The Ram Pradhan Committee had given the Mumbai Police a clean chit in the 26/11 attacks. This blog had recorded the ridiculousness in the words of those who were directly affected.
We have news for you:
The two-member committee headed by veteran bureaucrat Ram Pradhan to investigate the police response to the 26/11 terror attacks on the metropolis has singled out then Mumbai police commissioner Hasan Gafoor for his complete failure to provide leadership during the hours of crisis.
They discovered it now? Why did the earlier report then give a clean chit? And does anyone fancy stuff like this to explain away what happened?
Through much of the attack, Gafoor stationed himself at one spot near the Oberoi and asked crime branch chief Rakesh Maria to take charge of the control room…Above all, Gafoor’s attitude created an impression among subordinates that they were not part of the high-level police team tackling terror.”
1. One man can be only at one spot. If he was not anywhere, then he has shirked his duty.
2. Someone has to take charge of the control room which becomes the hub during such times. Who better than the crime branch chief? Incidentally, the panel has given Maria a clean chit as also the then Maharashtra DGP A N Roy.
3. If Gafoor was at one spot, then how did his subordinates get the impression that they were not a part of the high-level team tackling terror? I am seriously trying to understand the mechanism involved here. Does someone tell the cops that, look, you are handling terror when they are there doing precisely that? What is high-level and low-level here? When we hear of stories about ordinary citizens trying to save others, do the cops need their egos to be massaged in the midst of such a crisis?
Heads do roll. That is the only way governments can save their skin. So, Hasan Gafoor is out and D Sivanandan, chief of the state intelligence department, comes in.
Fine. He is already giving sound bytes about how he will act more and talk less. Given that he has already started with talk, I guess he is getting it all out of his system.
A mention must be made of all these four officers, as many others. One sees their pictures in Page 3 glossies. They are human and all and need to party, but the tendency to become celebrities does not quite go with the position and sensitive nature of their work. They need to understand that. Does not the Bombay Police Manual say anything about it? If they must attend such functions, and it could be a birthday party of some aging actor, then the least they can do is insist that their faces are not splashed in the papers.
No wonder they cannot figure out when there is an attack on the city; they could well be partying. Oh, if I recall correctly, wasn’t Mr. Sivanandan in the news for taking to task a nutritionist who he accused of using chemicals after he tried her weight-loss programme? See, that’s what I know about our top cops!
- - -
Remember Chand Mohammed and Fiza, both of who converted to Islam to get married and then divorced and there was a lot of bitter exchange? Okay, now the MLA says, “I love her more than ever... and want to come back.” One wants to tell the guy that he need not bother; she never went away and was hogging the limelight. Both are just attention seekers.
As I have said earlier, where are all those mullahs and why are these two being permitted to make a farce of the religion? No fatwa? No excommunication? Have you heard anything remotely Islamic from them?
They deserve each other and can join some spooky cult and live happily ever after.
- - -
It is wonderful that Meira Kumar has been appointed the Speaker of the House. Indian Parliament would do well, I am sure. But is it necessary to mention her gender (which is visible) and her caste everytime? Even worse is this:
Soft-voiced, seemingly unfit to instil order in the Lok Sabha, Meira Kumar dismisses the criticism that her vocal chords are a handicap. She is confident she would be heard in the House.
Utter nonsense. Unfortunately, she went on to give an explanation that thus far people were used to listening to men who were Speakers but if she can he heard in her constituencies then she can be heard in Parliament too.
She does not need to say all this. She can just smile and go on with her work. No one, no MP and no journalist, has any business to discuss this issue because it is not an issue.
Here is an extract from the interview in TOI:
Q: But in Parliament, you appeared to prefer the identity of a woman against the popular focus on your caste
A: Unfortunately, caste is a dominant factor in society. Ours is a janmapradhan and not karmapradhan society. All achievements — character, learning — are incomplete till your caste is revealed.
Q: That makes you uncomfortable as you appeared to have played down the caste factor in your acceptance speech?
A: No. I have always felt that certain sections need empowerment. They don’t need patronage but social justice. We have to talk of them, regardless of who we are. It is myopic to think that only if you belong to a group can you talk of it. And because I am from that group, I cannot shy away.
Confusion, naturally. That is the idea behind such stupid inquisitions. The Speaker has no constituency and must be non-partisan. Enough.
- - -
What did I tell you here about the ones who stay tight-lipped for convenience? Here are two quotes close to what was said by them.
'Nothing much to say…'
'Aww, no…something wrong here…why was she called a smuggler?'
Huh? She was called that even before June 9. But as I said in that post:
No comments? Wait for a while. You will hear them after others have spoken and they will peck on those carrion words later depending on how the case swings.
Touche to me…