SIT report uncovers the murky world of anti-Modi cottage industry, where cops, journalists, NGOs, politicians are in nexus
(our Thanks to DeshGujarat.com and Japan Pathak)
Sanjiv Bhatt
Ahmedabad, 9 May 2012
In its closure report, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) has clearly expressed an opinion that “certain vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, different NGOs, and some political leaders were trying to use honorable Supreme Court/SIT as a forum for settling their scores”. The SIT has in its report noted that “Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been colluding with the persons with vested interests to see that some kind of charge-sheet is filed against Shri Narendra Modi and others.” The report has quoted some email communications of Sanjiv Bhatt that clearly make a point that Bhatt had attempted to influence Amicas Curiae through NGOs, media campaign and pressure groups.
The SIT in it report says: Government of Gujarat vide its letter dated 22-6-2011 forwarded a set of emails exchanged between Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG, Gujarat Police and certain individuals during April and May 2011. It was mentioned in the above letter that during the course of an inquiry instituted against Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS by DG (Civil Defense), Gujarat regarding misuse of official resources, some revelations have been made having direct bearing on the cases being monitored by SIT. The material forwarded by Govt. of Gujarat has been scrutinized and the salient features of the same are summarized as below:
(1) That top Congress leaders of Gujarat namely Shri Shaktisinh Gohil, Leader of Opposition in Gujarat Legislative Assembly and Shri Arjun Modhwadia, President of Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee are in constant touch with Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG. They are providing him ‘packages’, certain materials and also legal assistance. Further, on 28-04-2011 Shri Sanjiv Bhatt exchanged mails with Shri Shaktisinh Gohil and the former gave point for arguments in honorable Supreme Court matter, allegations to be made against the members of SIT and to establish that the burning of a coach of a Sabarmati Express at Godhra railway station was not a conspiracy. From the emails, it appears that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was holding personal meetings with senior mentions that he was ‘under exploited’ by the lawyer representing Congress before Nanavati Commission of inquiry.
2. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been persuading various NGOs and other interested groups to influence the Ld. Amicus Curiae and the honorable Supreme Court of India by using ‘media card’ and ‘pressure groups’.
3. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been exchanging emails with one Nasir Chippa and in the email dated 11-5-2011 Shri Bhatt has stated that he (Nasir Chipa) should try to mobilize support/pressure-groups in Delhi to influence Ld. Amicus Curiae Shri Raju Ramchandran in a very subtle manner. In another email dated 18-5-2011, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had requested Shri Nasir Chippa to influence Home Minister Shri P.Chidambaram through pressure groups in U.S. It is believed that Shri Nasir Chippa has strong U.S. connections and his family stays there.
4. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt arranged an appeal from Shri M.Hassan Jowher, who runs a so called NGO titled SPRAT(Society for Promoting Rationality) to Amicus Curiae on 13-5-2011, to call Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS, Shri Rajnish Rai, IPS, Shri Satish Verma, IPS, Shri Kuldeep Sharma, IPS and Shri Rahul Sharma, IPS (all police officers of Gujarat) to tender their version of the Gujarat story. It may be mentioned here that the draft for the said appeal was sent by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt himself to Shri Jowher, Further, a copy of this mail was circulated by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt to Ms. Shabnam Hashmi, Ms. Teesta Setalwad, Shri Himanshu Thakker, journalist, Shri Leo Saldana, journalist and Shri Nasir Chippa to encourage the prominent persons/organizations to write to Amicus Curiae on the similar lines so as to pressurize him.
5. In emails exchanged on June 1, 2011 between Shri Sanjiv Bhatt and Shri M.H.Jowher, it was proposed that a PIL may be field through a lawyer named Shri K.Vakharia( a senior advocate and chairman of legal cell of Congress party in Gujarat) in the Gujarat High Court for providing security to Shri Sanjiv Bhatt. It was also proposed that another complaint may be filed with the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city against Shri Narendra Modi and others for his alleged involvement in 2002 riots which would be taken to appropriate judicial forums in due course.
6.That Ms. Teesta Setalwad, her lawyer Shri Mihir Desai and Journalist Shri Manoj Mitta of Times of India were in constant touch with Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS and were instrumental in arranging / drafting of the affidavit for filing the same in honorable Supreme court. Vide email dated 10-4-2011, Shri Bhatt solicited “Co-ordinates” from Ms. Teesta Setalwad, who had also arranged for a meeting with her lawyer Shri Mihir Desai at Ellis bridge Gymkhana, Ahmedabad. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt sent the first draft of his proposed affidavit to Shri Manoj Mitta on 13-4-2011, after meeting Shri Mihir Desai, Advocate and invited his suggestions. Shri Manoj Mitta advised Shri Sanjiv Bhatt to incorporate a few more paragraphs drafted by him which were incorporated by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt in his final affidavit sent to honorable Supreme Court of India as suggested by Shri Mitta.
7. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was instrumental in arranging an affidavit of one Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary, a journalist, to corroborate his claim that he had gone to attend a meeting called by the Chief Minister at his residence in the night of 27-2-2002. Significantly, Shri Bhatt had sent his mobile phone details of 27-2-2002 to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary and had also suggested that probable timings of his meeting to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary on 15-5-2011. Simultaneously, these details were sent to Ms. Teesta Setalwad on 16-5-2011, for drafting the document, presumably the affidavit to be filed by Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt sent an email to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary that the said affidavit could be leaked out to the print media which would force the Amicus Curiae and honorable Supreme Court to take notice of the same. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt also sent another email to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary, in which he has stated that they should play the ‘media trick’ so that affidavit is taken seriously by Amicus Curiae and the honorable Supreme Court.
8. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been exchanging emails with one Leo Saldana, a Narmada Bachao Andolan activist, with a view to mobilize public opinion in their favor. On 1-5-2011, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had sent an email to the latter to the effect that what they needed to do at this stage was to create a situation, where it would be difficult for three judges Supreme Court bench to disregard the ‘shortcomings of SIT under stewardship of Mr. Raghavan’ and that the pressure groups and opinion makers in Delhi could be of great help in forwarding the cause. He has further stated in the mail that he was hopeful that things would start turning around from the next hearing, if proper pressure was maintained at national level.
9.That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was trying to contact Shri K.S.Subramanyam, a retired IPS officer, through Shri Nasir Chippato make an affidavit supporting his stand with a view to convince the Amicus Curiae and through him the honorable Supreme Court of India that Shri K.Chakravarthi, former DGP of Gujarat, was a liar.
10. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been taking advice of Ms. Teesta Setalwad in connection with his evidence before Nanavati Commission of inquiry. He had also been in touch with various journalists, NGOs and had been forwarding his representations, applications and other documents through email, whereas on the other side he had been claiming privilege that being an intelligence officer he was duty bound not to disclose anything unless, he was legally compelled to do so.
11. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been maintaining a close contact with Shri Rahul Sharma, DIG of Gujarat Police and had been getting his mobile phone calls analyzed with a view to ascertain his own movements of 27-2-2002. This shows that Bhatt does not recollect his movements on that day. He has also been trying to ascertain the movements of Late Haren Pandya, the then minister of state for Revenue on 27-2-2002, with a view to introduce him as a participant of the meeting of 27-2-2002 held at CM’s residence, but could not do so, as Shri Rahul Sharma had informed him after the analysis that there was absolutely no question of Late Haren Pandya being at Gandhinagar on 27-2-2002 night.
From the study of emails, it appears that certain vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, different NGOs, and some political leaders were trying to use honorable Supreme Court/SIT as a forum for settling their scores.This would also go to show that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been colluding with the persons with vested interests to see that some kind of charge-sheet is filed against Shri Narendra Modi and others.
USA: Disappointing Verdict- Dr. Divyendu Sinha Murder Case
Trial Days 13, Monday, May 07, 2012
Middlesex County Superior Court
May 07, 2012
Dear Supporters of Sinha Family and Community Members:
Namaste. The Jury in the case of The State of New Jersey Vs. Steven K. Contreras for the murder of Dr. Divyendu Sinha on June 25, 2010 has returned the verdict on the 10 count indictment today at 2:10 PM. It is a very disappointing verdict. Mr. Contreras was acquitted of murder and aggravated charges which would have carried long term sentences and on the alternate count of Reckless Manslaughter, the Jury was hung. He was convicted on each count of Aggravated Assault to cause significant bodily injury on Anthony Martino, Ashish Sinha and Ravi Sinha which are all third degree charges but was acquitted of Aggravated Assault to cause serious bodily injury on Anthony Martino, Ashish Sinha and Ravi Sinha which are all second degree charges. He was also convicted of Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of others but was acquitted of Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of himself.
All third degree convictions carry sentence of 3 to 5 years but they (and fourth degree convictions) are considered “presumption of non-incarceration” meaning unless prosecution proves a need for putting the convict in jail, he goes home free. Also, if he is jailed these are what is termed Flat sentences, meaning a three year term actually translates to nine months, a four year term translates to nine months and 26 days and a five year term translates to 13 months in jail.
However, if convicted, Reckless Manslaughter carries from 5 to 10 years compulsory jail term where 85% sentence has to be served before getting a parole.
Since the Jury was hung on the charge of Reckless Manslaughter, the State can retry Steven Contreras on that single count. In coming days the Deputy 1st Assistant Prosecutor Mr. Chris Kuberiet will Consult with Alkabahen Sinha and his boss, Public Prosecutor, Bruce Kaplan to decide next step of action. Then, there will be a status conference between Mr. Kuberiet, Defense attorney Hassen Abdellah and the Judge Bradley Ferencz on May 25 to decide the sentencing date and parameters of retrial on that single count. We will keep you posted of further developments.
Alkabahen is quite understandably distraught and disappointed as are many of us. However, we have to respect the Jury’s verdict. We do think that the Jury did not want to sentence the young man to a 30 years to life imprisonment that is why in every case it chose to acquit on Serious bodily injury (which would lead to the natural conclusion of Murder/Aggravated manslaughter) and settled for Significant bodily injury. There cannot be doubt in any mind that Mr. Contreras, who drove the assailants from place to place that night, who let them out of the car to beat up Sinha family, who waited for them to return after the attack and who drove them back to their homes after the attack was equally responsible for the murder of Dr. Divyendu Sinha. One wonders if such criminals have any remorse or pangs of conscience, i.e, if they have any conscience.
We do thank Mr. Kuberiet who presented a very persuasive case and interacted more as a well-wisher of the family then just a prosecutor. We are thankful to Ms. Terry Musso, the Victim Assistance Officer who has remained with Alkabahen and her sons as a shadow all this time to take care of all her emotional needs. We thank the Judge Bradley Ferencz for overseeing the case in a professional manner and giving fair hearing to both the sides. We thank the Jury- though the verdict was not to our liking; we realize that they exemplified sense of public service and duty by giving 17 days of their precious time. We thank The Star Ledger, Home News Tribune, NJ Channel 12 and Verizon FIOS1 for timely and frequent coverage of the trial. While majority of ethnic media was disappointing and did not care to cover such an important trial that has the Indian community shaken, TV ASiA did a good job of frequent trips to the court house and giving updates in its nightly community roundup program. We sincerely thank them and hope that the community will put enough pressure on other ethnic newspapers, radio stations and TV channels who find time for cinema, entertainment as well as many frivolous programs but not for things that matter, to redirect their focus. This is what the community owes to itself, if it wants its voice to be heard.
Finally, we thank dozens of community members, those of Indian origin and of American, who took time off from their work or business and other engagements and attended the trial to be with Alkabahen and lend her and the family moral support. No words can describe the sense of obligation that we feel towards all of them. Several others sent emails from across USA and from India showing their support, concern and encouragement. Many members called to express their sense of solidarity. Alkabahen feels that she is blessed to have such an extended wonderful family.
We are not done yet; we may have this retrial and then the trial of four accused later on. We now know that we can count on you. Please see below the details of the verdict.
Please watch TV Asia, Channel 12 and Verizon FIOS1 in NJ for details. Also The Star Ledger at <www.nj.com> as well as Home News Tribune <http://www.mycentraljersey.com/>
have details of the judgment.
Please forward this to your contacts.
Thank you.
Brotherly yours,
Gaurang G. Vaishnav
Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America (VHPA)
Indian American Defense League (IADL)
732-754-1727
Blog at <http://vicharak1.wordpress.com/>, Twitter at<http://twitter.com/#!/vicharak1>
Disclaimer: This is a synopsis of court hearing based on notes taken by me. Not all communications are captured and while I attempt to be as accurate as possible, there may be legal points that could have been missed or misinterpreted. – Gaurang
Dr. Divyendu Sinha (1961-2010)
Mrs. Alka Sinha
Defendant Steven Contreras, Driver of the car
(Photo: Courtesy of tThe Star-Leger)
Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor,
Christopher Kuberiet
Judge Bradley Ferencz
Defense Attorney,
Hassen Abdellah
(Courtesy: Patti Sapone/Star Ledger)
Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor, Christopher Kuberiet,
Judge Bradley Ferencz, Defense Attorney, Hassen Abdellah
(Courtesy: Courier News)
Judge: Bradley Ferencz (BF)
Deputy 1st Asst. Public Prosecutor:
Christopher Kuberiet (CK)
Defense Attorney: Hassen Abdellah (HA)
Defendant: Steven Contreras (SC)
========================== ===========================
CHARGES and VERDICT SHEET
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Vs.
Steven K. Contreras
Prosecutor No.: 10002581
Indictment No.: 10-11=01628
Count 1:
Conspiracy
a. Steven K. Contreras did conspire with Julian C. Daley and/or Christian M. Tinli and/or Christopher Conway and/or Cash Q. Johnson to commit the crime of aggravated assault, serious bodily injury.
________ NOT GUILTY [X]
________ GUILTY [ ]
If you find the defendant not guilty of count 1a, please answer count b. If you find defendant guilty as to count 1a, please move to count 2.
b. Steven K. Contreras did conspire with Julian C. Daley and/or Christian M. Tinli and/or Christopher Conway and/or Cash Q. Johnson to commit the crime of aggravated assault, significant bodily injury, and did an overt act.
________ NOT GUILTY [ ]
________ GUILTY [X]
Count 2:
Conspiracy
Steven K. Contreras did conspire with Julian C. Daley and/or Christian M. Tinli and/or Christopher Conway and/or Cash Q. Johnson
to commit the crime of Riot, fourth degree, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission and in pursuance of this conspiracy an overt act was done.
________ NOT GUILTY [ ]
________ GUILTY [X]
Count 3:
Aggravated Assault
a. Steven K. Contreras did purposely attempt to cause serious bodily injury to Anthony Martino.
________ NOT GUILTY [X]
________ GUILTY [ ]
If you find defendant not guilty of 3a, please move to 3b.
b. Steven K. Contreras did purposely attempt to cause significant bodily injury to Anthony Martino.
________ NOT GUILTY [ ]
________ GUILTY [X]
If you find defendant not guilty of 3b, please move to 3c.
c. Steven K. Contreras did purposely attempt a simple assault on Anthony Martino.
________ NOT GUILTY [ ]
________ GUILTY [ ]
Count 4:
Criminal Mischief
a. Steven K. Contreras did purposely or knowingly damage a 2003 Mazda Miata, the tangible property of Manolo Martinez
and/or Michael Martinez while in the custody of Anthony Martino causing pecuniary loses.
________ NOT GUILTY [X]
________ GUILTY [ ]
The amount of the loss proven beyond a reasonable doubt is:
(Please check)
______ $2000.00 or more [ ]
______ More than $500.00 but less than $2000.00 [ ]
______ $500.00 or less [ ]
Count 5:
a. Murder
Steven K. Contreras did purposely or knowingly inflict serious bodily injury upon Dr. Divyendu Sinha resulting in his death.
________ NOT GUILTY [X]
________ GUILTY [ ]
If you find defendant not guilty of 5a, please move to 5b.
b. Aggravated Manslaughter
Steven K. Contreras did recklessly cause the death of Dr. Divyendu Sinha under circumstances manifesting
extreme indifference to human life.
________ NOT GUILTY [X]
________ GUILTY [ ]
If you find defendant not guilty of 5b, please move to 5c.
c. Reckless Manslaughter
Steven K. Contreras did recklessly cause the death of Dr. Divyendu Sinha.
________ NOT GUILTY [ ]
________GUILTY [ ] HUNG JURY- Could not come to an agreement
Count 6:
a. Aggravated Assault
Steven K. Contreras did purposely attempt to cause serious bodily injury to A.S. (Ashish Sinha.)
________ NOT GUILTY [X]
________GUILTY [ ]
If you find defendant not guilty of 6a, please move to 6b.
b. Significant Bodily Injury
Steven K. Contreras did purposely attempt to cause significant bodily injury to A.S. (Ashish Sinha.)
________ NOT GUILTY [ ]
________ GUILTY [X]
If you find defendant not guilty of 6b, please move to 6c.
c. Simple Assault
Steven K. Contreras did purposely attempt a simple assault on A.S. (Ashish Sinha.)
________ NOT GUILTY [ ]
________ GUILTY [ ]
Count 7:
a. Aggravated Assault
Steven K. Contreras did purposely attempt to cause serious bodily injury to R.S. (Ravi Sinha.)
________ NOT GUILTY [X]
________ GUILTY [ ]
If you find defendant not guilty of 7a, please move to 7b.
b. Significant Bodily Injury
Steven K. Contreras did purposely attempt to cause significant bodily injury to R.S. (Ravi Sinha.)
________ NOT GUILTY [ ]
________ GUILTY [X]
If you find defendant not guilty of 7b, please move to 7c.
c. Simple Assault
Steven K. Contreras did purposely attempt a simple assault on R.S. (Ravi Sinha.)
_________ NOT GUILTY [ ]
________ GUILTY [ ]
Count 8:
Riot
Steven K. Contreras did participate, within a group of four (4) persons, in a course of disorderly conduct with purpose to commit
or facilitate the commission of a crime.
________ NOT GUILTY [ ]
________ GUILTY [X]
Count 9:
Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution
Steven K. Contreras with purpose to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another person, that is,
Julian C. Daley and/or Christian M. Tinli and/or Christopher Conway and/or Cash Q. Johnson did suppress, by way of concealment
or destruction, any evidence of a crime, or tamper with a document or other source of information, regardless of its admissibility in evidence, which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of the said Julian C. Daley and/or Christian M. Tinli and/or Christopher Conway and/or Cash Q. Johnson or in the lodging of a charge against Julian C. Daley and/or Christian M. Tinli and/or Christopher Conway and/or Cash Q. Johnson and/or volunteered false information to a law enforcement officer.
________ NOT GUILTY [ ]
________ GUILTY [X]
If you find the defendant guilty, please check the offense that the defendant hindered:
______Riot [ ]
______Aggravated Assault on any party, serious. [ ]
______Aggravated Assault on any party, significant. [X]
______Criminal Mischief [X]
Count 10:
Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution
Steven K. Contreras with purpose to hinder his own apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment did suppress, by way
of concealment or destruction, evidence of a crime, or tampered with a document or other source of information, regardless of its
admissibility in evidence, which might aid in his discovery or apprehension, or in the lodging of a charge against the said
defendant and/or volunteered false information to a law enforcement officer.
________ NOT GUILTY [X]
________ GUILTY [ ]
If you find the defendant guilty, please check the offense that the defendant hindered:
______ Riot [ ]
______ Aggravated Assault on any party, serious. [ ]
_______ Aggravated Assault on any party, significant. [ ]
_______ Criminal Mischief [ ]
================================================
Dr. Divyendu Sinha Murder Trial Starts in New Jersey Court- Day 1
This week there are three court dates: April 17, 19 and 20 (Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday).
Next week Trial dates are: April 24, 25, 26, and 27 (Tuesday to Friday.)
Time is from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM with one hour lunch break, usually from 12:30 PM to 1:30 PM. If you plan to attend, either arrive by 8:45 AM or 1:15 PM at court room #501. Also keep 10 minutes for security check. Please call me at 732-754-1727 or send email to vicharak@gmail.com , if you are coming.
TV Asia will broadcast “Sinha Family’s Fight for Justice” on its Community Round UP orgiram on Tuesday, April 17 at 10:30 PM ET (7:30 PM PT) and again repeat it on Wednesday, April 18 at 7:30 PM ET.
April 16, 2012
Dear Supporters of Sinha Family and Community Members:
Namaste. As mentioned in the previous update, after a long wait of almost 22 months first trial in Dr. Divyendu Sinha’s murder case started on Friday, April 13 at 11:00 AM. First day ended at 4:00 PM. We had good community support with 20 people filling up two front benches.
The attack on the Sinha family occurred on the night of June 25, 2010 around 11:20 PM. Dr. Sinha died of head injuries on June 28.
Attackers who were indicted by a Grand Jury are: Steven Contreras 18, Cash Q. Johnson, 18, Christian M. Tinli, 19, Christopher Conway, 18, and Julian C. Daley, 17.
While Steven Contreras is being tried separately, trial of the remaining four defendants will tentatively start on July 10.
Dr. Divyendu Sinha (1961-2010)
Case is heard in the Middlesex County Superior Court of Ho. Judge Bradley Ferencz (BF).
For the State: Middlesex County Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor Christopher Kuberiet (CK).
Defense Attorney: Hassen Abdellah (HA).
State vs. Steven Contreras
Steven Contretras
Prosecutor File #2010-2581
Indictment: 10-11-01628
There were three components of the first day of the trial of Steven Contreras, driver of the car that took the four assailants to and from the scene of murderous attack on Divyendubhai.
Opening Statement by the Middlesex County Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor Christopher Kuberiet (CK).
Opening Statement by the Defense Attorney, Hassen Abdellah (HA).
Testimony and cross examination of Alkabahen Sinha, wife of late Divyendu Sinha.
Here is a brief summary:
Opening Statement by Christopher Kuberiet (CK):
- Steven Contreras (SC) and his accomplices’ first victim was Anthony Martina who car was chased into a cul-de-sac because he allegedly cut them off on the road.
- SC assisted and allowed the others to attack Dr. Sinha.
- SC heard the screams but neither did ne intervene, nor did he call for help (Police, 911).
- SC neither respects human life nor the rule of law. At the end of this case, you (jury) will find him guilty of homicide.
- The crime occurred in front of 6 Fela Dr., Old Bridge (Note: Sinhas live at 25 Fela Dr.)
- SC made a choice to murder Dr. Sinha.
- SC chose to associate with and co-conspire with the other defendants.
- SC chose to stop his car, chose to allow others to leave the car.
- SC chose to stand by and watch.
- SC chose to not assist the Sinha family.
- SC hindered police investigation.
- SC deleted text messages.
- SC chose to ignore Alka Sinha’s screams for help.
To the Jury: Your job is to look at the facts and find just cause by application of Law, as will be explained by the Judge, Ferencz.
Judge Bradley Ferencz
You are sworn to be fair and just in application of Law to both parties, without bias, prejudice or emotion and beyond reasonable doubt.
Here, Mr. Kuberiet gave short life sketch of Divyendu Sinha since his arrival in USA in 1982.
- Divyendu Sinha went for a walk with his family as many of us do; a walk from which, he never came home.
- SC went to Wendy’s with Daley, Jonson, Tinli and Daley’s girlfriend, Casey Raymond.
- Around 11:00 PM, SC, Daley, Johnson, Tinli and Conway left Wendy’s with SC driving.
- They were allegedly cut off by Anthony Martino, they gave chase but Martino managed to speed away.
- Julian Daley was giving instructions to SC as he continued the chase. They cornered Martino in a cul-de-sac at Press Mill Dr. SC blocked the exit with his car. Still Martino was able to escape. One of the defendants picked up a solar powered light fixture from a nearby lawn and threw at the car. This caused damage worth $2200.
- SC did not go home after this. He did not drop off Julian Daley at his house nearby on Morning side Dr.
- They kept driving. Conway points out the Sinhas.
- SC parks the car and turns lights off.
- Julian Daley, Christian Tinli, Cash Johnson and Christopher Conway walk up behind Sinhas. Tinley taps Divyendu Sinha on his shoulder and says, “I want to ask a question.” As Sinha turns around, he throws firs punch on his right temple.
- They attack Divyendu Sinha and his two sons, Ashish (16 years) and Ravi (12 years.) Then they run to the car and SC drives them off.
- Alka Sinha goes in ambulance with Divyendu to Raritan Bay Hospital. They are there at 12:05 AM.
- Dr. Reddy orders Catscan and decides Divyendu Sinha has cerebral Hemorrhage. Divyendu is transferred to Robert Wood Johnson Hospital in New Brunswick.
- Dr. Michelle Tinti in the Emergency room decides that Divyendubhai’s condition is worsening.
- On June 28, Doctor Vincent G. declared Divyendu Sinha brain dead.
- Around same time Martino called Old Bridge police to report the incident with SC and others. Old Bridge police had interviewed SC on June 26.
- Old Bridge Police arrested SC on July 1 at 4:00 PM.
Mr. Kuberiet listed 10 indictments against SC. Some of them are:
- Conspiracy to commit aggravated assault
- Conspiracy to commit riot
- Aggravated assault
- Property Damage
- Murder
- Riot
- Hindering apprehension/prosecution of others
- Hindering one’s own apprehension/prosecution
CK then talked about four theories of culpability. These are: Principal, Accomplice (Aiding and Abetting), Co-Conspirator and Co-Conspirator (Offenses not within the scope of Co-Conspiracy but with reasonable and foreseeable natural consequence of the conspiracy.)
CK listed 34 witnesses whom he plans to call. The list includes doctors who treated Divyendu Sinha, Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy, Police officers and detectives, Mrs. Alka Sinha and Divyendubhai and Alkabahen’s sons, Ashish and Ravi.
CK ended his 50 minute statement asking the Jury to keep open mind, to listen to the witnesses, to evaluate witness credibility and come to court prepared to work and bring logic and not bias, bring intellect and not emotions.
Defense Attorney, Hassen Abdellah (HA)’s Opening Statement:
Hassen Abdellah
- Kuberiet has blamed SC for the state of mind and conduct of others (4 defendants.)
- Was SC’s specific intent to murder?
- Did this young man even physically touched Divyendu Sinha or Martino? He was behind the wheel.
- Jury’s intent is to be fair and impartial.
- SC did not share state of mind or intention of four defendants. He did not share same criminal purpose. There is no proof whatsoever.
- Weigh police witness’s credibility like any other witness’s.
- Those police officers were not there; they did not know SC’s state of mind.
- SC identified the people in his car.
- Mere presence at the scene of crime is not culpable.
- Weigh quantity vs. quality of the evidence. Look at the totality of the circumstances.
- Pay attention to text messages. How many times is SC mentioned?
- SC is not a murderer. He did not want anyone to engage in the murder.
HA finished his statement in 11 minutes.
Mrs. Alka Sinha on the Witness stand:
Alkabahen was the first witness for the State.
Dr. Divyendu & Mrs. Alka Sinha
Mrs. Alka Sinha testifying- Photo Courtesy Jerry McCrea, The Star Ledger
- Mr. Kuberiet asked at length questions about Alkabahen’s age, education, when married, where did Divyendubhai worked, what he did at his work, his commute time, his time at home, etc. Divyendubhai worked as a manager in imaging division of Siemens in Tarrytown, NY, a 70 miles, one way commute. He would come home around 7:30 PM and spend the time with the family. They had been married for 20 years; Alkabahen holds a M.S. in Computer Science.
- To a question, how would she describe June 25, she said that it was the worst day of her life.
- Next set of questions was about their movement on that fateful night. They left home at 11:00 PM for a walk. CK asked about relative positions of all four members of the family; i.e., whether they were in one line or behind each other, in what group formation, distance between each of them, etc.
- Alkabahen was asked as to what they were taking while on the walk. It was a typical talk about upcoming barbeque and younger son Ravi’s robotics summer class in which he wanted help form his father.
- Then, CK asked Alkabahen to narrate the minutes before the attack, attack and minutes after the attack.
- They were on their return leg, when they heard footsteps following them, which was quite unusual. They decided to walk faster to their home (only a few hundred feet away.) Then one of the assailants taped Divyendubhai on the shoulder and said, “I want to ask you a question.” As Divyendubhai turned around that person (later identified as Christian Tinli) punched him above his right ear. Divyendubhai moved with the force and then all of them started throwing punches and kicking. They punched Ashish and Ravi and went around taking turns. Alkabahen started screaming for help. By now Divyendubhai was lying on the grass at 6 Fela Dr. trying to protect his head with his forearm. He asked them why they were beating him. Suddenly the attackers realized that the family they had attacked was neighbors to a fried of theirs. So they all ran to a dark color car (that of SC) which was parked at the corner of Fela and Nathan. There was joy of accomplishment as they ran towards the car.
- Alkabahen and Ashish supported Divyendubhai as they wanted to reach their home but after only a few steps, Divyendubhai was limping on the left side and could not walk further; Ravi was complaining of dizziness. Alkabahen set down on the curb at the corner of Fela and Raven with Divyendubhai’s head in her lap. He was complaining that his head was hurting and he asked Alkabahen to take him home. Ashish, the elder son called their next door neighbor’s elder son, Brian Sousso, and 911. Brian came and called a neighborhood doctor, Jamey Vuy (name not clear). Dr. J. brought water and juice for Divyendubhai but he could not drink. Dr. J. put his jacket around Divyendubhai to keep him warm.
- Then the police and ambulance came. They decided to take Divyendubhai to Raritan Bay Medical Center in Old Bridge which was the nearest facility. Alkabahen arranged for Ravi to be taken care of by wife of Dr. J. and she asked Brian to take Ashish to a hospital for treatment of cuts and bruises on his face. Alkabahen accompanied Divyendubhai to the hospital.
- Time elapsed between the attack and reaching hospital was about 20 minutes. At the hospital, initially Divyendubhai was able to describe the attack, but soon his response time started getting longer. He could not move his limbs on the left and then on the right upon doctor’s instructions. His speech was not clear. Raritan Bay Medical Center does not have a trauma center so Divyendubhai was transferred to Robert Wood Johnson Hospital (RWJ) in New Brunswick around 3:00/3:30 AM. Alkabahen was waiting outside in the emergency room for 30 to 45 minutes while Divyendubhai was inside. When she saw him, he could not communicate and he could not see her. He was (close to) brain dead. He was transferred to ICU room.
- To a question from Mr. Kuberiet, Alkabahen said that Divyendubhai never left RWJ and he never came back to his home from that walk.
- While at the hospital for three days (Divyendubhai was declared brain dead on June 28 early morning.). Alkabahen did speak to Detective Morris and Paul Miller. Alkabahen did not give a statement to the police until July 10, 2010 as she was not in a position to do so.
- To another question, she replied that they had never known the assailants and that there was no bad blood between them and her family. She also said that they did not fight back when the guys attacked them.
- After her deposition, Mr. Kuberiet showed her several aerial photos of the crime scene and neighborhood which she identified and signed so that these could be introduced as exhibits in the trial.
- Defense Attorney HA asked only a couple of questions mainly insisting that the photos she had identified were taken in day light (presumably to stress that the crime took place at night.)
Alkabahen was on the stand for 90 minutes. She faced the reliving of the painful and horrendous memory with courage and bravery. She was composed most of the time, though she did breakdown a couple of times, which is but natural. The Judge called it a day at the end of Alkabahen’s testimony.
We know that the whole society, Indian Americans as well as Americans are with her in her quest for justice. Please also visit our web site www.divyendusinha.com; you may also leave your thoughts there.
You may also see newspaper reports at: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/tearful_widow_of_old_bridge_ma.html and
Please forward this to your contacts and encourage them to attend the trial.
Thank you.
Brotherly yours,
Gaurang G. Vaishnav
Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America (VHPA)
Indian American Defense League (IADL)
Blog at <http://vicharak1.wordpress.com/>, Twitter at<http://twitter.com/#!/vicharak1>
Court Address, Directions and Parking Information:
Middlesex County Superior Court
56 Paterson Street, Fifth Floor (Judge Ferencz’s Court Room)
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-2014
The court is on the fifth floor. Look for the Judge Bradley Ferencz’s court room (Go to the Right from the elevator).
Paid Parking (very reasonable rates) is available at several locations.
http://www.njnbpa.org/parking-locator
Ferren Deck on Church Street is most convenient, as you can access the court house by following signs (third floor) from the parking deck itself.
For GPS and MapQuest directions to Ferren Deck, use
180 Church Street
New Brunswick, NJ 08901 or click here.
(If you are coming off Rte. 18 and going South on Rte. 27, Turn left at light for Nelson St., then first right on Church St. Go through one traffic light and one stop sign and turn right into Ferren Deck parking. Access to the Court House is from the third floor with clear signage.)
On street parking with meters is available but very difficult to find. For free on street parking, one has to walk several blocks; it is generally available on side streets off Livingston Ave., west of Suydam street (15-20 minutes walk).
If you care coming by train (NJ transit), it is only five minute walk from the New Brunswick station. (Across Rte. 27/French St., enter Feren Mall and go to third floor, follow signs for Middlesex Superior Court.)
Disclaimer: This is a synopsis of court hearing based on notes taken by me. Not all communications are captured and while I attempt to be as accurate as possible, there may be legal points that could have been missed or misinterpreted.- Gaurang
Dr. Divyendu Sinha Murder Trial to start in Middlesex County Superior Court in New Jersey Today- Appeal for Community Support
Dear Supporters of Sinha Family and Community Members:
Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America (VHPA)
Indian American Defense League (IADL)
Cell: 732-754-1727
Twitter at<http://twitter.com/#!/vicharak1>,
follow Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America at <VHPAmericas@twitter.com>
————————————————————————————————————
Courtesy: Star Ledger
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/widow_of_old_bridge_beating_vi.html
Widow of Old Bridge beating victim plans to testify
Published: Sunday, April 08, 2012, 11:00 AM Updated: Sunday, April 08, 2012, 2:41 PM
OLD BRIDGE — When asked about her husband of 20 years, she cries.
“I relied on him to do everything,” she said.
And now, with two sons to raise, and two emotional trials looming, she misses him even more.
While on a stroll with his family late on a warm June night in Old Bridge in 2010, Divyendu Sinha, a 49-year-old computer scientist, was attacked near his Fela Drive home by five local teenagers in a night of senseless “wilding,” authorities say.
His wife and children watched in horror as four of the teens assaulted Sinha with their fists and feet, prosecutors said. The teens also are charged with attacking one of Sinha’s sons.
Before the night ended, Sinha was on life support at a New Brunswick hospital — while the teens bragged about the attack in text messages, investigators said. As Sinha fought for his life, the teens were arrested and charged with the beating. When he died four days later, the charges were upgraded to murder.
One of those teens, Steven Contreras goes on trial Tuesday — the first of two trials in the case.
Until now, Alka Sinha — who will testify for the prosecution — had not granted any interviews since the days immediately following the attack.
Sitting in her family room, next to a picture of her husband on an 8-foot poster that was displayed during his memorial service, Alka Sinha, 47, said the past 22 months have been a nightmare. She has attended every court hearing involving the five teenagers — Contreras, Cash Johnson, Julian Daley, Chris Conway and Christian Tinli. She wants justice for her husband.
“What I have lost, I will never be able to gain that again,” she said. “The void I have and my children have, it will always be there. Maybe one day, whatever is left in my life, I can move on with that.”
In the days after the attack, friends told her to take it “one day at a time,” Sinha said, “and I am following that advice, but it is very hard. There are a lot of decisions to make, decisions about the children, about finances, about the house.
“We made big decisions together, but he handled even the small things,” she said.
Sinha said her sons, Aashish, 18, and Ravi, 14, are pillars of support for her. One of the boys was injured in the beating, but not seriously, authorities said.
“They are very strong and they support me when I grow weak,” she said. “I’m glad they are very focused on their education. It is what their father wanted.”
When asked to describe her husband, Sinha began to cry quietly. Eventually, the words came out, slowly at first, but then more easily.
“He was the most wonderful person, such a loving and caring husband and father,” she said.
They moved to their Old Bridge neighborhood 18 years ago “because it was a nice, quiet, diverse neighborhood.”
“Before the incident, I never thought it could happen in this neighborhood,” Sinha said. “We felt secure and safe.”
She will be a witness at this week’s trial and at the second trial of the other four teenagers, scheduled for July 10. She said simply, “I am looking to get justice.”
She said she has drawn strength from her neighbors and members of the Old Bridge community who have helped her since “minutes after the incident.”
“From the little things to the biggest thing, they are always there for me,” she said.
Gil Derose, who lives across the street on Fela Drive, and Nick Ricciardi, who lives down the road, said they plan on attending the trial in New Brunswick before Superior Court Judge Bradley Ferencz. Neither witnessed the attack on their neighbor.
Derose said his sons knew of the five teenagers charged with the murder, four of whom were star athletes at Old Bridge High School.
“I couldn’t believe it,” he said. “When we found out who (was arrested), I couldn’t believe they were high school kids here, local kids who were athletes.”
Ricciardi said his initial reaction to the attack and Divendyu Sinha’s death was “sadness for Alka and the boys and anger that these were neighborhood kids” who were arrested and charged.
Contreras is being tried separately because he implicated the other four in a statement he gave to investigators within days of the attack. Authorities said Contreras, who was 17 at the time, told investigators that, after a night of drinking that included several bottles of malt liquor, they went cruising, looking for someone to fight. Contreras denied he had been drinking.
Their last stop of the night was Fela Drive, where one of the teens saw what he thought were kids about 11:25 p.m. The “kids” turned out to be Sinha and his family.
Contreras told investigators Conway, Johnson, Daley and Tinli got out of the car and went after the group. Seconds after the attack, the four came running back and told him to leave. Contreras said he never saw the Sinha family, because he had stayed near the car.
The five teens are charged with murder and conspiracy in connection with Sinha’s death. They are also charged with assaulting a motorist a short time before the attack on Sinha.
Courtesy: Home News Tribune
Jury selection begins this week in trial of 1 of 5 accused in beating death of Old Bridge man
Divyendu Sinha
MIDDLESEX COUNTY — Alka Sinha said her life, and the life of her family, has been turned “upside down” since her husband was fatally beaten by a group of five teenagers as the family took an evening stroll near their Old Bridge home nearly two years ago.
Jury selection will begin on Tuesday in Superior Court, New Brunswick, in the trial of one of those defendants, Steven K. Contreras, charged with murdering Divyendu Sinha, a 49-year-old computer scientist whose two sons, ages 16 and 12 at the time, also were assaulted.
Contreras, who will turn 19 on April 21, is being tried separately because of statements he made to authorities during the investigation that implicated the other four defendants, who are scheduled to stand trial for murder on July 10.
Prosecutors said Sinha was walking outside his home on Fela Drive, near Route 9, on June 25, 2010, when the group of Old Bridge High School students pulled up in a car and beat him and his sons. Alka was not harmed in the incident, but Sinha died three days later from a head injury suffered during the assault. Authorities said no weapons were used.
“He was a wonderful person to his family, to friends — a wonderful father and actually a mentor to our kids,” Alka said on Friday. “We used to do things together as a family. We used to wait for him come back from work and do different things, whether it was general discussion on current affairs or going to see something with the children. Those things are not there anymore.
“You cannot imagine how it has affected our children.”
The five defendants also are charged with assaulting Anthony Martino, 18, of Old Bridge, a motorist who was attacked minutes before the assault on Sinha and his sons.
Steven K. Contreras
Prosecutors severed Contreras’ trial from the other four defendants because, during the trial, his statements might contain information about the other -defendants who then would have a right to call Contreras as a witness to contradict the statements or cross-examine him. That would be in direct conflict with Contreras’ Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Contreras’ lawyer, Hassen Abdellah, could not immediately be reached for comment.
An earlier Family Court decision allowed the five defendants to be tried as adults, and each faces 30 years to life if convicted of murder.
“I want justice,” Alka said. “We live in a society where we have a justice system that works. I believe in our justice system and I’m looking forward to getting justice. We have gotten a lot of support from all around — in that way I’m blessed. I’m just looking forward to having the similar kind of support for the upcoming days.”
Nikhil Muzumdar said his family was very close with the Sinhas, whose children, he said, were about the same age as his. The families vacationed together.
“We’re close family friends, and this was a real loss for us,” Muzumdar said. “He was a real kind and very caring man, and he always wanted to help others in everything that he did. He helped his students — they have a lot of good things to say about him and have shown a lot of support to Mrs. Sinha.”
Alka said her husband had started teaching computer science at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken and also taught at the College of Staten Island in the City University of New York (CUNY). Divyendu, who was raised in Patna, India, according towww.divyendusinha.com, held doctorates in philosophy and computer science.
Authorities said the 11-count grand jury indictment was handed up following an investigation that revealed no evidence that the attack on Martino, the attack on Sinha and his family, or the subsequent plan to assault another victim, was motivated by the victims’ race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin or ethnicity, as required by New Jersey’s Bias Intimidation Law.
In addition to murder, the grand jury charged the five defendants with various counts of aggravated assault and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault. Additionally, the grand jury accused the defendants of riot and a related count of conspiracy, contending they acted as a group to commit crimes.
The five also were charged with two counts of hindering for trying to protect themselves and each other from prosecution by concealing evidence or misrepresenting facts about the attacks.
Along with the assault charges, the grand jury also charged the defendants with criminal mischief for damaging the car that was being driven by Martino.
Judge Bradley J. Ferencz will preside over Contreras’ trial.
“What happened was a real tragedy and I wouldn’t wish it to happen to even our worst enemy,” Muzumdar said. “It really completely destroyed a lot of things here in our day-to-day lives and we miss him a lot.”
Elected Chief Minister’s Visa is not private matter Mr. Consul General (DeshGujarat)
Elected Chief Minister’s Visa is not private matter Mr. Consul General
| March 21, 2012 DeshGujarat |
|
File photo:Consul General Peter Haas with Gujaratis at Mumbai consulate
By DeshGujarat News, Ahmedabad, 20 March 2012
Again US Consul General was in Gujarat, and again he was asked a question about Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s Visa issue, and again he had the same answer that “we don’t comment on personal visa matters.”
Once upon a time there was a practice that American Consul Generals would meet Gujarat Chief Minister during their Gujarat visit, but for last some years Modi doesn’t give time to meet US Consul Generals and divert them to meet the Chief Secretary. Present Consul General Peter Haas is not exception.
While Chinese, Japanese and other consulate officials can meet the Chief Minister of Gujarat, the American Consul General are avoided, thanks to America’s policy of succumbing to pressure and propaganda of leftist anti-Indian groups lobbying against Narendra Modi in America.
“Its a long-standing US policy… We do not comment on private visa matters,” Haas said when asked if there was any change in the US policy with regard to granting of visa to Modi.
(Mr. Haas should know that it could be private visa matter for America, but for Gujarat, Mr. Modi is not a person living private life but he is in public life. He is the Chief Minister of a state, elected by over five crore people)
Talking about relations between US and Gujarat, Haas said that there was good cooperation and many American companies have set up plant in the state.
The relationship of US with Gujarat can be judged on the basis that Gujarati was the first Indian regional language to be included in the US Census, he said.
During his last visit to Ahmedabad, Mr. Haas was asked that while people to people relations are excellent, and trade relations between America and Gujarat are in the best time-phase at present, why government level relations are sour, and what America wants to do in this regard? Haas had replied that question, saying that he met the Chief Secretary of the state, and people to people relations were more important.
While Mr. Modi’s stature is growing nationally and internationally, America is likely to face major embarrassment over Visa issue in future. Such embarrassment is always visible on Consul General’s face when he faces question on Modi’s Visa issue.
It is other thing that nobody is dying to go to America and Modi had not demanded visa, but the way America behaved on Modi’s Visa issue under the pressure of few vocal groups in 2005 and then-after, funnily in the name of ‘human right violation’, it is neither forgettable nor forgivable, at least when it comes to state-state relations.
Updates:
The US Consul General during his Ahmedabad visit, went to a residential colony of 2002 riot affected Muslims and also met Archbishop in Gandhinagar. He also went to Adalaj stepwell and Sidi Saiyad mosque wearing Islamic skull cap. The Consul General visited DAIICT campus in Gandhinagar, met state minister Saurabh Patel, visited Bhadrakali mandir in Amdavad, American company Inductotherm in Bopal, and American corner at Ahmedabad Management Association.
Women’s Dignity: Enough is Enough! Sign Petition to the Advertisers on Rush Limbaugh show
my Blog at <http://vicharak1.wordpress.com/>
Twitter at<http://twitter.com/#!/vicharak1>,
|
CAUSE TO CELEBRATE- Swapan Dasgupta on Gujarat after 2002 in Telegraph
- Peace and prosperity after bloodshed in Gujarat |
Swapan Dasgupta(The Telegraph, Friday, March 2, 2012)
|
|
It may sound callous, but there was something patently disgusting about the way the media and activists colluded to turn a grim 10th anniversary of the 2002 Gujarat riots into a celebration of victimhood. From star anchors rushing to Ahmedabad to hug victims to the overuse of the photograph of the unfortunate Qutubuddin Ansari pleading for his life, every tear-jerking potential was cynically exploited. What should have been a solemn occasion of remembrance, perhaps leading to a pledge to make sectarian violence a thing of the past, was, instead, turned into an all-too-familiar Indian tamasha, culminating in riotous television discussions.The reason for this ugly turn of events should be obvious. Ten years after the arson attack on the Sabarmati Express in Godhra became the trigger for murderous violence throughout Gujarat, the issue of ‘justice’ has been transformed into a political blame game. The activists who have doggedly kept the issue alive, despite the apparent lack of responsiveness in Gujarat, have shifted their priorities markedly. The issue is no longer one of securing the punishment of the rioters and those responsible for inhuman conduct, but the political targeting of one man: the chief minister, Narendra Modi.The unspoken assumption is that justice will be served if Modi can be prosecuted for personally facilitating the carnage. As an additional bonus, the framing of charges against Modi is calculated to ensure his exclusion from the political arena and consequently bring to an abrupt end any possibility of him being in the reckoning for the prime minister’s post. In short, if you can’t beat him, disqualify him.Had Modi shown himself to be electorally vulnerable, the need to fight him judicially would have evaporated. A Modi defeat in either 2002 or 2007 would have prompted the self-satisfied conclusion that “Gujarat has redeemed itself”— in the same way as, it is proclaimed, Uttar Pradesh redeemed itself by rejecting the Bharatiya Janata Party after the demolition of the Babri shrine in 1992. However, the prospects of the clutch of activists moving on to the next available cause have dimmed following the realization that not only has Modi strengthened himself politically but that the Congress in Gujarat lacks the necessary qualities to mount an effective challenge. Consequently, the only way they see to fight Modi is to remove him from politics altogether.There is another factor at work. Over the past 10 years, Modi has transformed Gujarat spectacularly. After winning the 2002 assembly elections in a communally surcharged environment, he has deftly shifted the political focus of Gujarat from sectarian identity issues to rapid economic development. Gujarat was always an economically vibrant state and entrepreneurship is deeply ingrained in the DNA of the average Gujarati. Modi has played the role of a great facilitator by creating an environment that is conducive to the double digit growth of the state’s gross domestic product. He has toned up the administration, improved the finances of the state exchequer, brought down corruption markedly and made every rupee expended on government-run schemes a factor in economic value addition. Modi has been the model rightwing administrator pursuing the mantra of minimal but effective governance. His election victory in 2007 wasn’t a consequence of Hindu-Muslim polarization; it was based on his ability to deliver good governance.Secondly, Modi successfully shifted tack from Hindu pride to Gujarati pride. This meant that hoary grievances centred on sectarian hurt were subsumed by a common desire to take advantage of the dividends flowing from a prolonged period of high economic growth. The popular mentality of Gujarat has undergone a discernible shift in the past decade. In the 30 years since the Ahmedabad riots of 1969, which left nearly 650 people dead in just five days of mayhem, Gujarat had become a riot-prone state.With its sharp communal polarization, Ahmedabad epitomized that trend. After the 1969 flare-up, there were riots in 1971, 1972 and 1973. Then, after a period of lull, rioting resumed in January 1982, March 1984, March to July 1985, January 1986, March 1986, July 1986, January 1987, February 1987, November 1987, April 1990, October 1990, November 1990, December 1990, January 1991, March 1991, April 1991, January 1992, July 1992, December 1992 and January 1993. This chronology, assembled by the political scientist based in the United States of America, Ashutosh Varshney, in his Ethnic Conflict and Civil Life (2002) tells a story of unending curfews, social insecurity and escalating hatred affecting the two communities. It was a story replicated throughout Gujarat, including the otherwise integrated city of Surat that witnessed fierce riots in 1993.Since March 2002, Gujarat has been riot-free. Curfews have become a thing of a distant past. What has occasioned this exemplary transformation? The facile explanation, often proffered unthinkingly by secularists anxious to find fault with Modi, is that Muslims have been too cowed down by the sheer intensity of the post-Godhra majoritarian backlash. Such an explanation presumes that riots are invariably begun by a section of the Muslim community — a problematic proposition and not always empirically sustainable.More compelling is the explanation that factors in the larger administrative and economic changes in Gujarat over the past decade. First, both the civil administration and the political leadership have internalized the lessons from their inability to control mob violence in 2002. The police have been given a free hand to operate without the interference of small-time politicians attached to the ruling party. There has been a crackdown against the illicit liquor trade and the underworld that gained its muscle power from its proceeds. At the helm, there is an unspoken understanding that another riot, with its attendant TV coverage, would extract an unacceptably high political cost. That is why there is special attention paid to curbing Hindu extremism — a phenomenon that will affect Modi most adversely.The biggest change has, however, been at the societal level. Gujarat today is a society that is obsessively preoccupied with making money and taking advantage of the economic opportunities that have presented themselves. With the end of boredom, a happy present and an appealing future, the belief that riots are bad for dhanda has seeped into society. This is not to suggest that the bitterness of the past has been replaced by idyllic bonhomie between communities. Far from it. Sectarian conflict persists in cities such as Ahmedabad, and less so in Surat. But there is a distinction that Varshney makes between sectarian conflict and sectarian violence. One need not necessarily lead to the other if contained within the parameters of economics and politics. The Muslims of Gujarat don’t possess the political clout they enjoyed earlier under Congress rule. But this has been compensated for by growing levels of prosperity. Those who argue that the economic development of Gujarat has bypassed Muslims should look at the economic empowerment of communities such as the Bohras, Khojas and Memons.To many, Gujarat’s obsession with economic betterment may seem an expression of denial for the larger societal involvement in the 2002 riots. This may be partially true, since Gujarati Hindus view the post-Godhra troubles as something they don’t want to be reminded of incessantly — a point which the state Congress has grudgingly acknowledged. But it doesn’t distract from Modi’s undeniable success in changing the agenda dramatically in 10 years to the point where hardened Hindutvawadis now regard him as an enemy of the cause.The riots of 2002 were horrible. But the important thing to note is that 10 years after the butchery, Gujarat is basking in peace and unprecedented prosperity. Now, that is something to celebrate. |
Union Law Minister Salman Khursheed Offending Bharat
Union Law Minister Offending Bharat – Dr Pravin Togadia
Asha Bhosle’s slap on Shameless Delhi Elites(!) (Artilcle is in Hindi)
क्या हमारे देश के नकलची और गुलाम बुद्घिजीवी आशा भोंसले और तीजनबाई से कोई सबक लेंगे? ये वे लोग हैं, जो मौलिक है और प्रथम श्रेणी के हैं जबकि सड़ी-गली अंग्रेजी झाड़नेवाले हमारे तथाकथित बुद्घिजीवियों को पश्चिमी समाज नकलची और दोयम दर्जे का मानता है| वह उन्हें नोबेल और बुकर आदि पुरस्कार इसलिए भी दे देता है कि वे अपने-अपने देशों में अंग्रेजी के सांस्कृतिक साम्राज्यवाद के मुखर चौकीदार की भूमिका निभाते रहें| उनकी जड़ें अपनी जमीन में नीचे नहीं होतीं, ऊपर होती हैं| वे चमगादड़ों की तरह सिर के बल उल्टे लटके होते हैं| आशा भोंसले ने दिल्लीवालों के बहाने उन्हीं की खबर ली है|
Time for PM to sanction prosecution of Ms. Sonia Gandhi- S. Gurumurthy
An ominous sign for government
31 Jan 2012 11:31:00 PM IST
Here is a telling contrast in fighting corruption. The nation has seen in the last couple of years two distinct endeavours to fight corruption. One is the fight for a new anti-corruption law with the blessings of even the suspects. And the other is identifying the suspects and fighting them under existing laws. Anna Hazare and his team have launched an agitation for an anti-corruption law — the Lokpal Bill — without which, they told the nation, corruption could not be fought or contained. In their enterprise against corruption they first appealed to Sonia Gandhi for her support to fight corruption! And she also wrote to Anna offering her support! Subramanian Swamy, on the other hand, took the view that corruption could well be fought under the existing anti-corruption law provided the corrupt are targeted directly. First, he filed an application with the prime minister for prosecuting A Raja for his role in the 2G scam. Next he applied to the prime minister for sanction to prosecute Sonia Gandhi, whose support Anna had sought to stop corruption. Swamy, a seasoned politician and accomplished intellectual, knew that without the visible picture of the corrupt, corruption is a theoretical issue — a point which the apolitical Anna and team had missed.
How Subramanian Swamy has cornered the UPA finally is not a complex story. The 2G licence issue had all the trappings of an open air theatre scam from the day the licences were fraudulently issued, namely, on January 10, 2008. When the government was covering up the 2G issue, everyone was merely wondering how to fix the government. But Swamy acted. He filed an application on November 24, 2008, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for permission to prosecute A Raja who had issued the 2G licences. At that time Raja was a powerful minister in the ministry of UPA-I, being from the DMK that was dominant in the alliance. The anti-corruption law mandates that no court can look at a complaint against a public servant “except with the previous sanction” of the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. Since Raja was a minister, who could be removed by the PM, Swamy approached the PM for the sanction.
The likes of Sibals and Chidambarams were perhaps laughing at Swamy. But Swamy persisted. He kept on writing letters to the prime minister reminding him about his application. He ceaselessly kept talking about it in public and through the media. But the prime minister, as he is sworn to in most matters, kept silent. The silence of the PM had made the government and the ruling party happy. But Swamy moved the Delhi High Court for a direction to the PM to take a decision on his plea. The high court dismissed Swamy’s petition. The ruling government and party were in ecstasy. But, undeterred, Swamy moved the Supreme Court. The PM had written to Swamy on March 10, 2010, that Swamy’s plea for prosecuting Raja was premature as the CBI was investigating the matter — a response authored by amateur legalism. After having trivialised Swamy thus, on April 26, 2010, the PM told the media — which asked him whether Raja’s statement that he had the approval of the PM to do what he did — that Raja had consulted him before issuing the licences. That what the PM had accepted as consultation, Raja has asserted as permission.
Swamy also complained to the Supreme Court about the inordinate delay by the PM in deciding the matter. Meanwhile, the 2G issue had exploded on the face of the government with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India saying that the loss to the government was, on the lower side, some `69,000 crore and could be as high as `1,75,000 crore. The Supreme Court, seeing the government prevaricating at all levels, began monitoring the CBI investigation of the scam. The petition by Swamy too became part of the 2G scam litigation in the Supreme Court. The CBI did file charge-sheets in some cases of scam, including Raja as an accused in all except one. But Swamy’s plea to the PM to prosecute Raja and the PM’s inaction on it survived for consideration by the Supreme Court. The apex court did go deep into the matter, called for the records of the PMO and asked for an explanation from the PMO for the delay. By now, the ruling party and the government stopped laughing at Swamy. It became the turn of Swamy to laugh at them. It is the plea of Swamy to the PM to allow him to prosecute Raja which has been decided by the Supreme Court on January 31, 2012, in a landmark judgment.
First, the court has set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court that had refused to direct the PM to decide on Swamy’s plea. Second, it has ruled that it is the constitutional right of a citizen to move to prosecute any public servant. Third, the authority to whom the application is made for permission to prosecute should take a decision within three months and if, within four months, no decision is taken, the permission shall be deemed to be granted. The import of the Supreme Court judgment is evident. The court has clearly indicted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for delaying the decision on Swamy’s plea. It has also directed him to decide on Swamy’s plea in 90 days. The court has also said that Parliament should lay down the guidelines for 2G prosecution. Finally, the court has said that for ordering inquiries into corruption against any public servant, criminal courts do not need sanction.
It may appear at the first sight that the judgment is against Raja and the PM. But, in substance, it is just an ant-bite on Raja and an embarrassment for the PM. Raja, already charge-sheeted, is in jail. The PM will have no difficulty in allowing one more complaint — that of Swamy — against Raja. But the real danger lies in the other application by Swamy — for permission to prosecute Sonia Gandhi — which the PM has labelled as “premature” and ducked. Under the anti-corruption law, the PM can sack Sonia, the chairperson of National Advisory Council, even though he himself may be removed by her. Swamy can now ask the PM whether the complaint has matured. He can also move the criminal court for inquiry against Sonia Gandhi for which, the Supreme Court has ruled, no sanction is needed. Swamy’s statement that he “can bypass Vadra and go straight to Sonia” is ominous. The Congress cannot laugh at him now.
(Views expressed in the column are the author’s own)
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.
E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net
