May be they(educated) don't have the confidence in themselves or YOU.
Prof. Sanjiv Gaur
Prof. Sanjiv Gaur
Mob. +91-9425004325
People must learn how to separate from some one a true Bharatiya from one who pretendsto be Bharatiya. One must have God given 'basic instinct' or one must learn this art soon. Thetime is approaching, if you didn't learn this art, you along with your family, are doomed.I still don't understand how many so called degree holders & well paid job holders in India,are deprived of the 'basic instinct' and behave as if they have descended from another planet.
From: anamikaiac@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 00:08:01 +0530
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !As a nation we are always barking up the wrong tree because we are led to do so.Agreed that the Sanjay Dutt issue is inconsequential if it is seen in the right perspective.But in the larger context, it sets a dangerous precedent for criminal jurisdiction.On one hand you have a Pragya Thakur who is languishing in jail whether for good one doesn't know and without any Katju, etc., support, and on the other hand you have 'an inconsequential issue holder' getting so much sympathy and media attention.For me, we have an active judiciary and like we accept all the nonsense that goes in the name of politics, we should learn to accept the judiciary as well, for better or for worse.
Sent from my iPadIt is difficult to understand why the Sanjay Dutt issue has aroused such passion. And while the law is taking its course, surely we cannot object to individuals and organisations coming out in his support. Cannot understand why Markandey Katju's views have met with such ire, he has an argument and is quite free to voice his view that Dutt should be pardoned. Hardly an issue of any consequence....with the media and the email and of course the internet flooded with useless arguments for and against Dutt.On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Satish Oberoi <oberoi50@yahoo.com> wrote:I am just quoting Government of India regulation. MPs are allowed to get a licence to own prohibited bore from a legal source.My personal view is that his father's house was well protected and makes little sense to ask for weapons for such a purpose. In fact Sanjay needed to protect his weapons from security in the house. Where does one use AK 56 rifle in Mumbai or in such urban areas? AK 56 is basically an offensive weapon and may have been suitable for D Company for the offensive role they probably had planned.Satish
From: shirish dave <smdave1940@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:27
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
How Sanjay's father can justify the purchase. Sunil was a member of Congress, and if any congressi consider the MK Gandhian heritage for its party, MK Gandhi had taught congressi to sacrifice and die. Off course each congressi is ready to bake its bread of power by way of taking credit on the heritage of MK Gandhian Congress despite of having not any faith on a MK Gandhi's single principal. It is not the Congress in any way. Yes. It is Nehruvian Congress where the real goddess of worship is Indira Gandhi on culture of power and violence.However since we have democracy and a constitution, we have to follow it. Whether the purchase of a weapon can be justified or not, can become a point of discussion had it been purchased legally. When it is not procured legally, it is out of question. It is out of relevance to discuss on justification when the weapon is purchased illegally and that too from a recognized antisocial element.
From: Satish Oberoi <oberoi50@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
Prohibited bore weapons can only be obtained after obtaining valid licence. His father as MP could have got it. There are Central Government rules under which such licence can be obtained.Sanjay Dutt had collected his weapon from unauthorized source when planning for riots and bomb blast was being done by his friends /associates. Later an attempt was made to destroy the weapon. It is difficult to justify such acts. I suppose in India "chalta hai" for people with clout.
From: "devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com" <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com>
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 11:58
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
The need of a weapon and its seriousness depends on the threat perception. If the threat comes from someone like say Ajmal Kasab, you do need an AK 47 plus a few hand grenades provided you are trained to use them. or when a threat is from a wild crowd, a licensed gun or a pistol is no good as we have seen in the Ehsan Jaffri case . The crowd tore him into pieces.I think the Mumbai riots were not an ordinary situation, it was a mixture of the two. where a licensed pistol or a shot gun would not have protected Dutt and his family. I think the SPG who protect the VVIPs as their daily duties do carry automatic weapons and not small firearms?. DevinderFrom: vasant sardesai <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013, 14:45
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
From: devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
Date: Saturday, 30 March, 2013, 2:38 PM
The usual wepons of self defence for a citizen under threat shoud not be AK47 rifle. but a smaller weapon. DevinderFrom: vasant sardesai <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013, 7:47
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
From: devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
Date: Friday, 29 March, 2013, 8:41 PM
There does not have to be a physical attack for someone to retaliate in self defence. The threats (by Shive Sainaks???) and its fear would be taken as real and any measures to counter would be treated as taken in self defence. One does not see any doubt in this due to his parents social and political activities. Sanjay is convicted for having weapons illegally and also from a dubious source. If he had gone to the local police authority for a licence to have weapons and got them through a licence weapon supplier, there would have been no case to answer. DevinderFrom: vasant sardesai <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in>
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 14:02
Subject: RE: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
From: Kumar Arun <kumar2786@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
To: "IAC Sarabjit" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
Date: Friday, 29 March, 2013, 5:47 PM
Millions of Indian born in and around 1970 have very little idea how did Sanjay behave in his own family. His father did what a typical father had been taught by the ancestors. The fact of the matter is that even many parents are not applying common sense in parenting even today.Having said that the arguments presented by Mr. Tewari on behalf of Shanti Bhushan, a strong pillar of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), are like opening another pandora box. If every one start doing what Mr. Shanti Bhushan have suggested, there will be no law & order at all. Was there any Hinducaught defending like Sanjay? And, if a Hindu alleged by law officers, every one knows the out come.
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:16:49 +0530 From: wide.aware@gmail.com To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !1. had the state failed to protect Sanjay Dutt?2. How come he has been safe all through in spite of being accused of terrorism and being out of jail most of the time?3. What about the hand grenades, witness testimonies that he asked a gangster to "do something" about the riots, providing support for the arms haul to be unpacked from concealed compartment and repacked into bags? He provided tools, safe location as well as bags.4. A full seven years after the fact, he was still intercepted courting a gangster and introducting "fans"5. What happened of the 2 AK-56s and hand grenades he had taken - in the sense of how did he get exonerated of that and his sole "mistake" seems to be one assault weapon for self-defense?That said, why were others who got weapons from that haul not prosecuted? Sharad Pawar says they chose not to. Why?The role of Shiv Sena, Sanjay Dutt and the gangsters is highly incestuous. They go around rioting, but Sarpotdar has WITH HIM a top hitman of the same gang as well as illegal weapons provided by a gangster network led by a Muslim. Said Gang later bombs innocents in "retaliation" for the riots in which their member too had armed and hobnobbed with perpetrators. Then, Sanjay Dutt gets into trouble motivated by the same riots and Shiv Sena saves his skin for fee, though obviously they had to be among the top intended recipients of any action said assault weapon got. Sanjay Dutt's relations with gangsters continue, including saving Vidhu Vinod Chopra from an extortion racket by telling Anees Ibrahim to lay off because he was among the few who supported him when he went to prison.Now, hearing the news of his sentencing, Shiv Sena went into default "save Sanjay Dutt" mode, but find their outrage and change loyalties on a dime at some point.The only thing I accept about Sanjay Dutt was that he was a fool and got into it for exactly the reasons he claimed. The others Shiv Sena in the riots as well as the Gand retaliating on "behalf of Muslims" were strategically in bed with each other while outwardly claiming outrage for "their" side of the line and killing unrelated innocents - largely to radicalize people and consolidate power.That said, Sanjay Dutt was stupid, but most definitely illegal in his actions.VidyutOn Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Naveen
Shri Shanti Bhushan has laid down the LAW.
You can argue with Mr. Bhushan but you cannot argue with the LAW.
If the State fails to protect a person, he is in his rights to acquire ALL MEANS REQUIRED TO DEFEND HIS LIFE
Mr,. Bhushan ECHOES IAC when we stand for right to bear arms freely and defend ourselves.
Mr. Bhushan's legal basis is IDENTICAL with IAC's because IPC is a 150 year old law almost as old as IAC (or Mr. Bhushan)
Sarbajit
Dear All,Shanti Bhushan has certainly gone beyond senility and is showing signs of Dementia. His long article in the Hindu of 26th march is the latest example of that. Here he is with all his remnant legal acumen misplaced to the hilt, arguing for a summary reprieve for Sanjay Dutt. In this venture mr. Bhushan quoted the judgment of the supreme court wherein the court has mentioned that Sanjay Dutt's reason for possessing those prohibited guns and arsenal was self defence. Mr. Bhushan argues that it is not a crime to defend oneself even if the ammunition possessed by one is without licence.What a wonderful logic by this legal luminary who was once our Law Minister. I can only feel ashamed as an Indian that people of such calibre find there way to top positions in the country where they can play with the destiny of the people of this country. I am also deeply distressed that such people still manage to find a place in the public discourse no matter what level of atrophy their brain has reached.The Hindu, my most favourite newspaper, is also springing surprises like these every now and then.I request you all to read this article by Shanti Bhushan and react to it.regardsnaveen tewari
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.