Showing posts with label attack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attack. Show all posts

11.8.11

Afzal Guru: No Noose is Good Noose

Every few months the Afzal Guru mercy petition is brought out for airing. This time the government has advised the President to reject his plea. Everybody likes a nice linear structure, and no one better than the Times of India.

Guru, along with some others, was accused of plotting the audacious attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001 in which a group of jihadis came very close to wiping out India’s political brass. The aggression almost provoked an Indo-Pak war, with India mobilizing troops along the border to force Pakistan to cut its support to terror groups.

This is plain over-the-top dramatic. Where are the points about how a group can enter Parliament? Let us also not forget that Professor S.A.R. Geelani was arrested for being part of the “group of jihadis” but had to be released. Do read some detailed posts I had written.

And here is the precious sanctimonious ‘TIMES VIEW’ that ends in a typically foolish manner:

As a philosophy, this paper is opposed to the death penalty. One of the very few exceptions we make is with terrorists—when guilt is beyond the shadow of a doubt. Guru execution will take weight off Cong back

Sure, TOI knows all about guilt. Or is it more keen on easing the onus on the Congress?

It will be interesting to see some turncoat behaviour, too. I am particularly curious about Dr Farooque Abdullah’s stand. Back in 2006 he had said:

“You want to hang him? Go ahead and hang him. But the consequences of hanging him must also be remembered. One of the consequences will be... we have paid the price of Maqbool Butt’s hanging by the judge who was shot in Kashmir. Those judges will need to be protected like anything.”

Judges have been shot at in courtrooms by goondas and the underworld too. And people in the public eye in controversial cases are always at risk. That is the reason our country has Z or is it “Zzzzz” security.

He also said the nation would go up in flames. This is the language Bal Thackeray uses all the time, and of course everyone just indulges him; some even feel he is right.

There are too many questions and I will reproduce one of my earlier pieces in full:

Get real about Mohammad Afzal  
India would not have got Independence had hanging served as a deterrent to terrorist activity. Our freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad, Rajguru -- all dubbed terrorists by the British who ran this country -- were responsible for the killing of innocents as part of their strategy; their target was never innocents.
Therefore, please let us not make the Mohammad Afzal very real dilemma into a frikkin soap opera. I have given my point of view in the blog of 29.9.06 (Why should Mohammad Afzal be hanged? ), but these ‘human’ stories should be left out for the moment. Afzal’s son, apparently, tried to tie a rope round his neck…his mother said something about him trying to feel the pain of his father. Sorry, the kid is seven and I am aware that children exposed to such extreme trauma do grow up fast, but this is no time or occasion for pop psychology.
We do have the other side where the widow of a CRPF jawaan, killed in the Parliament attack, who was posthumously awarded the Ashoka Chakra has threatened to return the medal if Afzal is not given the death sentence. No time for blackmail too.
Time to stick to the bare essentials:
1. The Congress (that has suddenly got chicken) now says they are against clemency; the BJP has always said so; the Shiv Sena…who the heck cares for it…Wait a minute. Political parties cannot decide on this issue. It is solely Presidential discretion.   
 2. Afzal is an Indian. It is clear we believe Indians are not capable of heinous acts on their own. As his lawyer Nandita Haksar pointed out, despite the apex court having acquitted Afzal of charges of belonging to any terrorist organisation, he is still referred to as a JeM (Jaish-e-Mohammed) operative.
3. Why the hell has the Hurriyat Conference’s Mirwaiz Umar Farooq taken up the issue of Afzal death sentence with the Bush administration in New York and sought their intervention towards seeking clemency for him? Does he not understand that the US is one of the biggest ‘civilised’ terror factories? Can we not handle the issue ourselves? This will send out the wrong signal to the Indian government.
4. A group of concerned citizens had written to the prime minister in December 2004. They had put forth a few pertinent points:

  • -The prosecution produced 80 witnesses. None of them even mentioned that the four persons accused of conspiring to attack the Parliament have any link to any illegal or banned organisation. All of them were acquitted of charges of belonging to a terrorist organisation.
  • -If Afzal was a surrendered militant how would the Pak-based JeM use him?
  • -His confessions were made under conditions of torture and the police made him implicate himself before the media.
  • -One of the other accused, Prof. S.A.R. Geelani, was framed on the basis of forged documents and fabricated evidence. After his acquittal, he has been speaking out and giving details about the conditions under which prisoners in the high risk cells are kept. The National Human Rights Commission instead of investigating the allegations closed the case filed by Mr Geelani on the ground that the jail authorities have denied the charges.

What do you expect jail authorities to do?
No one expects an emotional response. These are practical issues that need to be addressed. And for those who have accused me of bringing in other cases, like the Bombay riots, the authorities are doing it all the time. Giving examples of what happens in Pakistan. Get real. Pakistan is a different country now.
I am interested in India. Aren’t you?

20.7.11

Wendi and Murdoch: A Love Ishtory


Wendi Deng does not like shaving cream and likes hubby Rupert Murdoch. Simple. Yet, there is this hyper reaction and all alluding to her Asian roots because she responded to some intruder who wanted to smack the News Corp chief kindly with foam at the hearings of the hacking scandal.


Reuters had this to say:
  • With a scorpion-like swipe at a protester, Wendi Deng became an unlikely hero on Tuesday in defense of her octogenarian husband Rupert Murdoch. 
  • She sprang from her seat behind her husband to smack the assailant, in a scene witnessed by millions around the world watching television coverage of the latest developments in the News of the World telephone hacking scandal. 
  • In doing so, Deng made the embattled News Corp chief look vulnerable, and herself strong. But the incident and her reaction also helped to take some of the heat off of Murdoch who had looked tired, disconnected and irritable earlier in the hearing. 
  • The 42-year-old third Mrs Murdoch, who came from middle-class China to marry one of the world's most powerful media moguls, gave a dramatic stand-by-your-man display.
This is sexist and racist. Other articles have gone on and on, including how ambitious she is and reacted before his son James could. Is this some competition? I think anyone with some alacrity would have jumped up. Why is she an "unlikely hero"? Is this some patriarchal nonsense where the son has to be the first to defend?


There is one theory that this was planned by the Murdochs and Jonathan May-Bowles, who for some reason calls himself Jonnie Marbles (because he lost them?), had warned about the 'splat' before. Weird. I found his chant quite telling. "You naughty billionaire," is all he could come up with.


Besides, are people stupid to be taken in by such Murdochian 'vulnerability'? 


I am surprised to read these tidbits, though:
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof tweeted, "I'm awed by Wendi Murdoch taking down Rupert's attacker," and former CBS news anchor Katie Couric tweeted that Deng gave a "whole new meaning to the term tiger mother."
Why can it not be panda mother or beach whale mother? 


- - -

Anyhow, I think it makes for a really nice Bollywood film sequence where the tables are turned and the man’s honour is at stake.

Wendi to assailant: “Kuttey, kameeney, teri yeh himmat!” (Dog, you have the gall)

Rupert turns to notice the fracas and that his head has just been spared. He becomes emotional and with arm around Wendi addresses the pie man: “Eik chutki sindoor ki keemat tum kya jaano, Jonnie babu?” (How would you know the value of a little sindoor – the red mark in the parting of a woman’s hair to indicate her marital status)

Wendi: “Roop, tumhara sar aankhon par.” (sar aankon par is a phrase that indicates your wish is my command, but here it is literally his head – ‘sar’ – that was attacked)

Rupert: “Teri aankhon ke siva duniya mein rakha kya hai…Tumne meri izzat bachayi, meri raksha ki, tum mere aaka ho.” (Nothing in this world matters besides your eyes…you have saved my honour, protected me, you are my lord and master)

Wendi rests her head on his chest: “Dil cheez kya hai…” (What is this heart…)

Rupert: Camembert…

Wendi: Nahin Brie…

James watches confounded and chases the attacker with the plea: “What is your style number, what is mobile number.”

Nicholas Kristof enters with a sword in hand that he hands over to Wendi: "Khoob ladee mardani woh tau Jhansi Waali Rani.” (She fought valiantly, this Rani of Jhansi – the historical warrior queen)

- - -
[The Hindi is mostly parts of film songs and dialogues]