The Verma Committee on Crime against Women , in its report has rightly concluded that the identities of the Rape need protection.
Another point comes to my mind.
Nobody approves a Rape much less a one which involves gang Rape as in the case of Jyoti Singh Pandey a.k.a Nirbhaya, Delhi.
(By the way, as one of my readers pointed out how is it that Jyoti has two surnames?)
The rape accused have been arrested.
Under Law none is guilty, unless proved”
The media have been flashing the accused’s names with regularity and in fact they have already completed the trial.
What if they are proved ‘not guilty?”
Is it not proper to afford them the secrecy of their identities?
In a frenzy one should not forget the basics of law,otherwise this will be taken as a precedent for the later cases.
( Ram Singh, the bus driver, and his brother, Mukesh Singh, were both arrested in Rajasthan. Vinay Sharma, an assistant gym instructor, was arrested in Delhi,[41] as was Pawan Gupta, a fruit seller. A juvenile whose name has yet to be confirmed, though he has been referred as Raju a 17 years and 8 month oldminor[44] and native of Uttar Pradesh was arrested by the police at Anand Vihar terminal in Delhi. And, Akshay Thakur, a man who had gone from Bihar to Delhi seeking work, was arrested inAurangabad in Bihar(wiki))
The Verma committee goes on to make some profound observations.
Verma Committee on Rape
”
“If human rights of freedom mean anything, India cannot deny the citizens the right to be different. The state must not use oppressive and repressive labelling of despised sexuality. Thus, the right to sexual orientation is a human right guaranteed by the fundamental principles of equality.
Pointing out that we need to remember that the founding fathers of our Constitution never thought that the Constitution is a “mirror of perverse social discrimination,” the report says, on the contrary, it promised the mirror in which equality will be reflected brightly. “Thus, all sexual minorities, including transgender communities, are entitled to be totally protected.”
“We must also recognise that our society has the need to recognise different sexual orientations as a human reality. In addition to homosexuality, bisexuality, and lesbianism, there also exists the transgender community. “In view of the lack of scientific understanding of the different variations of orientation, even advanced societies have had to first declassify ‘homosexuality’ from being a mental disorder and now it is understood as a triangular development and neurological underpinning owing to genetic reasons,” said the report.
Suggesting that correct knowledge must be disseminated in respect of sexuality and sexual choices without enforcing gender stereotypes, the report says children need to be able to access informed, non-prejudiced sources on sexuality. Challenging the perception of sexuality as being purely heterosexual is an ongoing agenda for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activism and for counter-socialisation efforts. “Collaborating or networking LGBT activists is a beginning to understanding different sexuality experiences,” Justice Verma says in his report.
Recommending the use of theatrical resources and films in school workshops, which has proven to be extremely effective in gauging gender relations, the panel calls for the use of such audio-visual material to encourage respect and understanding for all genders and sexes.
What does The Committee want to convey?
1.Homosexuality along with Lesbianism, has to be guaranteed by The Constitution .
2.’Raping,Gang Raping,Sodomy,Public Exposure, Pedophilia belong to ‘sexual orientation ‘ and Sexual Minority?
So, The Constitution has to approve of it?
What does the media have to do?
To high light more of the lurid details on-screen and print?
I reiterate that Rape is a vile Crime /along with Kidnapping and has to be dealt with severely but one should exercise caution in arriving at conclusions before the trail is complete.
A Delhi Court has granted the plea of Dr.Subramanian Swamy to have P.Chidambaram as the co accused in 1987 Merrut Case where people were shot to death.
I came to know of this yesterday by watching a programme of Jaya Plus Tv , a Television Channel(Tamil) when Swamy talked about this and lamented the fact that the case is expected to come for hearing in the next week and that people should publicize the issue.
Now I am doing my bit.
Dr.Swamy called me as a ‘an arm chair Grandpa’ in a Tweet sent to me and my reply was ”Yes, my dear,stumbling grand child. Arm chair grand pas have also a place.’)
“We were sorted out on the basis of our strength and physique, while elders and children were picked up and set free. The youth were grouped together and put in a yellow PAC truck. ”..”was pulled out of the truck, shot at twice and thrown into the Ganga stream”.
– Mohamad Usman, prosecution witness and survivor, 2007.
‘Hashimpura massacre took place on 22 May 1987, during the Hindu-Muslim riots in Meerut city in Uttar Pradesh state, India, when 19 personnel of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) allegedly rounded up 42 Muslim youth from the Hashimpura mohalla (locality) of the city, took them in truck to the outskirts, near Murad Nagar, in Ghaziabad district, where they were shot and their bodies were dumped in water canals. A few days later dead bodies were found floating in the canals. In May 2000, 16 of the 19 accused surrendered, and were later released on bail, while 3 were already dead. The trial of the case was transferred by the Supreme Court of India in 2002 from Ghaziabad to a Sessions Court at the Tis Hazari complex in Delhi,[1][2] where it is the oldest pending case.[3]
On 24 May 2007, twenty years after the incident, two survivors and members of 36 victim families visited Lucknow and filed 615 applications under The Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI), at the office of Director General of Police seeking information about the case.[4] The inquiry revealed in September that all accused remained in service, and none had any mention of the incident in their Annual Confidential Report (ACR)s.[5] Five men who were shot and survived, later became witness for the prosecution case in 2007. These include Muzib-ur-Rehman, Mohamad Usman, Zulfiqar Nasir, and Naeem Arif.[6]…
After communal riots had taken over Meerut in April 1987, in a communally-charged atmosphere after the Babri Mosque at Ayodhya was opened by the Central government for worship by Hindus after several decades; PAC was called in, but was withdrawn as the riots subsided. However violence erupted again around 19 May, when 10 people were killed as arson escalated, thus Army was called out to stage a flag march. Seven companies ofCRPF has reached the city during the day, while 30 companies of PAC were being rushed in and indefinite curfew was declared.[8] In the following day, mobs burned down Gulmarg cinema hall, and as the death toll rose to 22 and 75 injured, shoot-at-sight orders were issued on 20 May 1987. Union Urban Development Minister, Mohsina Kidwai, and member of the Lok Sabha from Meerut constituency, after visiting the city stated, she had never seen “such a horrible face of arson before in my life“.[9]
On the night of 22 May 1987, 19 PAC personnel, under platoon commander Surinder Pal Singh, rounded up Muslims in the Hashimpur mohalla in Meerut, the old and the children were later separated and let go. Then they allegedly took about 40–45 of them, mostly daily wage labourers and weavers, in a truck to the Upper Ganga canal in Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad district, instead of taking them to the police station. Here some of them were shot, one by one, and thrown into the canal. A bullet also injured one of the PAC constables. After some were killed, the headlights of passing vehicles made PAC personnel flee the spot with those alive. Four of those shot escaped, either by pretending dead and then swimming away, one of them filed a first information report (FIR) at the Murad Nagar Police Station.[4][7][10]
The remaining men were next taken in the truck to the Hindon River Canal near Makanpur village in Ghaziabad, shot and their bodies thrown into the canal. Here again, two of the persons who were shot at, survived and lodged an FIR at the Link Road Police Station.[4][7][10][11].
Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy finally received a brahmastra (according to Puranas, one of the most powerful weapon) against Union Home Minister P Chidambaram. A Delhi court on Monday, Jul 9 empowered Swamy after allowing him to file a plea against Chidambaram over Meerut riots case in Uttar Pradesh. The court allowed the Janata Party chief to make the Home Minister a co-accused in the mass killing case. During verbal argument, Swamy urged the court to allow him to move the application adding some unnamed co-accused under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure. According to 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, one gets the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence.
He is reported to have visited the site one day earlier and a day later to the site.
Hope Justice is done.
The trial of the accused personnel of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) charged with the cold blooded murder of about forty Muslims of Hashimpura, Meerut on 22 May 1987 has taken more than 19 years to haltingly start in the Tees Hazari Court, Delhi on July 15 2006. It is not only a case of proverbial judicial delay, but crookedness of the course of law that deserves critical scrutiny to be able to understand how the system has given rise to a climate of impunity, especially in heinous hate crimes against vulnerable groups, which emboldens the criminals including those in official uniforms and causes frustration among victims, who lose hope in the system.
According to the order of 18 May 2006 by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, N P Kaushik it is the prosecution’s case based on the inquiry report of the Crime Branch of the CID (CBCID), that curfew was clamped in Mohalla Hashimpura of Meerut city in the name of search for illegal arms and 644 persons (all Muslims) were randomly picked up from their homes and were arrested. Of these 644, forty two (mostly younger ones) were directly taken in a PAC truck to Upper Ganga Canal, Murad Nagar, where some were shot at and the bodies were thrown into the canal and the remaining were taken to Hindon river, where similar operation was done. Though all were taken as dead, a few survived. FIR was lodged on the basis of their statements on 22/23 May 1987.A few days later dead bodies were found floating in the canals — sending shock waves worldwide.
The ghastly incident had stirred the conscience of the nation, as the outrage it caused in the average citizen was more than that felt against terrorist violence, as the killers in this case were those who were supposed to be protectors. Nikhil Chakravarty compared the event with “Nazi pogrom against the Jews, to strike terror and nothing but terror in the whole minority community”. Mr Subramaniam Swamy, who went on fast unto death over the incident, characterized it as a clear case of genocide. Mr Chandra Shekhar made the observation that “the Hashimpura (Meerut) tragedy was the most shocking incident in my political life…”
Nirmal Mukarji observed that “the truth is that Hashimpura and Malliana affected the Muslim psyche as nothing else had since independence, for the community began to see itself as under attack by the state itself. The least that should have been done was to have promptly disbanded this particular unit of the PAC and to have cashiered its officers. But no action was taken. The outcome was that, far from being on the side of the angels, the UP police emerged as the devil itself ”.
In a joint statement, eminent persons including I.K Gujral, Rajindar Sachar, Kuldip Nayar, Subhadra Joshi and Badr-Ud-Din Tyabji demanded that “the government must prosecute all those members of the PAC and police who have disgraced their uniforms. Their misdeeds must be treated at par with treason and tried by special courts”.
The letter that was sent by the team of inquiry led by Justice Rajindar Sachar to the Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, along with the report, was not even acknowledged. Even though the Prime Minister was convinced about the veracity of the case by the testimony of one of the survivors, Zulfiqar Nasir, who was produced before him, and wanted to initiate effective action, he was advised not to do any thing, which could undermine the morale of the armed police, which were, in their view, the main prop of the state’s authority.
When the pressure on the government increased, the Chief Minister B.B Singh instituted an inquiry into the incident by CBCID. By the time the inquiry report was submitted after seven long years in February 1994,the incident had become a forgotten massacre, like a bad dream, by not only the political class but also by all segments of the civil society. People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court in 1987 for investigation of the case and damages to the victims, which was routinely dealt with and disposed of on 12 September 1990,enhancing the rehabilitation – compensation from Rs 20,000/- fixed by UP Government to Rs 40,000/-, though with the provision that “ if any one has applied for claim for compensation for death or bodily injuries, our direction for payment of rehabilitation compensation does not intend to affect such claim and same would be available to be proceeded in accordance with law”
“Kejriwal once again alleged irregularities in the functioning of Zakir Hussain Memorial Trustand produced ‘evidence’ to substantiate his charge of bogus beneficiaries.
He claimed that names and facts were misrepresented in the list provided by Khurshid’s trust.
Kejriwal claimed that some of the beneficiaries, whom the trust claimed to have given appliances, had actually died years ago. He also claimed that there were several names on the list that did not exist.
To prove his point, he produced on stage a social activist from Mainpuri in Uttar Pradesh, who claimed that despite all efforts they had failed to trace some of the beneficiaries at the addresses provided by the trust in the list.
He further said that some of the beneficiaries named in the list were not actually disabled.
Another beneficiary on the stage claimed that he had a disability in his legs and was given no aid by the trust.
Kejriwal also reiterated his charge of nexus between the Centre and UP government and said the probe by the state government will not reveal anything.
He alleged that Salman Khurshid will ensure smooth sailing for Mulayam Singh in the DA case and in return Akhilesh will save the law minister in the UP govt probe against his trust”
”
The Economic Offences Wing has asked for papers from all the 17 districts of Uttar Pradesh where Mr Khurshid’s Trust held camps for the disabled. The Director General of the state’s EOW has told NDTV that this is just a step in the process of conducting their enquiry. In fact, searches are on in several districts in UP in connection with the probe.
Activist-turned-politician Arvind Kejriwal has said that an inquiry against Mr Khurshid, initiated by the UP government, cannot be impartial. He said that Mulayam Singh Yadav, whose son Akhilesh is the Chief Minister of UP, is being investigated for corruption. Mr Kejriwal alleged that Mr Yadav and the Congress could trade favours.”
From: TOI,NDTV. Updates 15 October.
The UPA has a knack of finding( for funding ) scams every day from the least expected quarter.
Update:Times of India picked up the Story 13 October 2012.
“Despite denials of wrongdoing in a trust for disabled people that Union law minister Salman Khurshid and his wife operate, it now appears that there was a letter with the forged signature of a senior UP government official that allowed the Union ministry of social justice and empowerment to release the second tranche of funds in March 2011 — Rs 68 lakh — to the Zakir HussainMemorial Trust. This was in addition to Rs 71 lakh that the trust got from the Union ministry also, allegedly, on the basis of forged letters in 2009-10.
Carrying the signature of a former special secretary of the department of disabled welfare, government of UP, the letter, dated March 24, 2011, said the state government had assessed, to its satisfaction, the work being done by the trust to help disabled people. Adding that the trust had, in 2009-10, distributed appliances to the disabled in the presence of “competent technical specialists” at specially organised camps in 17 districts of Uttar Pradesh, the letter also recommended the trust’s name for further releases from the ministry. A copy of the letter is with TOI.
When TOI contacted the now retired bureaucrat, he confirmed, on condition of anonymity, that his signatures were forged. The officer also confirmed he retired from UP government services in January 2011, nearly three months before the letter was sent out in his name. Sources in the state government confirmed that a signed copy from the officer, saying his signature was forged, has been received. The same has also been forwarded to the office of chief minister Akhilesh Yadav as part of a probe into the operations of the trust.’
We had recently a woman in Guwahati being molested as the crowd watched.
We also had a gaping crowd watching a woman being molested in Public in Patna.
Now comes the shocker of an incident where the crowd watched a Model and her mother being beaten up and molested in Chandranagore, West Bengal.
Worst id that a Ploitician was among those who were watching!
Are we becoming a Nation of insensitive people?
Would we have done this if it were our Mother,Sister,Wife or Daughter
Icing on the cake is a politician watching.
Is be behind the incident?
I would not put this past behind these rogues!
“Model-actor Aritri Bhattacharya and her mother were beaten up and molested in their home in the presence of a politician and realtors in Chandernagore on September 20. Aritri says the attacker stripped her and tried to rape her in front of the gawking crowd but she managed to fight him off.
Police ignored her complaint, although the victims had bleeding injuries. Chandernagore OC Sukhomoy Chakraborty was allegedly reluctant to file an FIR and kept asking Aritri to settle it “mutually”. Police arrested the accused only on September 24 but filed mild charges, allowing him to walk free within hours. Now, the accused are threatening an acid attack on her, says the actor.”
For the reporter it is more important to film the event than to save the girl!
Th Media’s deafening silence on the reporter’s action of Filming the incident instead of helping the victim is strange.
It is the Independent that has highlighted this issue.
If the media which is staffed by the educated(presumably)and the socially conscious is silent, how is it that Sex education is going to solve the problem, when normal education does not kindle the human quality of Compassion?
You must be logged in to post a comment.