxals..But Binayak Sen is one of us, English-speaking, well educated middle class champion of rights..And unlike someone like Kobad Ghandi, not wielding guns - which is precisely why the sympathy for Kobad was so muted and non-existant beyond the usual suspects..No policy, political, economic or otherwise, can be carried through without the support of the middle class, and the good doctor's jail term creates apprehensions in that support base..The problem perhaps is that the Chattisgarh govt does not have to contend with a large urban middle class constituency, and hence they are blase - unfortunately (or fortunately) the Union govt does..

The Chattisgarh police, as Ajai Sahni says, is an incompetent setup..They have created none of the real capacities required to fight the naxals. With la affaire Binayak Sen, they have only put more challenges on pursuing a hardline policy towards Maoists.

[AjayKK]

But Binayak Sen is one of us, English-speaking, well educated middle class champion of rights..

Karkare was like a God to Indian Muslims: Digvijay

Isn't Doggy Raja committing blasphemy there, how can someone be like God ...

There can only be two thoughts on it,

1. Either he speaks without a script and such things do happen (normal interpretation)
or
2. He is trying to make the audience Indic by propagating many a gods (Chankian)

Is there a video recording to his speech available, if so, please post the link. Also notice the presence of Mahesh Bhatt but no statement from him on what sort of "ideology" motivates his son and daughter to hang out with the Pakistani terrorists.

[Yayavar]

^^ Somnath: I'm getting thoroughly confused reading the thread. To get my bearings I have two questions:

Do you agree that there is a case, irrespective of strategy or other wrongdoers (punished or unpunished)? Did Binayak abet criminals on the run by helping get safe houses and money (bank accounts) etc.

Also, how do you know there is no strategy - maybe it is a message to the hardcore or maybe the overground supporters?

[Stan_Savljevic]

An interview in a magazine may or may not be admissible evidence, but a court has to decide that..

An interview is what I can openly find from the Internets. Neither are you defending Tusharkant and Binayak nor am I prosecuting them, that job has been done by more eminent people. Obviously, if someone were to resort to Occam's Razor and believe in the infallibility of the State apparatus, they would trust that the Public Prosecutor brought in sufficient evidences, the defence brought in suitable arguments to dismiss evidences that are not admissible, and the Judge understood what was before him with due clarity and hence judged based on that. If you do not believe in the State apparatus, you could claim that there is flimsy evidence (like you did in the first post), and make statements about the Court having to decide a certain fact when it actually has, etc.

Or do you mean to say that the Raipur District and Sessions Court has decided something that is wrong? Do you mean to say that you are aware of what was presented before the Hon'ble Court and you were privy to the proceedings and hence can pass an opinion on the judgmental capacity of such an august body? May be you should clarify instead of doing verbal gymnastics. The Court of BK Verma saw what was before it, and it has decided. If you think you have more evidence to prove otherwise, your recourse is the Chhattisgarh High Court, not brf.

Annadurai, in his original avatar, advocated secession (which was allowed) and a variety of incendiary means to achieve the goal (which were not allowed)...That did not mean that the govt of the say sent him to jail with a life imprisonment term..

Ah, there you go. There are many things here:
1) Did Annadurai instigate incendiary means after 1962 (after secessionism was banned)? If so, he should have got the maximum punishment allowed under Sec. 124A.
2) Did he suggest the use of incendiary means before 1962 and was he booked under Sec. 124A of the IPC?
3) What was the quantum of punishment that was maximally allowed and did it become life in prison at some random point in time or was it was always life in prison?

Let me answer from what I could dig. The only lawsuit associated with Annadurai and sedition (I could find) was in 1949. There was an appeal and the fine was revoked (if you want you can read the case history at http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1601365/)

The petitioner is the editor and publisher of "Dravida Nadu", a Tamil Weekly which is printed at and issued from Kancheepuram. He seeks to set aside the order of the Provincial Government, dated 25th May, 1949, directing him to deposit with the District Magistrate, Chingleput, on or before the 25th June, 1949, security to the amount of Rs. 3,000. The order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7(3) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, on the ground that the issues of the petitioner's journal dated 4th April, 1948

There is one other lawsuit associated with him, but not under Sec. 124A:
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/146561/

This is a reference made to this Court under Section 432, Cri. P. C., by the Second Presidency Magistrate in M. P. No. 329 of 1958 in C. C. No. 184 of 1958 at the instance of the accused, C. N. Annadurai, leader of the D.M.K. and ten others. These eleven persons were charged in that case for having committed an offence punishable under Section 41 of the City Police Act.

For the record, the quantum of punishment was made life imprisonment only in 1955:
http://www.indianlawcases.com/Act-India ... .1860-1557
Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec.117 and sch., for "Transportation for life or any shorter term" (w.e.f.1-1-1956).

So your point is moot. CN Annadurai was never (to the best of my knowledge) arrested under Sec. 124A. Further, to compare Binayak Sen to CN Annadurai or Gurcharan Singh Tohra or Sant Longowal or Laldenga Hawla (all of whom came to fight democratically for what they stood for) is scandalous too. What has Binayak done to prove his belief in the democratic credentials of India? All we have are evidences to suggest that he was keen on subverting the State apparatus.

Despite calls (and actions) that closely mirror the sort of stuff that Shiv Sena indulges in on locals and marathi language, the govt kept talking to him till he was coopted..

Sure, there were riots, sure he was arrested for instigating by the INC government for which there was no proof (or so it was claimed). But the fact is, he did not associate with seceding from India after the point when the Constitution banned this act. How does this square with Binayak Sen's case?

Well, considering your recourse to Wiki for the apropriate references, maybe you should take the advice yourself a bit seriously?

Different courses for different horses, you have a problem with Wiki.

"a citizen is entitled to bring to the notice of the public at large the infirmities from which any institution including judiciary suffers from. Indeed , the right to offer healthy and constructive criticism which is fair in spirit must be left unimpaired in the interest of the institution itself.

Did you read what you quoted carefully? There is the caveat of "healthy and constructive criticism". What exactly is healthy about the Countercurrents type narrative. All they want is to release Binayak because 22 Nobel Laureates say so. All they want is NOT the due course of the law, but keep yakking endlessly about alleged miscarriage of justice. Now Ram Jethmalani has come forward to defend Binayak. Why would nt the leftists stop whining and take the process to completion instead of offering a "healthy and constructive" criticism of whining about State repression this that.

Critics are instruments of reform but not those actuated by malice but those who are inspired by public weal.

To suggest that the maoists and their sympathizers are looking for reform or suggesting that they are instruments of reform is either downright oblivious to what is going on or subtly planting falsities. The maoists and their sympathizers do not want reform, they want the overthrow of the state.

I will show you a precedent from 2004:
Court On Its Own Motion vs Ajay Bansal And Ors. on 11/2/2004
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/574596/
Briefly, a couple of news reports cast aspersions on the Court convened by Justice AK Goel. The defense argument is below:

The basic thrust of the defence of the Contemners, as explained in their respective replies and also as projected in the course of arguments by their counsel, is that two news items published in the two news papers merely highlighted the need for bringing transparency in the procedure for appointment of Judges to the High Courts, which is a matter of public interest and is being debated at various levels including the parliament. It is also claimed that no attempt whatsoever has been made to bring to disrepute and scandalise the administration of Justice of Mr. Justice A. K. Goel or the Collegiums of this Court or that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It has also been claimed that Press has a public duty to perform by highlighting such aspects to strengthen the Institution of judiciary. It is contended that the matter of appointment of Judges is in public domain and there is a need for transparency. Such a need is recognised even by the Parliament which is hotly debating the Bill regarding constitution of a Judicial Commission for the purpose of making judicial appointment. Thus, the learned counsel contended that the Court should not be hypersensitive to the views expressed on the selection process of Judges and the Press should be free to publish fair comments in the interest of democracy in general and the Institution of Judiciary in particular. Most of the authorities have been cited on the aforesaid propositions.

The Court hit back with:

In view of the stand taken by the Contemners, we first consider as to whether the news items published in the Times of India and Hari Bhoomi merely deal with the need for evolving a system for appointment of Judges at the higher echelons to ensure Impartiality and transparency or is it an attempt to bring to disrepute and scandalise the administration of Justice of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Goel, who was specifically mentioned by name in the two news reports. The answer to this question would hinge upon the impression that an ordinary reader of the news reports may gather.

The key part of the Judgment is what impression a news report leaves to the reader. The Court further adds:

We have carefully gone through the two news items and are left with a definite impression that an effort has been made to scandalise the appointment of Mr. Justice Goel as a Judge of our High Court thereby bringing him into disrepute in the eyes of the general public.

Now I will apply the same clause to you. You barged in here, you did not read the defense proceedings, nor seem to have been privy to the happenstances in the Sessions Court of BK Verma. Yet you claim "flimsy evidence", and arrogate responsibility on your part to cast aspersions on the repute of a Judge. It is a thin ground that you are skating over. If you can be super-selective in reading precedents, I can be too. At the end of the day, the Court shall decide. And in the case of Binayak, it has. There ends Part I of the story. And the Court advises the leftist Press too:

Freedom of Press in its widest amplitude has also been recognised as a part and parcel of the right to freedom of speech and expression. The Courts have zealously guarded against any invasion or infringement of this right, but, at the same time, recognised that reasonable restriction can be imposed on the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution in the interest of general public. In Re: Harijai Singh. (1997 Cri LJ 58) (supra) and Arundhati Roy, In Re ; (2002 Cri LJ 1792) (supra), the Supreme Court has, in no uncertain terms, held that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not unbridled and that in the garb of exercising this right, no citizen or newspaper can scandalise, run down or denigrate the institution of Judiciary.

Exactly what is happening now. Press and Internet blogs are scandalizing the Judiciary without having the gumption to appeal higher.

In our opinion, a citizen, who seeks to exercise fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-Ill of the Constitution Is under a constitutional obligation to do his duties and one, who does not do his fundamental duties, has no right to enjoy fundamental rights.

So folks such as Gautam Navlakha clearly do not enjoy the right to free speech because they do not keep their mouths shut sufficiently. So it is a circle really, you whine and criticize at the drop of a hat the Judiciary, you are not doing your Constitutional obligations, you go around trucking with banned groups, you are not doing your Constitutional obligations, and hence, you do not deserve to enjoy your Constitutional rights. Sure, you know the law of the land. But the law of the land is subject to complicated interpretations.

[somnath]

Did Binayak abet criminals on the run by helping get safe houses and money (bank accounts) etc.

From the current judgement - he has been convicted under 124A, 124B of IPC and the Chattisgarh Public Safety Act and the UAPA. Briefly put Section 124A read with Section 120B of IPC pertains to sedition and conspiracy for sedition; CSPSA, 2005 makes culpable membership of, association with, and furthering the interests, financially or otherwise, of organizations notified and banned under the Act as unlawful. UAPA, 1967 seeks to penalize membership of a terrorist gang or association, holding proceeds of terrorism, or support given to a terrorist organization.

So there is a conviction, under howsoever tenuous evience (some loopholes have been pointed out in the posts earlier)..

Also, how do you know there is no strategy - maybe it is a message to the hardcore or maybe the overground supporters?

Well I dont know if there is a "strategy"..But if it is supposed to be a message, well the Maoists themselves are not shivering because an "empathiser" has been jailed..they are merely getting more propaganda points! Overground supporters, the problem is that Binayak Sen wsa the softest target (I mentioned this erlier) of them all..He was based in Chattisgarh in a naxal area, was arrested by the Chattisgarh Police and tried in a court there..Do you think the govt will be able to do anything remotely similar to the likes of Arundhati Roy, Prashant Bhushan, Jean dreze and company, ensconced as they are in Delhi?

[Stan_Savljevic]

Someone, I think Stan mentioned earlier that this "battle" would be won when we have a larger middle class. In fact, it is the middle class that is most repelled when someone like Binayak Sen is targeted. Call it class consciosness

I am from the middle class (upper middle class, yes). I do not feel rage at any "miscarriage of justice." There is hardly any feeling of spread of some class consciousness. That is what you feel. It is your opinion vs. whatever else exists. So you are waging a war of ideas here, aint you? Why dont you say that right away? Instead of pontificating from a neutral position. I am waging a war standing from a Constitutionalist position and I have no shame in saying that Binayak deserved what he got. Now lets restart this, can we?

And Dr Sen is not just any one of us, he represents the brightest of us with the noblest ideals - gold-medallist from CMC but spending 2 decades treating tribals in Chattisgarh...

But "The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtues." - Rene Descartes, philosopher and mathematician (1596-1650)

(Imagine the police affidavit alleged he is not a "practising" doctor!).

Were you in Chhattisgarh seeing his clinic? Did you see him treat patients? Or is it all based on my word vs. your word? Even if Dr. Sen was the greatest philanthropist around, there are enough claims of him trucking with groups that are keen on subverting India and the idea it stands for.

But Binayak Sen is one of us,

He may be one of you, he surely is NOT one of me.

The Chattisgarh police, as Ajai Sahni says, is an incompetent setup..

That may or may not be true. And that is irrelevant to the guilty judgment. The Chhattisgarh Police did NOT judge Binayak Sen. It was done by the Court of BK Verma.

They have created none of the real capacities required to fight the naxals.

And they have hardly received the Central support they need to fight the maoists effectively. So it is the pusillanimity of the bumbling apparatus at the Centre that is responsible for the spread of the maoist menace.

[Manish Jain]

Pretty good blog on Sen's conviction-

Support For Terror Courier Service

[somnath]

Neither are you defending Tusharkant and Binayak nor am I prosecuting them, that job has been done by more eminent people.

Sure, the point here was more limited, which you are sidestepping...The fact is that the "job" has NOT been done - Tushar Bhattacharya has NOT been convicted yet...One of the grounds of the conviction was Dr Sen's association with certain types of criminals..Tushar Kanti Bhattacharya is accused of certain crimes againstt eh state, but they havent been proved yet - an interview to a mag does not constitute conviction.The question therefore is how can association with someone who is merely an accused be grounds for conviction of a third party?

I wont progress on the Annadurai question here (in a separate place if required), else it will derail the topic..As a brief note, MJ Akbar's India-the Siege Within is a good starting point on the politics of Dravida Nadu and the way he was tackled by the Indian state..

There is no comparison betwen Dr Sen, Laldenga, Annadurai and Longowal - I made the point that in stature he is a non-entity in Maoist ranks..The point was that the Indian state has treated people who presented far greater threats with greatr empathy (!)..And continues to...

What exactly is healthy about the Countercurrents type narrative.

Where does Countercurrent come in the discussion? That is a strawman you are creating...The criticism of the judgement has come from people as varied as Shiv Vishwanathan and Ajai Sahni..Not all of them are commie fifth columnists..Why dont you focus on the content of what is being said rather than venting your spleen on non-existing (in this discussion) leftsists? BTW, who has said that Binayak Sen has to be released BECAUSE 22 nobel laureates have said so? Various people, including these nobel laureates, have criticsed the judgement...And that criticism is perfectly legal and valid under Indian laws..

As for the judgement you quote, apples and oranges..the case is about casting aspersion on the judge as an individual..Criticing someone's judgement is not casting aspersions on his personal integrity...

you did not read the defense proceedings, nor seem to have been privy to the happenstances in the Sessions Court of BK Verma. Yet you claim "flimsy evidence", and arrogate responsibility on your part to cast aspersions on the repute of a Judge.

Again, your knowledge of basic tenets of jurisprudence seems even lesser than mine...When studying a judgement and commenting on it, one does not need to go back to proceedings during the trial to analyse the reasons for the judge's opinion..The judgement encapsulates all rationale of why the judge has arrived at a particular conclusion..the judgement is availabel on the net, and I (and others who are commenting on it) base their opinions on the same...There might be issues raised by the "losing side" in case the judge does not include points that it thinks are critical to the case..But here, the judge has pronounced conviction, and conviction needs to be justified in the judgement - the critique is of the judgement...Not being privy to happenstances etc are a non-sequitor..Last, about "casting aspersions" on the repute of a judge, please let me know where exactly that has been done, and I will immediately modify the post and apologise for the error...A critique of a judgement is not a critique of the personal integrity of the judge - Justice Krishna Iyer said that many moons back when he visited my school (we were asking him questions on Justice Ramaswamy, who was being tried to be impeached)..

Sure, there will be an appeal..But that does not stop people from questioning the wisdom of both the prosecution as well as the judgement, from a moral, political and strategic standpoint..That all...

[Yayavar]

Did Binayak abet criminals on the run by helping get safe houses and money (bank accounts) etc.

From the current judgement - he has been convicted under 124A, 124B of IPC and the Chattisgarh Public Safety Act and the UAPA. Briefly put Section 124A read with Section 120B of IPC pertains to sedition and conspiracy for sedition; CSPSA, 2005 makes culpable membership of, association with, and furthering the interests, financially or otherwise, of organizations notified and banned under the Act as unlawful. UAPA, 1967 seeks to penalize membership of a terrorist gang or association, holding proceeds of terrorism, or support given to a terrorist organization.

So there is a conviction, under howsoever tenuous evience (some loopholes have been pointed out in the posts earlier)..

ok..so, in the courtroom it was proven to the Judge's satisfaction that Binayak Sen is guilty. The judge heard both the prosecution and the defense.

I'm not sure of the loopholes...they are not clear to me since the evidence itself is not presented in full to me, other than that he abetted terrorists as per the prosecution. Maybe you can list the loopholes again so that we can understand your point better.

Also, how do you know there is no strategy - maybe it is a message to the hardcore or maybe the overground supporters?

Well I dont know if there is a "strategy"..But if it is supposed to be a message, well the Maoists themselves are not shivering because an "empathiser" has been jailed..they are merely getting more propaganda points! Overground supporters, the problem is that Binayak Sen wsa the softest target (I mentioned this erlier) of them all..He was based in Chattisgarh in a naxal area, was arrested by the Chattisgarh Police and tried in a court there..Do you think the govt will be able to do anything remotely similar to the likes of Arundhati Roy, Prashant Bhushan, Jean dreze and company, ensconced as they are in Delhi?

Well then, maybe that is not the case....just that he is one cog less in the Marxist machinery as per the law forces I guess.

edited one time for clarity.

[somnath]

Maybe you can list the loopholes again so that we can understand your point better.

Well, I did in the previous posts as a matter of fact..The key problems with the judgement are as follows:

1. Conviction of Dr Sen is on grounds of association with certain "criminals"...Issues start right here..One of those is Tushar Kanti Bhattacharya, someone who is undergoing trial at various courts, but has not been convicted yet..But association with an undertrial is taken as proof of criminality of Dr Sen!

2. Another culpable association is with Narayan Sanyal, whose letters Dr Sen is accused of delivering to Pijush Guha, who in turn delivers them to the Maoists...Again, the problem is that criminal charges against Narayan Sanyal were framed long after Binayak Sen was arrested...So a charge of criminality of association was doen before charges of crminaility of the principal was established..

3. The judgement depends on evidence provided by policemen and one Anil Singh...Now Anil Singh is the star witness, who claims to have heard the conversation between Pijush Guha and the police incrminating Binayak Sen...Problem is, Anil Singh wasnt a police witness in the operation (to arrest Pijush Guha), he wasnt ionvolved in the incident at all..Apparently he overheard conversations while passing by! So the Chattisgarh Police allows random trespassers to overhear conversations between them and a dreaded terrorist! And this is the testimony that seals the case...

4. the police chargesheet has numerous inconsistencies..For example, it mentions that Pijush Guha was arrested in Station Road, while in a separate affidavit to the Supreme Court (on a related issue regardign Dr Sen), it mentions Mahindra Hotel..Later, the discrepency is explained away as being a typographical error..

There are many more such holes that can be picked...But quite frankly, it is the political and strategic fallout that would be of greater concern than just the legality of the case..

BTW, Stan, your descrioption of the Chattisgarh Sessions Court as an august body is quite touching...I dont specifically know the Chattisgarh court, but no one with even a passing familiarity with the lower judiciary in the country in general will bestow any Sessions Court with any "august"-ness...Have you ever been to a Sessions Court anywhere?

And yes, the lower court has decided - there is no problem on that..But that does not prevent people from critiqueing the judgement (in the same way as people havent stopped critiqueing the Supreme Court for its exoneration of SAR Geelani)...there is no "verbal gymnastics" here, contrary to what you put..

[Stan_Savljevic]

Somnath, your verbal gymnastics/aims are pretty obvious for me to see.

1) You are not keen on understanding why the Sessions Court decided what it did. Hook or crook, you will see/portray things from the side of the criminals and terrorists whose aim is to subvert the state.
2) You bring in all that Sanhati verbiage (narrative, State, repression, etc.) and claim to possess a veneer of absolute spotless neutrality even as your bias gets ripped apart.
3) You have open contempt for a Sessions Court, but not enough for someone who claims to subvert the system as it stands, violently that too. I have seen enough Courts in India to know what I talk about them. I have spent 15+ years walking endlessly back and forth with someone fighting two lawsuits in Saidapet Sessions Court to know what it is to be in a Sessions Court. So your bullshit about "augustness" etc. deserves the contempt you deserve.
4) You question whether arresting Binayak Sen is "strategically" the right thing to do. On the other hand, from all you have written, you really do not seem to either care for the state enough to worry about what happens to the state/its apparatus and whether any strategy matters or not. Not one bit of concern for the State's well-being is clear from what you write.
5) You sit where you sit and question how Tusharkant Bhattacharya is even a maoist. The next level of your argument would be how Muppalla Laxman Rao is a maoist. These cheap tactics may pass along as verbal rhetoric, but they dont pass along for believable facts on the ground. Not with the Judiciary, not to win any "battle" for ideas. Your question on how a Politburo member of the maoists is even a maoist is as laughable as your arguments for the sake of arguments. The Politburo member has openly taken part in a botched peace talks with the GoI, what proof do you want. He claims so, 108 magazines claim that he claims so, People's March claims so, if you put a search for Tusharkant in almost every known maoist outlet you will get enough hits. The Judiciary may have different reasons to believe what it does, but what battle are you fighting when you question Tusharkant Bhattacharya's maoist affiliation? You are not arguing a case in a Court of Law, you dont know what evidence was presented to confirm TB's maoist affiliation, yet you question everything. What proof do people who read what I write and what you crap want?
6) And what exactly is the Saint and new Gandhi, Binayak Sen, doing with Tusharkant Bhattacharya. How many of "us" middle class people consort with the Politburo member of the maoist party? Did you make a call to any maoist yesterday? If you claim to be middle class, then most of the folks you know should be middle class. Do you know of anyone you know who made a call to a maoist yesterday? How come the Great Shri Binayakji become an exception?
7) You snidely equate the Great "Dr." Binayak Sen to mass leaders such as CN Annadurai, Longowal, Laldenga Hawla, GS Tohra and whoever else. The best "historic" chronicle you could come up with is MJ Akbar's "India: The Siege Within." Claiming MJ Akbar's work as a historic chronicle is like claiming Chetan Bhagat is the best exponent of Queen's English. Please read history books better than MJ Akbar's. I have read enough on CN Annadurai to know enough about the greatness of him, his intellect and his ability to articulate a divisive opinion. I started with MJA's work more than 10 years back, but once you go past that and read both Tamil chronciles of the Dravida Kazhagam and English as well, you realize how shallow MJA's attempts are. There is absolutely no dearth for DK, DMK, CNA works, etc., all you have to do is go to your unkal googal and ask her. In any case, equating CNA with a millipede such as Binayak Sen is blasphemous, scandalous and downright undemocratic, especially given the chalk and cheese that are CNA and Binayak. Your attempt at == is as asinine as Chetan Bhagat's claim to English.
8 ) Shooting behind Ajai Sahni is as cheap as you can get. There are two lines of what Sahni said in the Propaganda outlets, there are no contexts, nothing else, no more than 2 lines from all I can see. Sahni can write long and looonger, yet he has only two lines of statement on the Binayak Sen verdict? Besides, Sahni's opinion is his. If you have read Sahni enough (as I have keeping track of SAIR and SATP everyday for the last 3+ years), you know his critical statement fits into a pattern of how he wants the bumbling GoI apparatus to go for the kill asap. OTOH, you stand behind Sahni's back and shoot at pretty much everything just because Binayak Sen is such an important cog in the wheel of the maoist propaganda paraphrenelia.

In short, you are neither neutral nor intellectually honest enough to understand the situation in Binayak Sen's case. You are wasting my time with your veneer of neutrality. Goodbye and wonderful semanticizing. And better luck at winning the middle class battle, which is so outraged as to revolt over Binayak's verdict than to worry about the onion prices and the result of the cricket match.

[milindc]

..When studying a judgement and commenting on it, one does not need to go back to proceedings during the trial to analyse the reasons for the judge's opinion..The judgement encapsulates all rationale of why the judge has arrived at a particular conclusion..the judgement is availabel on the net, and I (and others who are commenting on it) base their opinions on the same...There might be issues raised by the "losing side" in case the judge does not include points that it thinks are critical to the case...

Did you really study the Judgement before you claimed the ISI letter? or was it from one of the media bites.. It seems to me that you never read the Hindi Judgement before your earlier ISI letter evidence claim..

[milindc]

1. Conviction of Dr Sen is on grounds of association with certain "criminals"...Issues start right here..One of those is Tushar Kanti Bhattacharya, someone who is undergoing trial at various courts, but has not been convicted yet..But association with an undertrial is taken as proof of criminality of Dr Sen!

somnath
Your thoughts on whether Osama Bin Laden is a Jihadi; I don't think he is captured and convicted with his arguments put forth in court; So should the court let go of terrorists who work for him since he is not yet convicted;
I bet the Hon Chhattisgarh Sessions Judge was following some precedent.....

[Bhaskar]

Karkare was like a God to Indian Muslims: Digvijay

Congress General Secretary Digvijay Singh seems determined to stir the communal cauldron with unabated controversial statements. On Monday at the book release function of senior Urdu journalist and writer Aziz Burney's 26/11 an RSS conspiracy in Mumbai , Singh said that slain Anti Terrorism Squad chief Hemant Karkare was a like a 'God to Indian Muslims'.

Singh also said that though he was present at function of Burney's book, he did not subscribe to its views that 26/11 was a conspiracy by the Hindu right wing RSS.

Why doesn't this SOB STFU?
Honestly, why cant they charge him with sedition charges for inciting communal violence?

[Yayavar]

Maybe you can list the loopholes again so that we can understand your point better.

Well, I did in the previous posts as a matter of fact..The key problems with the judgement are as follows:

1. Conviction of Dr Sen is on grounds of association with certain "criminals"...Issues start right here..One of those is Tushar Kanti Bhattacharya, someone who is undergoing trial at various courts, but has not been convicted yet..But association with an undertrial is taken as proof of criminality of Dr Sen!

2. Another culpable association is with Narayan Sanyal, whose letters Dr Sen is accused of delivering to Pijush Guha, who in turn delivers them to the Maoists...Again, the problem is that criminal charges against Narayan Sanyal were framed long after Binayak Sen was arrested...So a charge of criminality of association was doen before charges of crminaility of the principal was established..

Association? He did more than that - he provided safe houses and money flow (bank accounts) to the Naxals. He claimed to be a relative to get access to Sanyal - Sanyal who beheaded villagers supporting anti-polio drive as per here: http://anoopsaha.blogspot.com/2006/03/c ... -pucl.html

Information as above will help in capturing the 'hearts and minds' of middle-class. People 'like-us' you were worried about.

So what if official framing of charges against Sanyal was after arresting Sen. The investigation went on in parallel probably.

3. The judgement depends on evidence provided by policemen and one Anil Singh...Now Anil Singh is the star witness, who claims to have heard the conversation between Pijush Guha and the police incrminating Binayak Sen...Problem is, Anil Singh wasnt a police witness in the operation (to arrest Pijush Guha), he wasnt ionvolved in the incident at all..Apparently he overheard conversations while passing by! So the Chattisgarh Police allows random trespassers to overhear conversations between them and a dreaded terrorist! And this is the testimony that seals the case...

4. the police chargesheet has numerous inconsistencies..For example, it mentions that Pijush Guha was arrested in Station Road, while in a separate affidavit to the Supreme Court (on a related issue regardign Dr Sen), it mentions Mahindra Hotel..Later, the discrepency is explained away as being a typographical error..

There are many more such holes that can be picked...But quite frankly, it is the political and strategic fallout that would be of greater concern than just the legality of the case..

And does the judge take these to be primary ones? Did the defence accept these? There are more serious charges against the fellow...wouldn't those out-weigh anything else.

[ASPuar]

So, Mr. Diggy attends book launches though he doesnt agree with them?

Will he then attend a book launch of a book called "Nathuram Godse: great martyr" or "MKG : Shot dead or committed suicide?" or " Holocaust: Jewish conspiracy"?

Havent you ever attended a book launch? There is a lot of free "roohafza" floating around! That may have been his incentive for attending!

[disha]

Somnath Sir,

For few minutes bear with me and this analogy. Let us say you are the doctor here who has taken care of your patients (now former patients)., including convicted criminals.

1. One day you go to your patient to see how he is doing in Jail. Maybe his wife has asked you to pay a house call. Let us call him Patient A. In the course of your conversation, your patient informs you that he (A) is planning to attack a train station and is planning to commit mass murder. In the process he will need help of another accomplice (B) and ask you to take a message from A to B.

2. You go to B and deliver the message, now knowing fully well that A and B are planning to commit mass murder.

3. Over course of time, person C comes to your home., he is doing the reconnisance for the attack and you provide him shelter with full knowledge of the conspiracy.

4. Attack happens and several scores die. Police investigates and all A, B and C are caught and C turns to be approver. A and B are convicted.

Now I will let you defend yourself. From the perspective of law, you are accessory to murder(s) and hence should be given full maximum sentence for that. It does not matter that A, B and C are doing it with righteous anger or not. Also do not compare it with fight for Independence - since that is a vacous comparison. Here A, B and C have right to vote, right to stand for Election and right to take course to peaceful assembly and protests.

So given the above parameters, can you please defend yourself?

[Muppalla]

I think AP police know better how to deal. If it is AP style opps last 10 to 15 posts won't be there.

[Pratyush]

I shudder to think what would have happned to Dr Sen had he been accused of being a police informer.

On second thoughts, the Indian police forces should start spreading such news about the persons of interests. Step back watch the fire works. As the Maoists clean house.

That way you don't have to face the outrage of the Fake Intelectuals & Pesudo Seculars

[Arjun]

The charges go beyond only 'empathy' to Maoists.... He is charged with helping known Naxalites open bank accounts, obtain rented accomodation and get jobs. Obviously, if proven, these are serious enough to merit a strong sentence.

[abhishek_sharma]

Evidence of Hindu extremist link to Samjhauta, say officials, add caution

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Evide ... ion/730538

[arjunm]

Evidence of Hindu extremist link to Samjhauta, say officials, add caution

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Evide ... ion/730538

I think ,US gave already the evidence of the involvement of the Pakistani terror group LET to GOI

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 126714.cms

Then who is this brain dead Forest Gump who find ample evidence connecting Hindu terror, except retarded Rahul and his chappal bearer Digvijay Singh.

[Pratyush]

Guys,

Why does the cirtificate provoded by the US be valid for the Indian invistigations. It should be obvious to any one with more then an ounce of grey matter. That the US has no idea what is taking place in the minds of the RSS. They can blow the white house and the US will blame the Al quada.

So the Rahul & Diggy combo must be correct when they say that the safron terrorists bombed Samjhota express. And that RSS did 26/11.

JMT.

[AbhishekD]

But guys why would it not be possible that a group of extremists could be involved in attacking the samjauta express. It is possible and with every fresh evidence that is gathering up on this issue, I think it is entirely plausible that a group of extremists may have attacked Samjhauta. Already it is confirmed that the 3 blasts in Hyderabad, Malegaon and Ajmer were indeed the work on extremist.

Such incidents happen everywhere in the world. White supremacists have taken to violence in US, there is no reason that such a right wing extremism cannot happen in India. It is important to snuff this phenomenon out early and nip the problem in the bud.

[Pratyush]

AD,

It is only the extreamists of the Saffron Kind who indulge in terror. Every one else including the LET & co. is innocent onlee. Didn't you know this.

[Vril]

voting going on rediff to rate UPA's performance. posting the link here.

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 101229.htm

[ASPuar]

Muslim population in WB has reached above 25% according to latest reports. Noone seems to be doing anything to control influx from across the border.

[ASPuar]

Somnath Sir,

For few minutes bear with me and this analogy. Let us say you are the doctor here who has taken care of your patients (now former patients)., including convicted criminals.

1. One day you go to your patient to see how he is doing in Jail. Maybe his wife has asked you to pay a house call. Let us call him Patient A. In the course of your conversation, your patient informs you that he (A) is planning to attack a train station and is planning to commit mass murder. In the process he will need help of another accomplice (B) and ask you to take a message from A to B.

2. You go to B and deliver the message, now knowing fully well that A and B are planning to commit mass murder.

3. Over course of time, person C comes to your home., he is doing the reconnisance for the attack and you provide him shelter with full knowledge of the conspiracy.

4. Attack happens and several scores die. Police investigates and all A, B and C are caught and C turns to be approver. A and B are convicted.

Now I will let you defend yourself. From the perspective of law, you are accessory to murder(s) and hence should be given full maximum sentence for that. It does not matter that A, B and C are doing it with righteous anger or not. Also do not compare it with fight for Independence - since that is a vacous comparison. Here A, B and C have right to vote, right to stand for Election and right to take course to peaceful assembly and protests.

So given the above parameters, can you please defend yourself?

Disha, there is not, to my knowledge, a term akin to accessory to murder in Indian law. Instead, the scenario which you have described above, if proveable, would be punishable under Section 302, read along with Section 34 IPC, viz. Punishment for Murder, read along with common intention, the punishment being all the more stringent.

As far as all the hullabaloo regarding Binayak Sen is concerned, the sessions court decided the case according to the facts set before it. To all those casting aspersions on the competence of the sessions court, my answer is, that the Indian judicial system is a fair and balanced one, with adequate provision for judicial review. If Dr Sen disagrees with his conviction, and is aggrieved by it, he is free to appeal to the next higher court, viz. The Honourable High Court of Chattisgarh. There are twelve Justices of that high court, any of whom could competently review the matter. If there is a further problem, a division bench could look into the case, and if there is still a doubt, the Hon. Supreme Court can also review.

[Stan_Savljevic]

Muslim population in WB

It is >30% in Assam according to the 2001 census.

[Rupesh]

Shaukat Guru freed

NEW DELHI: Shaukat Hussain Guru, one of the key accused in the 2001 terror attack on Parliament, walked out a free man from Tihar on Wednesday, nine months prior to his official date of release, due to his "good conduct".

Sources in the jail claimed that Shaukat, who was kept in jail number 2, had shown good behaviour because of which he had earned a remission

[brihaspati]

Muslim population in WB has reached above 25% according to latest reports. Noone seems to be doing anything to control influx from across the border.

Elections are coming. No one can afford to control the influx.

[shravan]

Fake BSF jawan arrested with SIM cards, maps in Gujarat

[Pratyush]

The loyal, seditious Dr Sen

From the article;

Today’s sedition law reads: “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India.”

It seems that a man who helps those who are activly involves in the above. Should not be held responsible for his actions and punished as an accessory to sedition.

Just because he has been doing a good job otherwise dosenot mean that he can get away with helping those who are intent on overthrowing the democratically ellected Indian state and the republic.

JMT

[somnath]

Just because he has been doing a good job otherwise dosenot mean that he can get away with helping those who are intent on overthrowing the democratically ellected Indian state and the republic

All laws, most at any rate, are open to interpretation of the judge...The judge in this case has taken a decision that can be contested, as it has been, and I am sure will be contested in a higher court as well..

The larger problem with "cant get away doing" etc etc is political...The history of insurgency in India (and elsehwere) shows that a deal can be delivered only by those wielding the gun/party. Final settlement can be had only by either liquidating the gun-wielders (a la Punjab) or by bringing them on board (a la Laldenga)..The moderate or overground section on the other hand has no strategic value beyond iirritation. Too much engagement with them is useless, as they cant deliver, going after them is counterprodutive as it simply gives more propaganda points to the insurgent...To the extent that the overground sympathisers vent their spleen in public and media, it gives the disaffected sections a legal valve to express their views, and to that extent keeps some of them away from the gun - thats all....By and large, the Indian state has dealt with insurgencies in that template...So Tohra, Longowal, Mann were not convicted under Sec 124A, even when they sympathised with groups that posed a military/civil threat hitherto unknown to India..In Assam, people like Indira Goswami are not put behind bars..In Kashmir, the likes of Lone and the Mirwaiz are not hounded into prison sentences...In fact in the extant case of naxalism, the AP Police does not go after people like Gaddar, but go after those with the gun...Its a template that is fairly well established with good reason...Taken literally, the Shiv Sena characters should en masse have been behind bars under 124A by now, as would Mamta Bannerjee, jokers like Azam Khan and a host of others thorugh our history...

That is why Chttisgarh govt's obsession with teaching a lesson to Binayak Sen is so baffling..He is peripheral to the military capacity/organisation of the Maoists...Ganapati is not shaking in his boots because Dr Sen has gone to jail...On the other hand, he has gotten a huge slice of propaganda that can be used for fresh recruitment as well as justifying his "cause"...My take is that its simply an attempt by the Chattisgrh govt to hide its failures on puttin up a competent anti-insurgency strategy...They are perhaps behind even the WB govt in showing any degree of coherence in responding to the Maoist threat...Added to that is a notorious amount of opacity in its mining policies, ones that would put even the Karnataka regime to shame..(Perhaps for the first time in history, a state govt has told the legislature that an MoU with a private company on mining cannot be disclosed to the legislature! A concession on public property given by the Executive, and it is refusing to table the details to the Assembly - banana republic?)...Knocking over a soft target simply diverts everyone's attention from those issues..

[Pratyush]

NIA links SIMI to Lashkar-e-Taiba

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The National Investigation Agency on Thursday linked the outlawed Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) to the dreaded Pakistan-based Islamic terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba.

The NIA claimed the link between the two in a chargesheet filed against 18 activists of SIMI in the designated court in Kochi. The central investigating agency filed the chargesheet in connection with a secret meeting held by the SIMI activists in Panayuikkulam near Kochi on August 15, 2006. The case which was allegedly derailed by the Kerala police had attracted national attention forcing the government to hand it over to the NIA after a TOI report in August 2008, in the aftermath of the Jaipur and Bangalore blasts.

The case had its origin in the arrest of 5 SIMI men, who were part of the meeting held at the Happy Auditorium in Panayikkulam. Though a total of 18 SIMI men were rounded up from the venue, Kerala police mysteriously registered a case against only 5 and let off the rest. The FIR registered under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act named five accused – Shaduli, Ansar Moulavi, Nizamuddin, Abdul Rafeeq and Shamas.

But even after two years, the police did not file a chargesheet. What raised fears was that two of the accused – Ansar Moulavi and Shaduli - were picked up by the Rajasthan police for masterminding the Jaipur blasts which killed about 80 people. Another accused was detained by the Karnataka cops after the July 2008 serial blasts.

It also came to light later that Shaduli's brother Shibly Peediackal Abdul was SIMI's key operative in South India. Wanted in the 2006 Mumbai serial blasts, he too was arrested in Madhya Pradesh in March 2008 in what was a major crackdown on the outfit's leadership.

Ansar Moulavi and Shaduli also attended a secret training camp held by SIMI in the tourist haven of Vagamon in Kerala's Idukki district in December 2007, a year after they were arrested in Panayikkulam and released on bail.

The then Rural SP of Aluva was alleged to have been instrumental in sabotaging the case. However, it is not known if the NIA has indicted him too. An MLA of the ruling Left front is said to have even called on the SIMI men in jail a few days after their arrest to convey his `sympathy'.

[Singha]

IBNLIVE - I am afraid these people will enter politics!

New Delhi: United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa was on Thursday granted bail by a TADA court in Guwahati. The TADA court released Arabinda Rajkhowa after the Assam government did not oppose his bail application.

ULFA's general secretary Chitraban Hazarika and foreign secretary Sasha Chaudhury are also expected to get bail soon. Rajkhowa has been granted bail just ahead of proposed peace talks with ULFA.

Former Intelligence Bureau chief PC Haldar and peace interlocutor PC Haldar told CNN-IBN that peace talks are likely to begin soon.

"Talks should begin in two-three weeks time. All hurdles have been eliminated and it's time for dialogue," said Haldar.

The former IB chief met Rajkhowa for nearly an hour December 17 at the Guwahati Central Jail and worked out the modalities for the talks

Rajkhowa along with ULFA deputy commander-in-chief Raju Baruah was captured in Bangladesh and handed over to India earlier this year. He is the sixth top ULFA leaders to be released on bail.

ULFA's vice-chairman Pradeep Gogoi, publicity secretary Mithinga Daimary, Raju Baruah, political adviser Bhimakanta Burahgohain, cultural secretary Pranati Deka and Ramu Mech has already been released on bail.

However, ULFA's commander-in-chief Paresh Baruah remains absconding and is opposed to any peace talks. Intelligence reports claims that Baruah has left Bangaldesh.

In 1991, a four-member ULFA delegation led by its general secretary Anup Chetia and Arabinda Rajkhowa had met then prime minister late PV Narashima Rao and held informal talks.

During the talks, Rajkhowa promised to bring top leaders of the outfit, including Paresh Baruah, for negotiation with the government and got a safe passage. But they never returned for talks.

The arrested ULFA leader now wants to come to the political mainstream. Even the Congress in Assam is open for a role reversal for ULFA leadership. (me: the old north east motto of bring them overground, give them political office and let them loot the treasury in exchange for 'peace' - MNF/NSCN have trodden a well marked path for that)

[Raghavendra]

Terror alert: 1000 explosive laden trucks in India
http://www.zeenews.com/news677493.html

New Delhi: Around 1000 truck, packed with tonnes of explosives or drugs, may have entered India, according to intelligence sources.

The trucks purportedly have been sent by underworld don Dawood Ibrahim with the help of his aide Choota Shakeel.

Security agencies uncovered this recently when they caught two truck drivers. These drivers, who were working for Lashkar-e-Toiba, are also employed in making recce of different places.

“We are taking all precautions. We are doing what ever we can do,” said Sanjeev Dayal, Police Commissioner Mumbai.

Mumbai could be high on the targets, which is already on a high alert after news of four terrorists sneaking into the city came to light.