On 9th
of July, an article by Rana Ayuub and its consequent censorship by DNA sent the
whole twitter world in a tizzy. Now, though I don’t support any form of
censorship of the written word, I do have issues with a vindictive venom
spewing article based on lies and misrepresentation. Hence, I am going to
attempt to refute the said article to the best of my abilities.
Now, this
of course will be a slightly long winded article as I quote her and refute so
bear with me.
“Late last week, a special CBI court adjourned the bail application of
Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin and Tulsi Prajapati fake encounter cases,
accepting his excuse that he was engaged in political work in New Delhi”.
A man out on
bail, wouldn’t apply for a bail application. So, at the very onset, it is hard
for me to trust the credibility of the article.
“Shah, 49, the first serving Home minister of a state to have gone
behind bars in a criminal case of murder and conspiracy”
I can’t
refute this on facts. Yes, he was in jail for charges of murder, conspiracy and
extortion among other charges in 2010. But let me clarify, he was charge
sheeted based on preliminary investigation. The case is sub judice and the
charges haven’t been proved yet so declaring him a criminal before the court
does, is over enthusiastic journalism. Whatever happened to INNOCENT UNTIL
PROVEN GUILTY?
“.... the man who
waved the magic wand for BJP in Uttar Pradesh, the PM’s confidante and the
number two in the government now takes over the reins of the party”
Whooaaa!!
Number 2 in the GOVERNMENT? If Ms. Ayuub said number 1,2,3 in the PARTY, I
would have gladly accepted it. But in the government? I don’t think Mr. Jaitley,
Mrs. Swaraj or Mr. Rajnath would take very kindly to that statement. Wishful
thinking Ms. Ayuub?
“Amit Shah had twice in the past sought exemption from personal
appearance citing political work, but the then CBI judge JT Utpat had found his
excuse inadequate for the court to grant him relief. On June 20, while hearing
the application, Utpat allowed the same but made a scathing remark “Everytime
you are giving this exemption application without assigning any reason,” he
told Shahs counsel”.
Exemption
from personal appearance, is an extremely routine affair. Wonder why Ms.Ayuub
was so hell bent on making it sound like he was evading the law. Also, let’s
give the judiciary a little credit here, if the judge had found the “excuse” so
very inadequate, he wouldn’t grant the exemption no? Plus, at this point, i’m
still wondering what application are we talking about here? The bail application
of a man out on bail, or the exemption from personal appearance application?
“In less than a week, Utpat was transferred to a Pune court before he
could preside over Shahs discharge application. Shah managed his way out with a
tried and tested formula of transferring judges, practiced brazenly in his home
state of Gujarat through his tenure as Home Minister.”
Ok then!
This here might take a little explaining. Let me first go on a little
definition expedition.
Bail
Application : "procure the release
of a person from legal custody, by undertaking that he/she shall appear at the
time and place designated and submit him/herself to the jurisdiction and
judgment of the court." and an application for the same is a BAIL
APPLICATION
Discharge
Application: Section 239, Crpc when accused shall be discharged. - (1) If, upon
considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173
and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks
necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of
being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be
groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so
doing.
As evident,
the two concepts are extremely different. If I safely presume that a man out on
bail wouldn’t apply for bail, I can also assume that it was a DISCHARGE
APPLICATION hearing. This by default means, they were contesting that there isn’t
the charges are groundless. I think Ms.Ayuub needs to do her research before
writing. The “power of the pen” will be exponentially multiplied then.
Now coming
to Amit Shah with a Harry Potter wand transferring judges ad nauseum. (Brazenly
I might add)
The High
Court has made it mandatory for judicial officers to be transferred every three
years, usually to happen in the summer vacations.
Also,
according to several newspaper reports the Bombay High Court had "acceded
to a request made by Utpat" for a transfer to Pune because of his
daughter's education.
I find it a
little suspect when Ms.Ayuub conveniently forgets to mention that in her
eloquent article.
Besides, let’s
not get into how many judges are transferred annually in every state. I wouldn’t
want to sermonise a brilliant journalist.
“...If the SIT
verdict on Narendra Modi’s role in the Gujarat encounters is to be held as the
final word, by virtue of it being monitored by the apex court, it is baffling
then that Narendra Modi who promised clean and transparent governance to this
country and setting up fast track courts to look into cases of criminal charges
against politicians has turned a blind eye to Shah’s criminal past.”
Come
on Ms.Ayuub! Your article is fast going from the bizarre to ridiculous!
Again,
Definition :
SIT:
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM. It is a civilian agency responsible for
investigating circumstances involving police and civilians that have resulted
in a corruption, misuse of power, death, serious injury, or allegations of
sexual assault. However all full-time SIT investigators are former law
enforcement personnel or have worked for law enforcement agencies.
In
which parallel universe do you consider that SIT has the power to deliver
VERDICTS? You cant cloak your lack of research by simply adding a line that
starts with “by virtue...”
“With Shah’s
induction on the national scene first as the General Secretary of the BJP and
now as the BJP President, Modi has risked his own political image for the sake
of his ally and friend who has put to shame the best political pundits and
strategists from North India with his shrewd manoeuvring.”
So, by
your argument, if modi’s political image has been compromised since Amit Shah
was inducted as the general secretary of BJP, pray tell, how did he win a
sweeping majority in 2014 elections? Or are we not to consider that as a yardstick
for his political image?
As far
as SHREWD MANOEUVRING goes. That’s politics honey. And if you don’t agree with
his methods, by all means, write an article explaining his shrewd manoeuvres
and critique. If you can’t, your statement is moot and baseless.
“It was under
his tenure as Home Minister that the Gujarat police went on a spree of fake
encounters in the state – holding regular press conferences for the media with
the bodies of the alleged assassins on display. The officers would claim that
the Gujarat CM was under threat from jihadists who were out to assassinate the
man who brought back Hindu asmita in Gujarat.”
Sohrabuddin
Sheikh was accused of possessing 40 AK-47 assault rifles that were recovered
from his house in Jharania village of Ujjain district in 1995.At the time of
his killing, he also had more than 60 pending cases against him, ranging from
extorting protection money from marble factories in Gujarat and Rajasthan, to
arms smuggling in Madhya Pradesh, to murder cases both in Gujarat and
Rajasthan. Sheikh was a notorious underworld criminal with links to the
Sharifkhan Pathan alias Chhota Dawood and Abdul Latif gangs, and with Rasool
Parti and Brajesh Singh, both known to be close to India's underworld kingpin Dawood
Ibrahim.To escape the police, Sheikh fled with his family from Gujarat to the
city of Hyderabad in the state of Telangana.
(source
: Wikipedia)
Yes,
the police do claim that the then CM was under threat from Jihadist forces. Are
you telling me that 40 AK47 assault weapons were Christmas gifts from
Sohrabbudin and Kauser bi for their children?
Let me
clarify, I don’t support so called “fake encounters” because I trust the legal
system. But I would want to ask you a simple question. If u had to stand in
front of the barrel of a gun, would you rather have the police holding it, or
sohrabbudin? While you fight and weep for the human rights of terrorists, a
small mention of the lives they were out to destroy would have been
appreciated.
“Minister of
the state was using state machinery to snoop on innocent civilians, monitoring
their moves. In this particular case, a young woman whose movements, including
aspects of her personal life were being reported to the CM on a daily basis.”
"I was satisfied with the safety measures
taken by the Gujarat Government when my lives were under threat and when I am
not complaining what happened in 2009 there is a sinister campaign to target my
reputation and of my family,"
Again, I
respect the judiciary too much to comment here. But if YOU must, maybe you
should mention ALL the details. Not the ones that perhaps suit your agenda
best.
“But even if
one were to dismiss these actions against officials, lawyers, judges who played
significant roles in the criminal justice process involving Amit Shah as
conjectures, will it not be pertinent to suggest that by appointing Shah as the
BJP President, Modi has acted in contradiction to his promise of a free and
fair government, which will have no space for vindictiveness. Hasn’t Modi and
the BJP under the guidance of the RSS just made the first attack on the principle
of clean governance on the basis of which the party came to power?”
I
think I have already refuted Ms.Ayuubs point about transfers etc. I wouldn’t repeat
myself like Ms.Ayuub unfortunately does.
When
you suggest Ms. Ayuub, that by appointing Shah, Modi has acted in contradiction
to his promise of a free and fair GOVERNMENT, well, Shah is not a part of the
GOVERNMENT. He will be once he is exonerated. But not just yet. So I have to
wonder what you are going on and on about here.
(I won’t
write an essay on how the concept of “vindictiveness” makes absolutely zero
sense in the given context also “Guidance of RSS”- Back to cocktail journalism
are we?)
“Prime Minister Narendra Modi needs to answer this one.”
This has been a general contention from all
commies and leftists. Sadly, that’s not about to happen any time soon, since
your questions are ultimately as baseless as your article.
Note: In my fervent rebuttal, I have tried to
not comment on the merits of the ongoing cases. As a citizen, I think it
necessary to let the judiciary do its job and not assume the role of the judge.
I stand firmly against Media censorship, but I stand firmly against trial by
media too. Also, I just wouldn’t give Ms. Ayuub the satisfaction that her article
got the ball rolling for a ridiculous media trial.
Posts
