Re: [IAC#RG] [media_monitor5] Re: Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

Look at Gujarat. Narendra Mody, who himself is from backward Caste does not encourage anyone meeting him for any favour based on Caste or religion. He says, I have 5.2 Crore Gujarati-s and all of them will be treated equally. And they are now happier than the Congress discriminatory programmes earlier. Most of the Muslims even in Muslim majority Constituencies have voted for Mody now.

The Congress Govt. at Delhi castigates Mody for not utilizing the funds earmarked for Muslims and the Minorities Commission too made adverse observations against Mody for ignoring Muslims. But statistics show that Muslims are far advanced in Gujarat, economically and educationslly than all other States in India except Kerala where all children attend schools regularly since many decades and Muslims are no exception.

Remove all Reservations, appeasement policies oif providing funds as charity to any group, but provide education, training and job opportunities to all and there would be no dissatisfaction in the Community. UPA have been trying to foment Communal troubles in Gujarat but the local Muslims are so happy that they could live peacefully without any Communal riots since 10 years and the few trouble makers are selfish interests in Politics or immigrants from the BIMARU States who migrate for jobs to Gujarat.

Have you seen any Gujarati migrating to any other State for a job? But they do business all over the World with dignity and provide jobs to others, be it Ambani-s or Lalbhai-s.

From: SK Chadda <chaddask@gmail.com>
To: S kumar <kumar_8134@yahoo.com>
Cc: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>; "media monitor5@yahoogroups.com" <media_monitor5@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 4:03 PM
Subject: [media_monitor5] Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

Dear Sarabjit,

We are going tengential to main issue. Who uses fire arm under what cicumstances, is an un-ending discussion.

Ehsan Jafri "normally a peace loving man" got involved in communal riotous situation. Have we (our politicians / political leaders) ever thought why do communal riots take place at all. Answer is very simple.

So long we keep on talking minority, SCs, STs, OBC, reservations, quota, different civil laws for Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc., so called communal riots will continue to take place.

India is one country, which was earlier divided into many princely states. Hats off to those (almost all) kings and princes, who took no time (at the time of partition) to get united and decided to be called INDIAN.

But today our politiacians do not think India as one country. For them India comprises of pockets of VOTE BANKS. They keep on manupulating how to use the terms minority, OBC, SC, ST, reservations, quota etc to suit their porpose. Is there any need to mention Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Mandir or Masjid? Is it not enough that we are Indian.

Now a new term "SPECIAL STATUS" going to take its own importance. Is it not enough to say that we will ensure that our whole country gets a special status. Is it a matter to be proud to be Backward or belong to Backward State. Is it a matter of pride to ask for some personal benifit (in any foreign country) by declaring that I belong to a Backward country.

All the problems will come to an end if start thinking that we are Indian. There is a uniform civil code. No reservation. Whatever name you give - SC, Janjati, dhobi, nai, chamaar - all it means that you are talking about an untouchable. He is also an Indian. He should be given same status as of brahmin or any other citizen of my country. Why a special Status? Just to impress, that he is good for nothing unless he is branded SC. He can not compete with normal human being, unless he is given some Bakshish.

Why special favours miniorities? Hindus did not plead to Muslims at the time of partitions not to go Pakistan. Both, Hindus and Muslims of India had decided to be called Indian. Like Hindus, Muslims have not done any favour by not going to Pakistan. Why special status to Muslims?

The great people of so called Parsi community, have never asked any special consideration. Parsis are doing a great service to their country. This community has negligible representation in poilitics, but they are happy and satisfied. They dont have special madarsas. Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Parsis dont have schools excusively for their respective community? Why muslims are allowed to have madarsas?

Unless we are all Indian with same civil status, we will keep on having communal riots, hatred for each other. Please stop it.

SK Chadda

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:50 PM, S kumar <kumar_8134@yahoo.com> wrote:

Possessing or using a firearm in riotous situations is dangerous and may cause death to the user of the weapon. Such situations call for calmness and tactfulness in dealing with the agitated mobs.

In 2002, Ehsan Jafri, a former MP from Gujarat faced a totally unknown riotous mob agitated over burning of 59 Hindu pilgrims in the Sleeper Coach a Godhra. Normally a peace loving man, Jaffri came out of the house and when the mob was shouting, instead of pacifying them, he took out his weapon and fired at the mob. The already agitated mob got into a frenzy an lynched him to death.

Unless absolutely necessary to protect oneself in situations of performing one's duties or extensive travels at untimely hours outside the populated areas, one should not carry the dangerous weapons and face situations where that might be used.

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

Dear PavanWhen 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 NaveenShri 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/