Saturday, March 30, 2013

Re: [IAC#RG] HOW TO WEED OUT CRIMINALS FROM PARLIAMENT AND ASSEMBLIES ?

Erm... did you read the link/links?


On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Lalit Patnaik <lmpatnaik@gmail.com> wrote:
No ECI can debar whom you think as anti social.

This isn't about anti social. It is about falsified accounts being submitted to the Election Commission. The accounts are a part of the process of contesting elections. It is not an "opinion" or "anti social". the question here is if *any* accounts will do, and they don't have to be true, what's the point of requiring them then? How can the Election Commission assure fair elections if major paid media happens to support a candidate and it cannot disqualify over it?

Vidyut 
Posted by at No comments:

Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

Dear Sarabjit,
Greetings.

As on my part, I fully concur on your points stated at (a)(b)(c). However, point (d) needs to be refined in terms of what is "backward Groups"? -economically, socially, educationally etc.?

On the Issue of Sanjay Dutt, I feel finality of SC judgment need to be disturbed just on the ground of a celebrity claiming fable pretext of self defence. Shanti Bhushan may gain fees or fame as a lawyer. Mr. Katju may embroil in political imbroglio. But IAC ought to take an intellectual stand on SC Judgment needing no review merely on the ground of Dutt claiming self defense or Zebunnisa claiming humanitarian sympathetic ground.

Regards,
-Joshi NM


On 30 March 2013 16:06, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Naishadh

I wholeheartedly agree with you that Mumbai blasts were a Pakistani ISI MUSLIM operation to foment anti-India feeling among Muslims in India

It is a tribute to Indian Muslims that they did not (then) fall for such tactics. However, the continuing and festering discrimination against the Muslim community by a section of COMMUNAL Hindus has allowed ISI and its satellites to exploit the NEXT GENERATION of EDUCATED radical Islamists in India

Today, I see everywhere the frustration is in the younger generation who are not part of the India Shining. The entire Aam Aadmi movement who were in IAC for some time were essentially these young people without an ideology and fuelled only by hatred / anger.

The only answer to this is for Indian Polity to
a) Rise above religion
b) Abolish all reservations incl. for elections.
c) Promote merit and a level playing field
d) Give enhanced facilities, education, incentives, focused coaching etc. to backward groups to allow them to catch up.

What do you and rest of IAC say ?

Sarbajit

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Joshi NM <naishadhjoshi@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sarabjit,

You conveniently omit to read that para of sc judgment which indicts Mumbai bomb blasts had ISI link. These arms were brought in & distributed by the network 12 weeks after babri riots were gone. There were murders to provoke further round of communal riots. Its like Khalistan activists supported by some part of population and operation blue star later dubbed unnecessary bcoz of general backlash.  Can't justify Khalistan movement or antisikh riots both. But Khalistan activities were first in chronology.




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



--
Best Regards,
-Joshi NM
Posted by at No comments:

RE: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

Friends,

So far I have refrained from this unnecessary discussion on some insignificant film actor being convicted by the Apex Court. As a former journalist (Mr. Roy had described me as one who had published hand outs for reasons best known to him) I can tell you that I was working for The Daily (Mumbai) as a Senior Reporter (courtesy Mr.Roy's friend from a rival newspaper, who happened to be the union leader at The Daily, I was subjected to sever torment and eventually was sacked with possible admissible compensation at minimum rate) when the Babri Masjid demolition occurred.In fact it was a Sunday and I was on night call. In the late evening when I was about to call it a day, courtesy one of the likes of Mr. Roy, I was asked by the Company president (a nincompoop) to file story on the events during the day over the demolition. After initial arguments with this idiot claiming to be the Company president, I had submitted my report. Then I came across certain people who had asked me over a drink, when a phone call from Gulf was taken and the called had invited my host to attend some 'urgent' meeting post demolition. I was introduced to this host by a journo colleague. It was this journo colleague who had been briefed by the then leading investigator (happened to be a friend of the host) on Sanjay Dutt having AK 56 etc. When this colleague informed me about it before submitting his story, I had told him that his story would divert the attention. He was hell bent upon filing the story any way and the rest is history. Why I am narrating this now is because the post demolition riots (I had covered these extensively and without being armed. I had even ventured into perceived "enemy" territory. On one occasion when a lady reporter had asked me to accompany her to certain areas, I had agreed on one condition that she would come soberly dressed. She did exactly opposite and within few minutes we were accosted by a mob and would have been done in. Luckily for me and the lady, some one from the mob recognized me and pleaded with the detectors to spare us. Then this fellow accompanied us to the safest distance from the "border" ) and blast were both not only witnessed (demolition on TV) by me and had reported on it. So the moot point is when the Apex court has held that the blasts were handy work of ISI and Pakistan, and someone gets military grade weapons in the name of self-defense, who are these kaju, badam, pista to claim reprieve from the sentence awarded by the Apex Court on humanitarian grounds. As for self defense is concern, do I have to obtain a nuke bomb from N Korea just because some local political goons attack me and police shelter them. As far as Gujarat riot case is concerned why are the learned friends forgetting that the Godhra Kaand was the main fomenting and culminating point to the subsequent riots. Neither is justified but where do people vent their anger. Going by the arguments presented by the learned friends for every Godhra Kaand, every citizen should come out with what ever they can lay their hands on and start destruction of the other side. Are those for Ehsan Jaffri agreeing to this? I think instead of wasting our time and energy on non-productive issues let us fight corruption first. I do have other issues related to film industry and underworld. At present I wish to point out that some people are habituated in inserting their finger in other people's posterior and then smell whether it reeks or not. Are you listening Mr. Roy? Let Dutt's fend for themselves for the wrong they have done.
Regards      

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:24:18 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

Dear Naveen

If you give me Egypt, Syria, Sril Lanka  and South Africa as insignificant examples, I will give you France, USSR, China and USA as counter examples of now powerful States where armed citizens took back their nations after bloody revolution. All my 4 examples are turning points in Human History and would never have happened without citizens having access to arms.

When Mahatma Gandhi is killed by a Hindu, the peace loving Hindus do nothing. When Indira Gandhi is killed by Sikhs only then the peace loving Hindus rise up ? What happened in the 1969 Gujarat riots ? What then as per you caused the Bhagalpur riots ?

If IAC members find this discussion pointless, it is because they will not be informed  when cynical politicians inflame more such riots in the run up to 2014 elections.

Sarbajt

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Naveen Tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarabjit, 

The problem with people like you is that you first reach a conclusion and then build up your arguments to justify it. 
That happens at the cost of unbiased objective observation and holistic reflection. 

None of the examples you have given justify a citizen taking law into his own hands , whether Hindu Muslim or Sikh riots. 
My memory may not be selective like yours but take the most recent example of how the power of people without guns toppled one of the strongest dictators in Egypt and how miserably the gun powder is failing in Syria. 
Nelson  Mandela did not win the long battle by throwing bombs at the Pretoria regime. 
And last but not least, the minority community of Tamils in Sri Lanka suffered and is still suffering in spite of having the most dreaded terrorist armed to the teeth at their disposal. 

Both the Sikh carnage and the Muslim riots were a direct reaction and result of 
Deeply hurting the majority community  first and then with great impunity rubbing salts into the wounds of the otherwise peace loving hindu community while also defying rule of Law and mocking at the state. 

Please re read the History and re- orient yourself with some objectivity although it is almost impossible to come about given the conceit that you exude with such great aplomb. 

Naveen tewari 

Sent from my iPhone

On २९-०३-२०१३, at ५:५७ अपराह्न, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Pavan

When Communal riots are taking place and you are the target, I hope you remember your brave words for section 99 IPC.

Section IPC essentially says that a citizen shall have to bear all the zulm and brutality of any public servant acting under the colour of his office unless it is likely to cause death or grievous hurt -EVEN IF THE.PUBLIC SERVANT IS NOT ACTING STRICTLY WITHIN THE LAW

The net result of clauses like section 99 is that public servants have been elevated to positions where they cannot be questioned or bashed up.

Sarbajit

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:58 AM, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarbajit,
    The US had to amend its Constitution, the second amendment whereby the right to bear arms was made legal. We do not have any such provision on our statute. We can argue in favour of such a law but till such time it is passed, possessing an unlicensed weapon is illegal and procuring it from the same lot of people who were a part of a larger conspiracy in which hundreds of lives were lost is downright criminal (in the legal sense). The right to self-defence under Sec 97 is qualified by Section 99. Sanjay Dutt could have approached public authority which he did not. Case closed. Pavan Nair

On 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





On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:36 PM, naveen tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:
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.


regards

naveen 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


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


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


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


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
Posted by at No comments:

Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

The idea that only the meek will get weapons is false. If weapons for self defense are allowed, the rioting mob is not going to be arriving with swords and trishuls. They will have automatic weapons too, and Ehsan would die anyway, but perhaps the few who got rescued would die too.

In fact, a person who would like to use a gun is far more likely to purchase it than one who has no intent or intimation of conflict. Even if guns were completely legal, no one would be able to go and buy after riots hit. The hordes would sieze those for themselves first. The poor, as usual will be cannon fodder because their right to live will tie in directly with their ability to buy the better gun.

Vidyut
Posted by at No comments:

Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

Dear Mr Tewari,
Am intimidate by your sweeping ridicule of journalists. It reminds me of Justice Katju's comments that most Indians are fools and journalists illiterates.
On the Sanjay issue Bhushan keeps company with Katju. On his disdain for journos you keep company with him.
Not that makes a petulant twosome.
 
From: Naveen Tewari [mailto:nct.lko@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 03:47 PM
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
 
Dear Mr. Sharma, 

Nothing bars shanti Bhushan from having an opinion. But being one of the senior most member of the Bar and ex Law minister, he should be responsible and true to his profession. If senility is blurring his vision of jurisprudence somebody should tell him that. I was expecting Prashant Bhushan to do that but he is also blinded by too much media glare to retain his sanity. His remarks about Kashmiris was a proof of that. 

Of course we can not expect senior journalists of the country to perform any such task since they have already stopped thinking, reflecting and honestly expressing themselves. 



Naveen Tewari

Sent from my iPhone

On २९-०३-२०१३, at ५:२१ अपराह्न, "vinodsharma@hindustantimes.com" <vinodsharma@hindustantimes.com> wrote:

The fact that Shanti Bhushan is a former law minister does not bar him from taking a view on an issue under debate. A section of -Indians are talking like medieval Romans on the Sanjay Dutt issue. Their penchant to see blood is scary.
 
From: Naveen Tewari [mailto:nct.lko@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 05:14 PM
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
 
Dear sabajit, 


Was there any attack on him or any member of his family? His father had the courage to take the long walk to Punjab appealing for peace at the height of Khalistan movement! This delinquent perceived a threat from unknown people and quarters which made him hobnob with the most dreaded criminals and anti national persons who had declared a war against the Indian state and now our ex Law Minister , in the August company of an ex supreme court Judge with an inimitable knack for shooting from the hip, is campaigning for his acquittal after conviction! generations to come will never cease to be baffled about this new legal Fiction of self defence. 

Naveen tewari 
Sent from my iPhone

On २९-०३-२०१३, at १:५५ पूर्वाह्न, 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





On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:36 PM, naveen tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:
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.


regards

naveen 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

IMPORTANT NOTICE: "This email is confidential containing HT Media confidential information, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal offense. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender." Experience news. Like never before. Only on www.hindustantimes.com
IMPORTANT NOTICE: "This email is confidential containing HT Media confidential information, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal offense. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender." Experience news. Like never before. Only on www.hindustantimes.com
Posted by at No comments:

Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

Ha Ha Ha.... :D Interesting.........

From: sanveer <sanveer.mehlwal@gmail.com>
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

Mr. Sarbajit, is obviously an ISI agent, posing as an Indian. There are no Sarbajits. There are either Sarabjeets, or Sarbjit.
And, all these stories of Sanjay Dutt and his family being targetted are false. Since Sanjay Dutt was friendly with the underworld, there us no way, that normal people could have threatened him. Also, the next thing you will say, is that, even an AK-56 was insufficient, so he should have acquired a Bazooka, or maybe an Atom Bomb.

Mr. Sarbajit, or whatever your REAL name is, your stupidity has to have a Limit. 


On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Anamika R <anamikaiac@gmail.com> wrote:
Just saw the trail mails.

There were many such personalities at the time and the threat certainly did not require extreme measures.

If one goes through the sequence of events at the time, the reasons were quite different.

Free sale of arms in India is a big 'no'!

Sent from my iPad

On 29-Mar-2013, at 23:15, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Naveen

As Mr S Kumar has given the example of Mr. Ehsan Jafri an ex-MP of Congress Party whose family was attacked by a large (Hindu) mob of 100 people. In these situations for a man like Mr. Jafri to take on a mob with a rifle or revolver is only a symbolic gesture. Only an automatic weapon like an AK56 - preferably about 3 or 4 of them would have been a deterrent.

Sanjay Dutt was in the same position, the Muslim son of a Congress politician  in a city racked by communal tension  after Babri Masjid. His licensed weapons were not a sufficient deterrent against a lynch  mob but AK56's are, so he got them because a) he knew the sources who would sell it to him b) He could afford it.
I disregard his confession. It is obviously written by the police.

Sarbajit


On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Naveen Tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarbajit , 

Don't confuse things unnecessarily. I am equally gifted with the kind of language you use and have access to the same reservoir of venom to spew around. I can enlighten you about where the Police of my state was when the Babri masjid was being demolished or when the sikhs were being killed. 
But to avoid deviation from the main issue at hand let me put it in as simple terms as possible. 

No matter how bad our government is and how incompetent the police, it does not mean you and shanti Bhushan will get the right to concoct a new definition of Law or pronounce your own Law. 

Till today there is no such Law in India which would justify or permit possession of unlicensed arms and ammunition  Under any circumstances. Whether a riot or any other threat, the first step is to obtain a license. 

Incidentally my close friend Rahul Dev was posted as Editor , Jansatta in Mumbai at the time of the riots and he was part of the citizens groups which went about defusing the tension and appealing for peace and amity. He faced the wrath of the Shiv Sena and was under constant threat. He does not have a gun nor ever applied for a license.  

My memory is quite fresh about most events from the time of J P's movement till date and you don't have to refresh it. 
Just keep your disoriented thoughts in proper perspective since you have decided to be a leader in absentia. if people of the country actually started following you and shantibhushan that will be the end of rule of law. 

Sincerely 

Naveen tewari 



Sent from my iPhone

On २९-०३-२०१३, at ५:४७ अपराह्न, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Naveen

I think the memory of Dec 6 1992 is erased from your memory. In the presence of massive security forces and public servants in your home state a band of Hindu vandals from Maharashtra went on the rampage. It provoked a nation wide situation that the minority Muslim community felt highly unsafe and carried the "war" back to the capital of the vandals . Where was your State's police when the Babri Masjid was being demolished ? Where was the Maharashtra police when bombs were exploding everywhere in Mumbai ?

This is not a Hindu-Muslim problem,it is a problem wherever minorities are alienated and face genocide..

Hindus in Kashmir,
Muslims in Gujarat
Sikhs in New Delhi
Chakmas in Arunachhal
Bodos in Assam

I have personally been through 2 genocide like situations as an observer, and I can assure you that the state machinery is not only helpless during these acts of madness, it is a player.  In the 1984 riots hundreds of Sikh families  were saved only because they possessed personal arms, often as ex-faujis, and used them.

Today in the State of Gujarat, Hindus are freely granted arms licences whch are brandished at toll booths to evade paying toll, but only 3 arms licences have been granted to Muslims in last 5 years ?

The 1947 Partition was the mother of all such recent genocides. We are going to face another such conflagration if the nation continues on its present path

Sarbajit

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Naveen Tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear sabajit, 


Was there any attack on him or any member of his family? His father had the courage to take the long walk to Punjab appealing for peace at the height of Khalistan movement! This delinquent perceived a threat from unknown people and quarters which made him hobnob with the most dreaded criminals and anti national persons who had declared a war against the Indian state and now our ex Law Minister , in the August company of an ex supreme court Judge with an inimitable knack for shooting from the hip, is campaigning for his acquittal after conviction! generations to come will never cease to be baffled about this new legal Fiction of self defence. 

Naveen tewari 
Sent from my iPhone

On २९-०३-२०१३, at १:५५ पूर्वाह्न, 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





On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:36 PM, naveen tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:
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.


regards

naveen 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


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


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


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


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

Posted by at No comments:

Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

Dear Naveen

If you give me Egypt, Syria, Sril Lanka  and South Africa as insignificant examples, I will give you France, USSR, China and USA as counter examples of now powerful States where armed citizens took back their nations after bloody revolution. All my 4 examples are turning points in Human History and would never have happened without citizens having access to arms.

When Mahatma Gandhi is killed by a Hindu, the peace loving Hindus do nothing. When Indira Gandhi is killed by Sikhs only then the peace loving Hindus rise up ? What happened in the 1969 Gujarat riots ? What then as per you caused the Bhagalpur riots ?

If IAC members find this discussion pointless, it is because they will not be informed  when cynical politicians inflame more such riots in the run up to 2014 elections.

Sarbajt

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Naveen Tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarabjit, 

The problem with people like you is that you first reach a conclusion and then build up your arguments to justify it. 
That happens at the cost of unbiased objective observation and holistic reflection. 

None of the examples you have given justify a citizen taking law into his own hands , whether Hindu Muslim or Sikh riots. 
My memory may not be selective like yours but take the most recent example of how the power of people without guns toppled one of the strongest dictators in Egypt and how miserably the gun powder is failing in Syria. 
Nelson  Mandela did not win the long battle by throwing bombs at the Pretoria regime. 
And last but not least, the minority community of Tamils in Sri Lanka suffered and is still suffering in spite of having the most dreaded terrorist armed to the teeth at their disposal. 

Both the Sikh carnage and the Muslim riots were a direct reaction and result of 
Deeply hurting the majority community  first and then with great impunity rubbing salts into the wounds of the otherwise peace loving hindu community while also defying rule of Law and mocking at the state. 

Please re read the History and re- orient yourself with some objectivity although it is almost impossible to come about given the conceit that you exude with such great aplomb. 

Naveen tewari 

Sent from my iPhone

On २९-०३-२०१३, at ५:५७ अपराह्न, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Pavan

When Communal riots are taking place and you are the target, I hope you remember your brave words for section 99 IPC.

Section IPC essentially says that a citizen shall have to bear all the zulm and brutality of any public servant acting under the colour of his office unless it is likely to cause death or grievous hurt -EVEN IF THE.PUBLIC SERVANT IS NOT ACTING STRICTLY WITHIN THE LAW

The net result of clauses like section 99 is that public servants have been elevated to positions where they cannot be questioned or bashed up.

Sarbajit

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:58 AM, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarbajit,
    The US had to amend its Constitution, the second amendment whereby the right to bear arms was made legal. We do not have any such provision on our statute. We can argue in favour of such a law but till such time it is passed, possessing an unlicensed weapon is illegal and procuring it from the same lot of people who were a part of a larger conspiracy in which hundreds of lives were lost is downright criminal (in the legal sense). The right to self-defence under Sec 97 is qualified by Section 99. Sanjay Dutt could have approached public authority which he did not. Case closed. Pavan Nair

On 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





On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:36 PM, naveen tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:
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.


regards

naveen 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


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


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


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

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)