Ammyy
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Opinion of people like you doesn't count at all ...
Its about India and Indian peopleMODI cleared Ishrat Murder
- Thread starter Guynextdoor2
- Start date
Opinion of people like you doesn't count at all ...
Its about India and Indian people
Marxist
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Ishrat case: Ex-MHA official claims he was coerced into giving statement
NEW DELHI: A former home ministry official questioned by the SIT officer assisting CBI in the Ishrat Jahan probe has alleged that he was coerced, complaining how he was subjected to a "rough" interrogation and asked to sign a statement with twisted facts.
R V S Mani, who had prepared the two MHA affidavits in the case, was summoned to Gandhinagar and questioned by IG, SIT, Satish Verma last month. Soon after his questioning, Mani wrote to his seniors in the urban development ministry, where he is currently posted, claiming that he was forced to sign a statement that presented facts he was not privy to. He alleged discrepancies in the facts to his knowledge and framing of the same by Verma.
Verma, when reached by TOI, declined comment.
The MHA, which has been apprised of Mani's observations, has cried foul against attempts by the SIT to influence junior officers like Mani. Senior MHA officials are of the view that the summons for Mani should have been ideally routed through the MHA, as the affidavits concerned the ministry and not any individual officer.
Though MHA officials also pointed out that Mani should have intimated the ministry when summons were served on him, they feel he may have not been well versed with the procedures. Even his senior, who knew of his summons, did not reach out to the MHA.
There is a feeling in the MHA that the decision of the CBI to approach Mani, a junior officer, directly rather than through the ministry may have been intentional. "A junior officer cannot handle tough and leading questions and can be easily intimidated. He can be coerced into framing his answers to suit the agency's line of investigation," an official said.
Mani, in a note to his seniors soon after his questioning by Verma, said he refused to sign the statement framed by the SIT, as it would have gone against his seniors at the time. Some parts of his statement have reportedly been recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC without his signature.
CBI has already denied coercing Mani into giving a statement.
Ishrat case: Ex-MHA official claims he was coerced into giving statement - The Times of India
Another proof of Congress and Their Agency Fabricating evidence
NEW DELHI: A former home ministry official questioned by the SIT officer assisting CBI in the Ishrat Jahan probe has alleged that he was coerced, complaining how he was subjected to a "rough" interrogation and asked to sign a statement with twisted facts.
R V S Mani, who had prepared the two MHA affidavits in the case, was summoned to Gandhinagar and questioned by IG, SIT, Satish Verma last month. Soon after his questioning, Mani wrote to his seniors in the urban development ministry, where he is currently posted, claiming that he was forced to sign a statement that presented facts he was not privy to. He alleged discrepancies in the facts to his knowledge and framing of the same by Verma.
Verma, when reached by TOI, declined comment.
The MHA, which has been apprised of Mani's observations, has cried foul against attempts by the SIT to influence junior officers like Mani. Senior MHA officials are of the view that the summons for Mani should have been ideally routed through the MHA, as the affidavits concerned the ministry and not any individual officer.
Though MHA officials also pointed out that Mani should have intimated the ministry when summons were served on him, they feel he may have not been well versed with the procedures. Even his senior, who knew of his summons, did not reach out to the MHA.
There is a feeling in the MHA that the decision of the CBI to approach Mani, a junior officer, directly rather than through the ministry may have been intentional. "A junior officer cannot handle tough and leading questions and can be easily intimidated. He can be coerced into framing his answers to suit the agency's line of investigation," an official said.
Mani, in a note to his seniors soon after his questioning by Verma, said he refused to sign the statement framed by the SIT, as it would have gone against his seniors at the time. Some parts of his statement have reportedly been recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC without his signature.
CBI has already denied coercing Mani into giving a statement.
Ishrat case: Ex-MHA official claims he was coerced into giving statement - The Times of India
Another proof of Congress and Their Agency Fabricating evidence
Marxist
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
10 question marks over Ishrat Jahan
1. Why now?
It’s been more than 10 years since Ishrat Jahan was killed in a police encounter in Gujarat. So why is it coming to boil after Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was announced as election campaign chief for the BJP?
Why is it coming so close to the next general elections? And more importantly, why was the CBI chargesheet done at exactly the same time as the extremely significant and contentious Food Security Bill Ordinance was being passed?
The chargesheet diverted attention from the food bill. Are all these mere coincidences? Then why is our political landscape riddled with so many coincidences that defy explanation?
2. Why the sudden U-turn?
In 2004, we were told that Ishrat and her accomplices were allegedly from the Lashkar-e-Taiba and on an assassination mission. Ghazwa Times (a Lahore-based LeT mouthpiece) stated Ishrat was indeed an LeT operative. Reports came of even terrorist David Headley claiming her.
That’s been the past. Now in 2013, when no fresh compelling evidence has come into the scene, why this total U-turn by the central government? Why is the whole “secular” establishment in India suddenly singing praises of her? Is all this well-orchestrated?
3. What about her accomplices?
Even if she was innocent, why is there silence on her accomplices? Were they terrorists or were they also totally innocent like Ishrat is being claimed now? Why this silence on about them? Isn’t any case about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So why this alleged partial truth being thrust on us at this stage?
4. Why this CBI-IB fight?
Doesn’t the IB come under the Centre? Doesn’t the CBI report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh? So isn’t he responsible for both? So couldn’t action have been taken against this IB official directly if he was guilty? Why is all this dirty linen being washed in public? Why is the government totally demoralizing the IB? Why is the government totally demoralizing the security forces of this country?
5. Why “1 in 1000 encounter” ?
India has seen thousands and thousands of encounter killings (yes, that many!). Till recently they were glorified and felt necessary. If you thought they peaked only during the Punjab problem during the last century, then you are wrong.
The National Human Rights Commission says that there have been more than 800 killings in the period from 2002-11. Other sources put it at much higher. So what is so special about this particular encounter that all the resources of the state and media are being spent?
6. Why is Congress being censored out?
Going by reports, it was the IB which passed on the information to the Gujarat Police. Reports also say that the IB was closely involved even during the encounter. The IB reports to a Congress Prime Minister and Home Minister while the Gujarat Police reports to a BJP Chief Minister and Home Minister.
Looked from that angle, it’s a joint Congress-BJP operation. So why has the Congress been totally censored out of the news censure?
7. Why a secular mascot?
If Ishrat was innocent then it is a tragedy indeed. But why is she being made out to be a secular mascot? What are NCP leaders doing with her? Why is a JD(U) leader calling her a “Bihar ki beti”. Does everything Modi support become communal and everything he oppose become secular? That way, is he somewhat like Midas?
8. Maya-Mulayam clean, Modi dirty?
According to the NHRC, UP saw a whopping 342 encounters from 2002-11. Many of them involved Muslims. Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav have been chief ministers during this period. It’s OK because they merely call themselves secular?
Manipur, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh… have all seen more encounter killings than Gujarat.
So why this sudden anti-Gujarat frenzy?
9. Why is Manmohan mum?
The CBI is involved. The IB is involved. The Union Home Ministry is involved. An Opposition CM has been targeted. There is only one common factor in all that: Manmohan.
This is not a case of a local thief stealing from a kirana store that the PM can refuse to comment on. This is the burning issue of the day and sadly the mainstream media refuses to ask any kind of questions to the PM.
10. Why is the actual terror debate being sidetracked?
Modi is just another CM in India. In this case he is the smaller picture. Tens of thousands of people have died in terror attacks in India. The exact figures are elusive, but the government says that 47,000 died from 1989-2008 in the Kashmir insurgency alone.
What should be our terror policy? Are encounter killings necessary evils? If they are totally done away with, what can they be replaced with? Are we a soft state? How can we make it hard? All these issues will never be discussed and have got lost in the massive nationwide Modi witch-hunt.
Post Script: Is the answer to all these questions, “We want to fix Modi at all cost”?
(Even if that means destroying the very security fabric of this country?)
http://www.sify.com/news/10-question-marks-over-ishrat-jahan-news-columns-nhimpVhcfec.html
1. Why now?
It’s been more than 10 years since Ishrat Jahan was killed in a police encounter in Gujarat. So why is it coming to boil after Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was announced as election campaign chief for the BJP?
Why is it coming so close to the next general elections? And more importantly, why was the CBI chargesheet done at exactly the same time as the extremely significant and contentious Food Security Bill Ordinance was being passed?
The chargesheet diverted attention from the food bill. Are all these mere coincidences? Then why is our political landscape riddled with so many coincidences that defy explanation?
2. Why the sudden U-turn?
In 2004, we were told that Ishrat and her accomplices were allegedly from the Lashkar-e-Taiba and on an assassination mission. Ghazwa Times (a Lahore-based LeT mouthpiece) stated Ishrat was indeed an LeT operative. Reports came of even terrorist David Headley claiming her.
That’s been the past. Now in 2013, when no fresh compelling evidence has come into the scene, why this total U-turn by the central government? Why is the whole “secular” establishment in India suddenly singing praises of her? Is all this well-orchestrated?
3. What about her accomplices?
Even if she was innocent, why is there silence on her accomplices? Were they terrorists or were they also totally innocent like Ishrat is being claimed now? Why this silence on about them? Isn’t any case about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So why this alleged partial truth being thrust on us at this stage?
4. Why this CBI-IB fight?
Doesn’t the IB come under the Centre? Doesn’t the CBI report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh? So isn’t he responsible for both? So couldn’t action have been taken against this IB official directly if he was guilty? Why is all this dirty linen being washed in public? Why is the government totally demoralizing the IB? Why is the government totally demoralizing the security forces of this country?
5. Why “1 in 1000 encounter” ?
India has seen thousands and thousands of encounter killings (yes, that many!). Till recently they were glorified and felt necessary. If you thought they peaked only during the Punjab problem during the last century, then you are wrong.
The National Human Rights Commission says that there have been more than 800 killings in the period from 2002-11. Other sources put it at much higher. So what is so special about this particular encounter that all the resources of the state and media are being spent?
6. Why is Congress being censored out?
Going by reports, it was the IB which passed on the information to the Gujarat Police. Reports also say that the IB was closely involved even during the encounter. The IB reports to a Congress Prime Minister and Home Minister while the Gujarat Police reports to a BJP Chief Minister and Home Minister.
Looked from that angle, it’s a joint Congress-BJP operation. So why has the Congress been totally censored out of the news censure?
7. Why a secular mascot?
If Ishrat was innocent then it is a tragedy indeed. But why is she being made out to be a secular mascot? What are NCP leaders doing with her? Why is a JD(U) leader calling her a “Bihar ki beti”. Does everything Modi support become communal and everything he oppose become secular? That way, is he somewhat like Midas?
8. Maya-Mulayam clean, Modi dirty?
According to the NHRC, UP saw a whopping 342 encounters from 2002-11. Many of them involved Muslims. Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav have been chief ministers during this period. It’s OK because they merely call themselves secular?
Manipur, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh… have all seen more encounter killings than Gujarat.
So why this sudden anti-Gujarat frenzy?
9. Why is Manmohan mum?
The CBI is involved. The IB is involved. The Union Home Ministry is involved. An Opposition CM has been targeted. There is only one common factor in all that: Manmohan.
This is not a case of a local thief stealing from a kirana store that the PM can refuse to comment on. This is the burning issue of the day and sadly the mainstream media refuses to ask any kind of questions to the PM.
10. Why is the actual terror debate being sidetracked?
Modi is just another CM in India. In this case he is the smaller picture. Tens of thousands of people have died in terror attacks in India. The exact figures are elusive, but the government says that 47,000 died from 1989-2008 in the Kashmir insurgency alone.
What should be our terror policy? Are encounter killings necessary evils? If they are totally done away with, what can they be replaced with? Are we a soft state? How can we make it hard? All these issues will never be discussed and have got lost in the massive nationwide Modi witch-hunt.
Post Script: Is the answer to all these questions, “We want to fix Modi at all cost”?
(Even if that means destroying the very security fabric of this country?)
http://www.sify.com/news/10-question-marks-over-ishrat-jahan-news-columns-nhimpVhcfec.html
Marxist
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Cong deleted Headley’s confession on Ishrat!
While the Centre and Home Ministry have feigned ignorance about any NIA report that showed David Headley’s confession on Ishrat Jahan’s link with LeT, the original NIA documents expose their duplicity.
News portal Firstpost on Tuesday published the NIA documents and claimed that the portion about Ishrat’s link was deleted after the document was shown to the PM and Congress Core committee. Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde declined to comment on the controversy, saying that the document was classified one.
As per the Firstpost report, an NIA note dated October 13, 2010 said Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT) terrorist Headley had told them that Ishrat had been part of a “botched” operation run by the terrorist group. Later, the reference to this confession was removed from the 117-page record of Headley’s interrogation released to media, said the news portal’s report.
“Highly placed Government sources have told Firstpost that the NIA note was found on file on July 5, when it was called for by Union Home Affairs Minister Sushilkumar Shinde. It was also shown to members of the Congress Core Group, including the Prime Minister,” it said.
Point number 168 of the NIA’s note says: “One being asked about Ishrat Jahan, I state that in late 2005 Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi introduced Muzzammil to me. Having introduced Muzzammil, Zaki talked about the accomplishments of Muzzammil as a Lashkar commander. Zaki also sarcastically mentioned that Muzzammil was a top commander whose every big project has ended in a failure. Zaki added that Ishrat Jahan module was also one of the Muzzammil’s botched operations.” Point number 169 of the note further says: “Headley stated that apart from this, he had no other information / knowledge about Ishrat Jahan.”
Responding to the new revelation, Shinde declined to comment. “I have not seen the reports. Whatever Headley has said, was recorded by the FBI and there is a MoU between the FBI and NIA under which I can’t disclose any further details,” he said.
The Home Ministry during P Chidambaram’s tenure invited a controversy by filing two contradicting affidavits — in 2009 and 2012 — on Ishrat’s terror link. The first affidavit termed the encounter as genuine one and the second one kept silence on the encounter part.
Cong deleted Headley?s confession on Ishrat!
While the Centre and Home Ministry have feigned ignorance about any NIA report that showed David Headley’s confession on Ishrat Jahan’s link with LeT, the original NIA documents expose their duplicity.
News portal Firstpost on Tuesday published the NIA documents and claimed that the portion about Ishrat’s link was deleted after the document was shown to the PM and Congress Core committee. Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde declined to comment on the controversy, saying that the document was classified one.
As per the Firstpost report, an NIA note dated October 13, 2010 said Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT) terrorist Headley had told them that Ishrat had been part of a “botched” operation run by the terrorist group. Later, the reference to this confession was removed from the 117-page record of Headley’s interrogation released to media, said the news portal’s report.
“Highly placed Government sources have told Firstpost that the NIA note was found on file on July 5, when it was called for by Union Home Affairs Minister Sushilkumar Shinde. It was also shown to members of the Congress Core Group, including the Prime Minister,” it said.
Point number 168 of the NIA’s note says: “One being asked about Ishrat Jahan, I state that in late 2005 Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi introduced Muzzammil to me. Having introduced Muzzammil, Zaki talked about the accomplishments of Muzzammil as a Lashkar commander. Zaki also sarcastically mentioned that Muzzammil was a top commander whose every big project has ended in a failure. Zaki added that Ishrat Jahan module was also one of the Muzzammil’s botched operations.” Point number 169 of the note further says: “Headley stated that apart from this, he had no other information / knowledge about Ishrat Jahan.”
Responding to the new revelation, Shinde declined to comment. “I have not seen the reports. Whatever Headley has said, was recorded by the FBI and there is a MoU between the FBI and NIA under which I can’t disclose any further details,” he said.
The Home Ministry during P Chidambaram’s tenure invited a controversy by filing two contradicting affidavits — in 2009 and 2012 — on Ishrat’s terror link. The first affidavit termed the encounter as genuine one and the second one kept silence on the encounter part.
Cong deleted Headley?s confession on Ishrat!
Similar threads
