Thursday, August 18, 2011

List of REAL Black Money Holders from Wiki-leaks











Friends, 
  Spread this info as much you can 
 





List of REAL Black Money Holders from Wiki-leaks
  

If you accumulate only these names, then calculate in US Dollar then, it will come down to ---

******* 
USD 1.14 TRILLION Dollars ***********

**** Moreover, it is speculated that
Rajeev Gandhi's Account is covertly active by Sonia Gandhi.. and its a HUGE SUM of Money.. almost 2 Lac Cr (~ 45 Billion US Dollars)*********

Now, most of the amount is being transferred slowly slowly to other banks.. Next leak will come tomorrow... this is the latest..!!
ABVP protests at bbsr against corruption

CBI betrays court, bails out Congress




S Gurumurthy

The Supreme Court entrusted the Sohrabuddin case to the CBI for two reasons: one, to identify the conspirators from Andhra Pradesh police; two, to ensure fair probe in Gujarat. The Attorney General had told the court that the CBI alone could probe AP police. Result, the court trusted the CBI to identify the offenders from AP police. See how the CBI honoured the court’s trust.

The CBI entered the case in February 2010, filed chargesheet in July. The chargesheet (Para 18-20) explicitly charged that AP police was also party to the plot to kill Sohrabuddin; that Gujarat and AP police jointly intercepted the bus carrying Sohrabuddin couple from Hyderabad to Sangli, disembarked them, and took them to Ahmedabad where they were murdered; that two Tata Sumo vehicles with AP police officials had joined the kidnap caravan to Gujarat. Having found AP police involvement, the CBI, in its first report, told the court on 30.7.2010, “efforts to identify the (AP) police officers are in progress”. But, in just 120 days, (in its final report dt 30.11.2010) the CBI somersaulted, mysteriously. And told the court that the AP police was not – yes, NOT – involved in the offence; thus quickly closed the case against them!

The CBI’s U-turn is shocking, even bizarre. If AP police were innocent as the CBI now says, did, as its own chargesheet found, the two drivers of Tata Sumos (of AP police) converge their vehicles in front of the bus in which Sohrabuddin couple were and stop it at midnight, for fun; Or, for them to watch the free reality night show of kidnapping by Gujarat police; and, did they join the all-night caravan ride to Ahmedabad for sightseeing; again, did they play host to Gujarat police for free ticket to watch kidnap drama? Absurd yes, but unanswerable, questions. The CBI’s dishonest U-turn is perfidious too. Its final report (Para 21-24) makes it clear that far from identifying the co-conspirators, the CBI has worked to ensure that none of them was exposed.First, the CBI tells a blatant lie to the court that despite strenuous efforts, it could not trace the “crucial witnesses”, Kalimuddin and his sister Salima Begum. It is a shocking falsehood. For, nine months before lying to the court thus, a senior CBI official SS Giri (DySP/CBI/ACB/BLR) had met – yes, MET – Salima, on 2.3.2010, at Hyderabad; also recorded her statement. Salima had then admitted to Giri that she and Kalimuddin were Naxalites-turned AP police informers, “protected now by AP police”; they knew Sohrabuddin very well; they did invite him to Hyderabad. Salima’s testimony attached to the CBI’s chargesheet (pages 210-11), bears Giri’s signature. More, the CBI tells the court in its final report: Salima “played a key role as facilitator in luring Sohrabuddin” couple to Hyderabad; Kalimuddin, a “dreaded criminal”, “absconder”, had “gained respectability due to his new role as the informer of AP police”. Leave the brother-sister duo, for now.

The CBI probe into ‘suspect’ officials of AP police – who were the hosts of Gujarat police and simultaneously were also protectors of Kalimuddin and Salima who had hosted Sohrabuddin – is also perfidious. Saying, ritually, that its ‘thorough’ examination of the AP police personnel didn’t yield “anything useful”, the CBI closes all efforts to identify the co-conspirators of Gujarat from AP!

It also suppresses from the court the crucial fact that the Vehicle Entry Register of the IPS Officers’ Mess for the period August 2005 to May 2006, which could reveal the identity of the drivers of Tata Sumos, and the abettors from AP police, has just vanished – an obvious cover-up. Yet, no AP police official was arrested, interrogated in custody – a clear contrast to over a dozen Gujarat, Rajasthan police arrested and in jail now for four years!  

Now back to the brother-sister duo. The CBI indeed met Salima; but it lied to the Court it didn’t. It could have easily reached Kalimuddin; yet it lied to the court it couldn’t. Salima had also offered to talk about Sohrabuddin’s encounter “after talking to her brother”, say more on the next day. Yet, Giri didn’t meet her the next day; didn’t get her speak more; didn’t try reaching Kalimuddin. Further. It suppressed all this from the court. Why? Analyse.

Salima and Kalimuddin, the AP police informers and protégés, had facilitated “luring” Sohrabuddin to Hyderabad – that is, trapping him. Kalimuddin and Salima duo would have trapped Sohrabuddin at whose instance? Only AP police whose protégés they were, not at Gujarat police behest. See the picture that emerges. First, the AP police informers and protégés lured Sohrabuddin to Hyderabad and kept him hosted; next, within days, the Gujarat police arrived in Hyderabad and the AP Police played their host; finally, Gujarat and AP police jointly intercepted the bus, kidnapped Sohrabuddin and travelled in the caravan to Ahmedabad, where the couple were killed. Just coincidences? Laughable.

It’s undeniably the joint mission of both AP and Gujarat, with Kalimuddin and Salima as the trap. Now add the vanished vehicle register, plus that it all happened in Hyderabad. Any seer needed to say that the CBI clean chit to AP police is perfidious?

Kalimuddin and Salima are indeed the ‘smoking guns’, yet sitting ducks. Still Giri would not meet Salima the next day? Reason? What if she says she had “lured” Sohrabuddin couple at the behest of her benefactors, the AP police? What if the AP police abetment comes to light? That will bracket the Congress in AP with the BJP in Gujarat in Sohrabuddin encounter! The political cost is huge.

The Congress president Sonia Gandhi had staked her and her party’s reputation and charged Narendra Modi with killing Sohrabuddin for communal reasons. If the late YSR, known as the closest to Sonia Gandhi then, were found to have partnered Modi in the Sohrabuddin venture, would he not share with Modi her trophy of “merchant of death” posthumously? Is that not why the CBI has dishonestly suppressed Salima’s testimony, deceitfully lied it couldn’t reach either her or Kalimuddin, fraudulently absolved AP police and perfidiously targeted Gujarat alone? The CBI betrayed the court, yes, but bailed out the Congress.

Fixing Shah, by fabrication




S Gurumurthy

The climax of the CBI story is how it smuggled Amit Shah into the Sohrabuddin case. Here is a brief, simple account of the complex episode. There are two chargesheets in the case; one by Gujarat CID (July 2007) in which AP Police figured as co-conspirators; the other by CBI [July 2010], which has scored out AP police as accused and inserted Amit Shah instead. The Congress-led AP and the BJP–led Rajasthan and Gujarat had jointly chased Sohrabuddin with the common motive of fighting terror. But with AP Police absolved and the encounter made an all-BJP affair, the motive of the encounter too had to be changed. Or is it vice versa? Anyway, if fight against crime and terror were the motive, Amit Shah and BJP would be seen as fighting terror; the Congress as supporting it. That would be deadly for the Congress in Gujarat. So, the CBI had to invent some ignoble motive for the encounter – to depict Amit Shah more as corrupt, and less as fighting terror. See how the CBI innovates, actually fabricates.

The CBI chargesheet therefore understandably accused Amit Shah and Gujarat Police thus: that they were running an extortion racket, even using Sohrabuddin for its extortion business; (Para 4&5) that Shah got Sohrabuddin to fire at the business premises of “Popular Builders” owned by two brothers, Raman Patel and Dasarath Patel, on 8.12.2004, to have a case registered against Sohrabuddin as accused, to justify killing him in encounter later and use his encounter to threaten others and extort; (Para 4,5&9) that, for the purpose, Shah directed Patels to name Sohrabuddin as accused in Popular Builders case, threatening them with “dire consequences”, if they did not. (Para 4&10) 

Note the dates. Firing at Popular Builders took place on 8.12.2004; Sohrabuddin was killed on 26.11.2005; Shah threatened Patels on 16.12.2005. Now analyse. The CBI says that in December 2004 – note 2004 – Shah wanted Sohrabuddin as accused in Popular Builders case to justify killing him later. In the same breath, it says that Shah threatened Patels a year later, in December 2005 – note 2005 – to name Sohrabuddin as accused in Popular Builders case! Sohrabuddin became suspect in Popular Builders firing for the first time in December 2005 – that is, after his death, not in 2004.

This single fact shreds the CBI innovation that Shah got Sohrabuddin to fire to have a case registered against him in 2004, to justify killing him later. Did the CBI make the silly mistake of reading December 2005 as December 2004? Or, is it a crude fabrication? Or both? Read on. 

The stupid story that Shah had planned the firing incident is proved bogus by the facts of Popular Builders case. The case was in cold storage for eight months, not knowing who the accused was! If Shah got the firing got done specifically to make Sohrabuddin accused, how could the case languish in search of an accused for eight months? See further. In June 2005, Rajasthan police informed Gujarat police, in normal exchange of clues, that Sohrabudin’s associates, questioned in another case, had confessed to their involvement in some firing at Ahmedabad in 2004. Yet, even on 5.8.2005, the case file read “undetected”, meaning no suspects found! When Tulsi Prajapathi and Sylvester, Sohrabuddin’s sharp shooters, were brought to Gujarat from Rajasthan in December 2005, they confessed that they had fired at Popular Builders at Sohrabuddin’s behest. The Gujarat police also found that before and after the firing – that is 7th and 9th December 2004 – Sohrabuddin had called Patels from his cell phone. Knowing that Sohrabuddin had ordered the firing to threaten Patels to pay up his dues, the Gujarat Police questioned Patels, on December 15/16 2005; but they persistently suppressed their links with Sohrabuddin, forcing the police to add them as accused. These irrefutable facts reduce the CBI story – that Shah got Sohrabuddin to fire in 2004 to make Sohrabuddin accused then itself to justify killing Sohrabuddin later – into bizarre and absurd fabrication. 

Come to extortion as the motive for the encounter. It is based on Patels’ evidence. Here is a one-line profile of Patels. They are realtors – read land mafia – caught in land-related criminal cases. The interest of Patels waiting to hit at Gujarat government, and of the CBI eager to fix it, had become common. Patels testified that, to avoid arrest in some other case, they had paid Shah Rs 70 lakhs, in three instalments on specific dates, through Ajay Patel, Shah’s friend. But, as noticed in the high court anticipatory bail order of Ajay Patel, his passport showed that, on the date of the second payment claimed, he was in Singapore, which meant that Patels were indeed lying.

Patels also rendered a strange help the CBI by doing four bizarre sting operations on the unwary Ajay Patel and another friend of Shah; Patels gave the sting CDs running several hours to CBI. Yet, surprisingly, in the stings, Patels didn’t even hint about either Shah’s threat or the payment. In contrast, stings show Patels complimenting Ajay Patel for never indulging in any “money talk”! Anyway, if the threat and payment were true, Patels would have fixed Shah’s friends on both issues in the sting. But, they did not dare do it.

What’s the inference? Both charges are false.   The CBI had intentionally made the accused in Popular Builders case, hardened criminals, as its witnesses in Sohrabuddin case, Patels being the star witnesses, to support CBI’s (bogus) story that the motive for Sohrabuddin’s murder was extortion. As part of this strategy, the CBI has planned to take over the Popular Builders case, reinvestigate it based on the (fake) theory that it was Shah who got the firing done, and absolve all accused in that case. Was it not this lollypop that made Patels and other accused to tell lies to support CBI’s bogus charges? Alas, with the CBI story that Shah himself had planned Popular Builders firing proving to be hoax, their testimonies against Shah are fit only for shredder. The fabricated case against Amit Shah is of course good enough to arrest him and disturb the best-governed and most prosperous state in the country.


Bank statements show Teesta bought witnesses


Bank statements show Teesta bought witnesses

Irrefutable evidence has cropped up to support charges that witnesses of the Gujarat riot cases were allegedly manipulated at the behest of social activist Teesta Setalvad to file false submission before different probe panels and courts.

In a fresh affidavit before the special investigation team (SIT), Teesta’s former close associate Rais Khan Pathan has enclosed statements of his bank accounts to show that witnesses were paid by him on behalf of Teesta in 2003.

The statements show that from Khan’s bank account number 0-336-550-0l SB of DCB Bank, a payment of Rs 5,000 was made to S Fakir Mohammed Nasir Au by cheque number 328316 dated June 2, 2003.

Similarly, from Khan’s IDBI Bank account number 067104000006040, a payment of Rs 10,000 was made to Sandhi Ashraf by cheque number 264637 dated October 11, 2007. Both Au and Sandhi Ashraf are witnesses in the Gulbarg society case.

“These payments by cheque were made to these witnesses from my accounts on the instruction of Teesta Setalvad,” Khan said in a letter (dated August 9, 2011) to the SIT.

Khan told the SIT that cash payments were also made to the witnesses several times. He said the cash used to come to him from Teesta through hawala transfer.

“Names of the Angadiyas from where I used to get money from Bombay office of Teesta are Patel Somabhai Kanchilal & Co and Patel Madhavia Maganlal & Co, both situated in Mirchi Pot of Ratanpole, Ahmedabad,” he said.

Khan has also disclosed about Sadik Hussain R Sheikh, Teesta’s notary who also notarised the affidavits of controversial IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt about his presence at the meeting convened by Narendra Modi during the Gujarat riots.

“On perusal of my IDBI account statements, you will kindly see that on March 13 and October 18, 2006, payment of Rs 10,000 and Rs 20,000 has been made to Sadik by cheque numbers 157523 and 181900, respectively. Sadik is same Sadik Hussain R Sheikh, notary, who is on the pay roll of Teesta Setalvad-led Citizen for Justice & Peace, and who used to blindly notarise affidavits of witnesses sent by Teesta Setalvad. Sadik has also notarised the affidavits of Sanjeev Bhatt, IPS, on April 14, 2011,” Khan wrote.

Khan said in case of urgent demand of money from the witnesses, he used to consult Teesta and make the payment by withdrawing money from an ATM. “I used to pay cash to witnesses by withdrawing cash from my ATM account also. Teesta used to reimburse that amount to me through Angadiya services. Investigation of my above-mentioned bank and ATM accounts will reveal the truth,” he said.

Khan says it is clear that Teesta Setalvad lured poor and uneducated witnesses and made them to sign false affidavits on the basis of money power to appease her political masters to show Gujarat in poor light.

“In view of the above, you are requested to kindly summon Teesta Setalvad to explain her role in paying huge amount to the witnesses and filing false affidavits in the various courts, including in the SC, which is a criminal offence,” he wrote.

PC encouraging indiscipline among State cops: Modi to PM

New Delhi: Accusing P Chidambaram of “encouraging indiscipline” in the State police force and the UPA Government at the Centre of having a hidden agenda, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday sought PM Manmohan Singh’s intervention to stop blatant interference from Union Ministers, especially the Home Minister, in the interest of a healthy Centre-State relationship. In his letter, Modi said Chidambaram had on Friday made a statement regarding some “delinquent police officers” of Gujarat cadre and this was the second time he had intervened in favour of such officers, encouraging indiscipline.

Justice on sale!

•Teesta’s former close associate Rais Khan also disclosed about Sadik Hussain R Sheikh, Teesta’s notary who also notarised the affidavits of controversial IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt about his presence at the meeting convened by Narendra Modi during the Gujarat riots.

•From Khan’s bank account number 0-336-550-0l SB of DCB bank, a payment of Rs 5,000 was made to S Fakir Mohammed Nasir Au by cheque number 328316 dated June 2, 2003. Similarly, from Khan’s IDBI bank account number 067104000006040, a payment of Rs 10,000 was made to Sandhi Ashraf by cheque number 264637 dated October 11, 2007. Both Au and Sandhi Ashraf are witnesses in the Gulbarg society case.
 

How CBI betrayed Court to save Congress


How CBI betrayed Court to save Congress 

S Gurumurthy

The Supreme Court entrusted the Sohrabuddin case to the CBI for two reasons- one, to identify the conspirators from Andhra Pradesh police; two, to ensure a fair probe in Gujarat. The Attorney General had told the Court that the CBI alone could probe AP police. Result, the Court trusted the CBI to identify the offenders from AP police. See how the CBI honoured Court’s trust.

The CBI entered the case in February 2010, filed a chargesheet in July.

The charge sheet (Para 18-20) explicitly accused that AP Police was also party to the plot to kill Sohrabuddin; that Gujarat and AP Police jointly intercepted the bus carrying Sohrabuddin couple from Hyderabad to Sangli, disembarked them, and took them to Ahmedabad where they were murdered; that two Tata Sumo vehicles with AP Police officials had joined the kidnap caravan to Gujarat. Having found AP Police involved, the CBI, in its first report told the Court on 30.7.2010, “efforts to identify the (AP) police officers are in progress”.

But, in just 120 days, (in its final report dt 30.11.2010) the CBI somersaulted, mysteriously. And told the Court that the AP Police was not—yes, NOT— involved in the offence; thus quickly closed the case against them! The CBI’s U-turn is shocking, even bizarre. If the AP Police were innocent as CBI now says, did, as its own charge heet found, the two drivers of Tata Sumos (of AP police) converge their vehicles in front of the bus in which Sohrabuddin couple were and stop it at midnight, for fun; or, for them to watch the free reality night show of kidnapping by the Gujarat Police; and, did they join the all night caravan ride to Ahmedabad for sightseeing; again, did they play host to the Gujarat Police for a free ticket to watch the drama? Absurd yes, but unanswerable, questions.

The CBI’s dishonest U-turn is perfidious too. Its final report (Para 21-24) makes it clear that far from identifying the co-conspirators, CBI has worked to ensure that none of them was exposed.

First, the CBI tells a blatant lie to the Court that despite strenuous efforts, it could not trace the “crucial witnesses”, Kalimuddin and his sister Salima Begum. It is a shocking falsehood.

For, nine months before lying to the Court thus, a senior CBI official SS Giri (DySP/CBI/ACB/BLR) had met yes, MET—Salima, on 2.3.2010, at Hyderabad; also recorded her statement.

Salima had then admitted to Giri that she and Kalimuddin were Naxalitesturned AP Police informers, “protected now by AP police”; they knew Sohrabuddin very well; they did invite him to Hyderabad. Salima’s testimony attached to the CBI’s chargesheet (pages 210-11), bears Giri’s signature.

More, the CBI tells the Court in its final report: Salima “played a key role as facilitator in luring Sohrabuddin” couple to Hyderabad; Kalimuddin, a “dreaded criminal”, “absconder”, had “gained respectability due to his new role as the informer of the AP Police”. Leave the brother-sister duo, for now.

The CBI probe into ‘suspect’ officials of the AP Police—who were the hosts of the Gujarat Police and simultaneously were also protectors of Kalimuddin and Salima who had hosted Sohrabuddin— is also perfidious. Saying, ritually, that its ‘thorough’ examination of the AP Police personnel didn’t yield “anything useful”, CBI closes all efforts to identify the co-conspirators of Gujarat from AP! It also suppresses from the Court the crucial fact that the Vehicle Entry Register of the IPS Officers Mess for the period August 2005 to May 2006, which could reveal the identity of the drivers of Tata Sumos, and the abettors from AP police, has just vanished—an obvious cover-up.

Yet, no AP Police official was arrested, interrogated in custody—a clear contrast to over a dozen Gujarat, Rajasthan policemen arrested and in jail now for four years! Now back to the brother-sister duo.

The CBI has indeed met Salima; but it lied to the Court it didn’t. It could have easily reached Kalimuddin; yet it lied to the Court it couldn’t. Salima had also offered to talk about Sohrabuddin’s encounter “after talking to her brother”, say more on the next day. Yet, Giri didn’t meet her the next day; didn’t get her speak more; didn’t try reaching Kalimuddin. Further. It suppressed all this. Why? Analyse.

Salima and Kalimuddin, the AP police informers and protégés, had facilitated “luring” Sohrabuddin to Hyderabad—that is, trapping him. The Kalimuddin and Salima duo would have trapped Sohrabuddin at whose instance? Only the AP Police whose protégés they were, not at behest of the Gujarat police. See the picture that emerges. First, the AP Police informers and protégés lured Sohrabuddin to Hyderabad and kept him hosted; next, within days, the Gujarat Police arrived in Hyderabad and the AP Police played their host; finally, Gujarat and AP Police jointly intercepted the bus, kidnapped Sohrabuddin and travelled in the caravan to Ahmedabad, where the couple were killed. Just coincidences? Laughable. It’s undeniably the joint mission of both AP and Gujarat, with Kalimuddin and Salima as the trap.

Now add the vanished vehicle register, plus that it all happened in Hyderabad. Any seer needed to say that the CBI clean chit to AP police is perfidious? Kalimuddin and Salima are indeed the ‘smoking guns’, yet sitting ducks.

Still Giri would not meet Salima the next day? Reason? What if she says she had “lured” Sohrabuddin couple at the behest of her benefactors, the AP police? What if the AP police abetment comes to light? That will bracket the Congress in AP with the BJP in Gujarat in Sohrabuddin encounter! The political cost is huge. The Congress President Sonia Gandhi had staked her and her party’s reputation and charged Narendra Modi with killing Sohrabuddin for communal reasons.

If the late YSR, known as the closest to Sonia Gandhi then, were found to have partnered Modi in the Sohrabuddin venture, would he not share with Modi her trophy of “merchant of death” posthumously? Is that not why the CBI has dishonestly suppressed Salima’s testimony, deceitfully lied it couldn’t reach either her or Kalimuddin, fraudulently absolved AP police and perfidiously targeted Gujarat alone? The CBI betrayed the Court, yes, but bailed out the Congress.

The Amit Shah Insertion Gambit

The climax of the CBI story is how it smuggled Amit Shah into Sohrabuddin case. Here is a brief, simple account of the complex episode.

There are two chargesheets in the case; one by the Gujarat CID [July 2007] in which the AP Police figured as co-conspirators; the other by the CBI (July 2010), which has scored out AP Police as accused and inserted Amit Shah instead. The Congress-led AP and the BJP-led Rajasthan and Gujarat had jointly chased Sohrabuddin with the common motive of fighting terror. But with the AP Police absolved and the encounter made an all-BJP affair, the motive of the encounter too had to be changed. Or it is vice versa? Anyway, if fight against crime and terror were the motive, Amit Shah and BJP would be seen as fighting terror; the Congress as supporting it. That would be deadly for the Congress in Gujarat. So, the CBI had to invent some ignoble motive for the encounter—to depict Amit Shah more as corrupt, and less as fighting terror. See how the CBI innovates, actually fabricates.

The CBI chargesheet therefore understandably accused Amit Shah and Gujarat Police thus: that they were running an extortion racket, even using Sohrabuddin for its extortion business; (Para 4&5) that Shah got Sohrabuddin to fire at the business premises of “Popular Builders” owned by two brothers, Raman Patel and Dasarath Patel, on 8.12.2004, to have a case registered against Sohrabuddin as accused, to justify killing him in encounter later and use his encounter to threaten others and extort; (Para 4, 5 & 9) that, for the purpose, Shah directed Patels to name Sohrabuddin as accused in Popular Builders case, threatening them with “dire consequences”, if they did not (Para 4 & 10).

Note the dates. Firing at Popular Builders took place on 8.12.2004; Sohrabuddin was killed on 26.11.2005; Shah threatened Patels on 16.12.2005. Now analyse.

The CBI says that in December 2004—note 2004— Shah wanted Sohrabuddin as accused in Popular Builders case to justify killing him later. In the same breath, it says that Shah threatened Patels a year later, in December 2005—note 2005—to name Sohrabuddin as accused in Popular Builders case! Sohrabuddin became suspect in Popular Builders firing for the first time in December 2005— that is, after his death, not in 2004. This single fact shreds the CBI innovation that Shah got Sohrabuddin to fire to have a case registered against him in 2004, to justify killing him later. Did the CBI make the silly mistake of reading December 2005 as December 2004? Or, is it a crude fabrication? Or both? Read on.

The stupid story that Shah had planned the firing incident is proved bogus by the facts of Popular Builders case. The case was in cold storage for eight months, not knowing who the accused was! If Shah got the firing got done specifically to make Sohrabuddin accused, how could the case languish in search of an accused for eight months? See further. In June 2005, Rajasthan police informed Gujarat police, in normal exchange of clues, that Sohrabudin’s associates, questioned in another case, had confessed to their involvement in some firing at Ahmedabad in 2004. Yet, even on 5.8.2005, the case file read “undetected”, meaning no suspects found! When Tulsi Prajapati and Sylvester, Sohrabuddin’s sharpshooters, were brought to Gujarat from Rajasthan in December 2005, they confessed that they had fired at Popular Builders at Sohrabuddin’s behest. The Gujarat Police also found that before and after the firing—that is 7th and 9th December 2004—Sohrabuddin had called Patels from his cellphone. Knowing that Sohrabuddin had ordered the firing to threaten the Patels to pay up their dues, the Gujarat Police questioned the Patels, on December 15/16 2005; but they persistently suppressed their links with Sohrabuddin, forcing the police to add them as accused. These irrefutable facts reduce the CBI story —that Shah got Sohrabuddin to fire in 2004 to make Sohrabuddin accused then itself to justify killing Sohrabuddin later—into a bizarre fabrication.

Come to extortion as the motive for the encounter. It is based on Patels’ evidence. Here is a one-line profile of Patels. They are realtors—read land mafia—caught in land-related criminal cases. The interest of Patels waiting to hit at Gujarat government, and of the CBI eager to fix it, had become common.

Patels testified that, to avoid arrest in some other case, they had paid Shah Rs 70 lakh, in three instalments on specific dates, through Ajay Patel, Shah’s friend. But, as noticed in the High Court anticipatory bail order of Ajay Patel, his passport showed that, on the date of the second payment claimed, he was in Singapore, which meant that Patels were indeed lying.

More. Patels also rendered a strange help the CBI by doing four bizzarre sting operations on the unwary Ajay Patel and another friend of Shah; Patels gave the sting CDs running several hours to CBI. Yet, surprisingly, in the stings, Patels didn’t even hint about either Shah’s threat or the payment.

In contrast, stings show Patels complimenting Ajay Patel for never indulging in any “money talk”! Anyway, if the threat and payment were true, Patels would have fixed Shah’s friends on both issues in the sting. But, they did not dare do it. What’s the inference? Both charges are false.

The CBI had intentionally made the accused in Popular Builders case, hardened criminals, as its witnesses in Sohrabuddin case, Patels being the star witnesses, to support CBI’s (bogus) story that the motive for Sohrabuddin’s murder was extortion.

As part of this strategy, the CBI has planned to take over the Popular Builders case, reinvestigate it based on the (fake) theory that it was Shah who got the firing done, and absolve all accused in that case. Was it not this lollypop that made the Patels and other accused tell lies to support CBI’s bogus charges? Alas, with the CBI story that Shah planned Popular Builders firing proving to be a hoax, their testimonies against Shah are fit for the shredder.The fabricated case against Amit Shah is of course good enough to arrest him and disturb the best-governed and most prosperous state in the country.

Dead Men Tell Suitable Tales

A key question that still remains unresolved is: who was the third person known to the Sohrabuddin couple in the bus to Sangli, when they were intercepted and what was his role. It was Kalimuddin, said the Gujarat CID. No, it was Tulsi Prajapati, says the CBI now. The Supreme Court had asked the CBI to find out who it was. Kalimuddin is known. Who was Prajapati? Sohrabuddin’s main hitman.

Thus goes the CBI theory: the Gujarat Police deceived Prajapathi, through him got at Sohrabuddin; Prajapati was the third person; after Sohrabuddin’s abduction, Prajapathi was taken by Rajasthan Police and shown as arrested a week later. A year later, fearing that Prajapathi might expose them, Rajasthan-Gujarat Police killed him on 28.12.2006 in a fake encounter. But, the CBI theory falters at the start; it does not answer this simple, yet vital, question: why would the Gujarat police, who brutally killed another eyewitness, the innocent Kausar Bi, risk Prajapathi, a hardened criminal, living till December 2006? Move on.

Sohrabuddin’s travel to Hyderabad would be the right starting point to unravel the mysterious third person. Yet, see how deliberately shallow is the CBI probe into the vital event.

The CBI says in that in mid November 2005, Sohrabuddin couple “left Indore bus stand in a Maruti van to Hyderabad”. Yet, the CBI would not ask such simple questions which cub-reporters in newspapers would not miss, namely, whether Sohrabuddin self-drove the van from Indore; if he had a driver, who was he; what happened to him; what happened to the vehicle; did it go back to Indore or was it left behind in Hyderabad itself; why did Sohrabuddin not go to Sangli in the same vehicle but chose a bus instead; whether Prajapathi came along with Sohrabuddin from Indore; if not when, where did he join. Not unusual that the premier investigator does not ask such simple, vital questions? What is unveiled here will explain why the CBI was not keen to probe deep. Read on.

The CBI itself admits that Salima had lured the couple to Hyderabad, implying that some undisclosed masters had directed her. Yet the CBI would not ask her who was it. Salima and Kalimuddin hosted the couple; bought the bus tickets of the couple to Sangli through their associate, Hari. Did Kalimuddin also travel with the couple? Analyse.

Who, other than AP police informers, could have kept the AP Police informed about the couple coming, staying with Kalimuddin and going by bus to Sangli.

Even if Kalimuddin were not the third person, he would know who he was. The CBI too says it was “critical to trace Kalimuddin to find out who else was linked with the abduction of Sohrabuddin” (Para 21 of the final report). The CBI tells the Court that it had “tied up” with AP Police sister intelligence “to trace out the absconding” Kalimuddin, but “the efforts proved futile”; “efforts were also made to find out information” about his “possible hide out” by contacting various sources and informants (Para 21), also “the present whereabouts” of “Kalmudddin and Salima” (Para 22). All lies, lies and lies. The brother-sister duo is very much under the protection of CBI’s sister intelligence in AP! The CBI’s chargesheet itself shockingly calls the CBI’s bluff. Shock I: The CBI had met Salima on 2.3.2010, where? Believe it, at her residence! Shock II: Where was her residence? It was—believe it again—in Railway Police Quarters! Shock III: Salima’s statement to CBI (SS Giri) shows her address as “Qtr [meaning Quarter] no: 11-6-49/11 Railway Police Quarters, Nampally, Hyderabad/Door No.3-7-157 Mansoorabad, LB Nagar, Hyderabad” (Page 210/Vol I Witness statements). The CBI tells the Court the Salima is absconding; and she is sitting pretty in Railway Police Quarters! Under central police care! Was central intelligence too involved then in operation Sohrabuddin? Is that why the CBI is unwilling to move on AP police? Only some FBI—not CBI—can answer.

What was CBI’s compulsion to tell such blatant and perfidious lies, lies and lies; and conceal and suppress that it had met Salima or it could access Kalimuddin? Here is the clue. The CBI was compelled to smuggle in Prajapati as the third person because it was under greater compulsion conceal Kalimuddin and deny he was the third person. Why was the CBI compelled to conceal him and deny he was the third person? See the sequence. Kalimuddin and Salima, informers and protégés of AP police were Sohrabuddin’s friends; they lured him to Hyderabad, obviously at AP police behest; AP police hosted Gujarat police; it worked with them to intercept and abduct Sohrabuddin; also travelled in the kidnap caravan all night to Ahmedabad.

Is the square not complete? If the CBI admitted Kalimuddin as the third person, he would be an accused; and along with him inevitably, the AP police. That means politically, AP government, which is disaster for the Congress. So, AP police has to be kept out at all costs.

As AP police has to be out, Kalimuddin has to abscond; for, if he is in, AP police cannot be out. But here is a catch. Then the third person’s seat in the bus will remain empty; it cannot. An alternate has to be found, if Kalimuddin is to be kept out. His alternate has to be a connected person. But, he cannot be a living person; because a living person will speak. So, he has to be a dead person; so that others can speak in his name, as the CBI wants. Fortunately, such a person was available to the CBI off the shelf. So, the CBI smuggled in the dead Prajapati, smuggled out the living Kalimuddin. But, the CBI has goofed up. Only Kalimuddin as the third person explains why the AP police had to join the kidnap caravan to Ahmedabad.

It had to safely bring back its informer and protégé – Kalimuddin. Yet, to fix the BJP, and bail out Congress, the CBI has used a dead lie, Prajapati, to kill the living truth, Kalimuddin.

This is not the epilogue. Only an honest and independent judiciary can write an epilogue to this perfidy.

(Concluded)

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Rare documents on Bhagat Singh's trial and life in jail




Digitalised records with the Supreme Court reveal some inspiring facets of the revolutionary. Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt offered themselves for arrest after throwing harmless bombs in the Central Assembly to 'make the deaf hear.' Their case drew worldwide attention.

When the Supreme Court of India established a museum to display landmarks in the history of India's judicial system, it also put on display records of some historic trials. The first exhibition that was organised was the ‘Trial of Bhagat Singh.' It was opened on September 28, 2007, on the occasion of the birth centenary celebrations of one of the most significant among martyrs and popular heroes. Noorul Hooda, Curator of the Museum, and Rajmani Srivastava of the National Archives worked to collect documents, items like bomb shell remains, pictures and publications. Not all of what was collected could be displayed in the exhibition. In 2008, the Supreme Court digitalised the exhibits. Some of Bhagat Singh's rare writings thus came to light for the first time since he was executed on March 23, 1931 at the Lahore Central Jail along with Rajguru and Sukhdev. How the three young patriots were put to judicial murder, is brought out by the eminent legal scholar, A.G. Noorani, in his book, The Trial of Bhagat Singh — Politics of Justice.

The most significant part of Bhagat Singh's life is that spent in jail since his arrest on April 8, 1929 from the Central Assembly in Delhi, where he and B.K. Dutt offered themselves to be arrested after throwing harmless bombs in the Assembly to ‘make the deaf hear.' They faced two trials. The first was in the Delhi bomb case. It started on May 7, 1929 in Delhi and was committed to the Sessions Judge, on charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the Explosives Act. That trial started in June. Bhagat Singh and Dutt made a historic statement on June 6. Dutt was represented by the nationalist counsel Asaf Ali. Bhagat Singh fought his own case with the help of a legal adviser.

On June 12, in less than a week, both were convicted and transported for life. From the June 6 statement to his last letter to his comrades written on March 22, 1931, a day before his execution, Bhagat Singh read and wrote so much: one can only marvel at the explosion of talent at the age of 21 years-plus. He wrote letters to family members and friends, jail and court officials, and penned major articles including Why I am an Atheist, Letter to Young Political Workers, and Jail Notebook.

On June 14, after the conviction, Bhagat Singh was transferred to Mianwali and Dutt to the Lahore jail. That was the start of a chain of struggles throughout the period they were in jail. It began with a hunger strike from June 15 by both Bhagat Singh and Dutt, demanding the status of political prisoners. Bhagat Singh was also shifted to Lahore jail after some time. He and Dutt were kept away from the other accused in the Lahore conspiracy case, such as Sukhdev. The trial in that case, related to the murder of Saunders, began on July 10, 1929. Bhagat Singh, who was on hunger strike since June 15 along with Dutt, was brought to the court on a stretcher. The other accused in the case came to know about this hunger strike on that day, and almost all of them joined the strike.

This historic hunger strike by Bhagat Singh and his comrades resulted in the martyrdom of Jitender Das on September 13, 1929. Bhagat Singh and the other comrades ended their hunger strike on September 2 after receiving assurances from a Congress party team and British officials on the acceptance of their demands, but they resumed it on September 4 as the British officials went back on their word. It finally ended on October 4 after 112 days, though the status of “political prisoner” was still not given; some other demands were acceded to.

During the Lahore conspiracy case trial conducted by Special Magistrate Rai Sahib Pandit Kishan Chand, an incident occurred on October 21, 1929. Provoked by an approver named Jai Gopal, Prem Dutt, the youngest among the accused persons, threw a slipper at him. Despite the other accused dissociating themselves from the act, the magistrate ordered the handcuffing of all of them. Bhagat Singh, Shiv Verma, B.K. Dutt, Bejoy Kumar Sinha, Ajoy Ghosh, Prem Dutt and others were beaten after they refused to be handcuffed. They were treated brutally inside the jail and at the court gate in front of the magistrate. Ajoy Ghosh and Shiv Verma fell unconscious following the police brutality. Bhagat Singh was targeted by a British officer by name Roberts.

The details of the brutalities were recorded by Bejoy Kumar Sinha. In February 1930, Bhagat Singh resumed his hunger strike for 15 days, as the British officials did not fulfil the promises they had made earlier with respect to demands.

Meanwhile, the fame of revolutionaries, arising from their hunger strikes and court statements, soared, while the image of the British was at its lowest ebb. The case drew attention the world over. While dismissing appeals from Bhagat Singh and Dutt against the Delhi bomb case judgment, the Punjab High Court in Lahore acknowledged Bhagat Singh to be a ‘Sincere Revolutionary.'

The British colonial regime led by Viceroy Irwin took the unprecedented step of issuing the Lahore conspiracy case ordinance on May 1, 1930. Under this, the proceedings that were being conducted by a Special Magistrate in Lahore were transferred to a three-judge Special Tribunal established to complete them within a fixed period. The Tribunal's judgment was not to be challenged in the superior courts; only the Privy Council could hear any appeal. This ordinance was never approved by the Central Assembly or the British Parliament, and it lapsed later without any legal or constitutional sanctity. Its only purpose was to hang Bhagat Singh in the shortest possible time. That judgment sentencing Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru to the gallows was delivered on October 7, 1930.

The Tribunal began its proceedings on May 5, 1930. The accused in the Lahore conspiracy case refused to attend the proceedings after May 12. On that day they raised slogans and sung revolutionary songs. Brutalities were repeated on them, as in October 1929, in front of the Special Magistrate. This time Ajoy Ghosh, Kundan Lal and Prem Dutt fell unconscious. The accused remained absent during the whole proceedings and remained unrepresented by counsel. Advocates engaged to defend them were insulted by the Tribunal. Subsequently, the accused themselves directed them not to defend them in their absence. These details are in A.G. Noorani's book, The Trial of Bhagat Singh.

What remained out of view all these years were the many letters that Bhagat Singh wrote and the petitions he sent to either the jail authorities or to the Special Tribunal or to the Punjab High Court, during the period 1929-1930. In these letters and petitions, Bhagat Singh sought to expose the British colonial regime's determined efforts to get him hanged by denying the accused any defence during the trial. Even though the accused were choosing not to be present in the court, they were participating in the legal proceedings through counsel. The Tribunal refused the revolutionaries' counsel, Amolak Ram Kapoor, permission to cross-examine 457 prosecution witnesses and allowed the cross-examination of only five approvers. This was a farce.

The letters reveal another hunger strike by Bhagat Singh from July 28, 1930, on which he himself informed the High Court it was against the jail rules. He was joined in the hunger strike by Kundan Lal, Prem Dutt Verma, Sukhdev and Bejoy Kumar Sinha. This hunger strike continued till at least August 22. With this, the total period of hunger strikes observed during his nearly two-year incarceration becomes about five months. Probably this is more than the total period of Mahatma Gandhi's hunger strikes during his prolonged political career starting from South Africa.

When the court finally allowed interviews as sought by Bhagat Singh to prepare his defence, and when he asked for an adjournment of the case, the court closed the proceedings without giving any chance to defence counsel to cross-examine prosecution witnesses or present defence witnesses. Then it reserved judgment, which was delivered on October 7, 1930.

More such documents might emerge. The compilation of the complete proceedings of the Delhi Assembly bomb case and the Special Magistrate Court's proceedings could bring more facts to light. The Punjab Archives in Lahore has 135 files of the Bhagat Singh case. These are not accessible even to Pakistani scholars; Kuldip Nayar is now trying to get access to them. In 2006, at the time of the 75th anniversary of the martyrdom of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, the Acting Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court, Rana Bhagwan Dass, handed over to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh four volumes of exhibits of the Lahore conspiracy case. These included some new documents.

While the source of the documents in the Supreme Court records is not clearly mentioned, undoubtedly these are part of the trial proceedings at both levels. The letters, self-explanatory in the context of the freedom struggle, show the amazing command Bhagat Singh had over the English language, apart from Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi, his knowledge of legal terminology and his beautiful handwriting. In the book, Gandhi and Bhagat Singh, historian V.N. Dutta expressed doubts about Bhagat Singh's command over English as he was an under-graduate. He sought to ascribe the language to Jawaharlal Nehru or Asaf Ali. For legal professionals, scholars and students, the letters present a wonderful experience of how Bhagat Singh had such maturity in complex matters of legal defence.

But Bhagat Singh's very talent and competence scared the British colonial regime and it became even more determined to get rid of him.

The Supreme Court's digitalised records include nearly 20 written Bhagat Singh documents. Some of these, such as the June 6, 1929 statement, ‘Ideal of Indian Revolution,' have been published. Only 12 letters or petitions remain unpublished. This writer acknowledges the permission granted by the Supreme Court to do so. Ten of the documents are in complete form. Only the first page remains of two letters/documents, one relating to the October 21, 1929 incident in court and another petition from early-1930; the second and likely final page in these two are not in the digital records. Also available now is a photograph of Bhagat Singh and Dutt, published in ‘Bande Matram', Lahore (on April 12, 1929) and Hindustan Times (April 18, 1929). This was taken by photographer Sham Lal of Kashmere Gate in Delhi on April 4, 1929 and sent to newspapers for publication by Bhagat Singh's comrades. The writer is grateful to the National Archives, New Delhi, for providing the rare newspaper photographs.

[Chaman Lal, the editor of the Bhagat Singh Documents (Hindi: Publications Division) and the Jail Notebook and Other Writings (LeftWord), is a Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, now on deputation to The University of the West Indies, Trinidad &Tobago, as Visiting Professor.]



BHAGAT SINGH.jpgBHAGAT SINGH.jpg
28K   View   Download  

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

सावन में शिवलिंग पर दूध क्यों चढ़ाया जाता है?



हमारे हिंदू धर्म में त्रिदेवों अर्थात भगवान ब्रह्मा, विष्णु व शंकर का अपना एक विशिष्ट स्थान है और इसमें भी भगवान शंकर का चरित्र जहाँ अत्यधिक रोचक हैं वहीं यह पौराणिक कथाओं में अत्यधिक गूढ रहस्यों से भी भरा हुआ है। भगवान शिव को विश्वास का प्रतीक माना गया है क्योंकि उनका अपना चरित्र अनेक विरोधाभासों से भरा हुआ है जैसे शिव का अर्थ है जो शुभकर व कल्याणकारी हो, जबकि शिवजी का अपना व्यक्तित्व इससे जरा भी मेल नहीं खाता, क्योंकि वे अपने शरीर में इत्र के स्थान पर चिता की राख मलते हैं तथा गले में फूल-मालाओं के स्थान पर विषैले सर्पों को धारण करते हैं। वे अकेले ही ऐसे देवता हैं जो लिंग के रूप में पूजे जाते हैं। सावन में शिवलिंग पर दूध चढ़ाने का विशेष महत्व माना गया है। इसीलिए शिव भक्त सावन के महीने में शिवजी को प्रसन्न करने के लिए उन पर दूध की धार अर्पित करते हैं। 

पुराणों में भी कहा गया है कि इससे पाप क्षीण होते हैं। लेकिन सावन में शिवलिंग पर दूध चढ़ाने का सिर्फ धार्मिक ही नहीं वैज्ञानिक महत्व भी है। सावन के महीने में दूध का सेवन नहीं करना चाहिए। शिव ऐसे देव हैं जो दूसरों के कल्याण के लिए हलाहल भी पी सकते हैं। इसीलिए सावन में शिव को दूध अर्पित करने की प्रथा बनाई गई है क्योंकि सावन के महीने में गाय या भैस घास के साथ कई ऐसे कीड़े-मकोड़ो को भी खा जाती है। जो दूध को स्वास्थ्य के लिए गुणकारी के बजाय हानिकारक बना देती है। इसीलिए सावन मास में दूध का सेवन न करते हुए उसे शिव को अर्पित करने का विधान बनाया गया है।