Alliance Of Ngos On Crime Prevention And Criminal Justice: Fill & Download for Free

Whether some of the statements by RSS and some BJP leaders right? What are the 'controversies' all about after the Modi govt in office and the fundamental reason behind these controversies?The statements like : 'Mother Teresa' statement, 'Haramzada' comment, 'Four children' comment , 'Love jihad' comments, 'Ghar vapsi' and also the 'PK' issue, 'Church attacks' etc.Pseudo-Democracy / Secular fascism followed by Indian Paid Media :The activities and agenda media traders prove they not only pursue pseudo-secularism but they also practice pseudo-democracy. The crux of this secular fascism is basically anti-hindu. The news reports projected and ‘controversies’ created by the paid media after the BJP government comes into power in 2014 evidently proves this. There are fundamentally five arguments by paid media in this regard. They are: 1.Hindus as such don’t have right of opinion. 2.Hindus don’t have right for protest. 3.Hindus don’t have right to criticize. 4. Hindus don’t have right to raise a complaint. 5.Hindus don’t have right for religious work.a. Hindus don’t have right to express opinion:According to Indian paid media, someone don’t have right to express their opinion as a hindu. The example is the issue of the Sakshi maharaj saying ‘hindu women should have 4 children’ controversy and how the paid media handled it. It is the personal opinion expressed by the Sakshi maharaj and he had made it clear it is his opinion. But news traders were criticizing his right to make such an opinion. If any media criticize his views and its effect on the demographic challenges and all, they all are fine. Which means, the discussion or criticisms on the merit of his comment are very much welcome. But here Indian paid media was fundamentally raising some other questions which have secular fascist tendencies. Why he is not expelled? Why can’t somebody make his mouth shut? Or why he is not arrested or jailed? etc were the discussion points. This was the nature of concerns, discussions and questions put forward by the paid media suggesting clear they are driven by the ideology of secular fascism.For being more clarity on this pseudo democracy, let us check how the news traders will treat the same opinion said by somebody else. Yes it really happened. This same opinion was the official position taken by the Catholic church in kerala some years before. In Sakshi maharaj case, it was a personal opinion. But Catholic church had some years before declared as its official stand as catholic families should have maximum number of children and large family. They didn’t even put a limit of 4 or so. But no news traders make it as news, because it is natural to come under “privileges of minority rights” for the paid media. When a hindu said the same thing as his personal opinion, it become a discussion point about how to curb hindu freedom of opinion. When the same is declared as official position by Catholic Church, it was not even reported and not made any controversy.b. Hindus don’t have right to protest:This is yet another policy stand of Indian paid media. There are two recent instances regarding this. One is these is the PK film issue. It is one of the fundamental human rights to protest if they feel there is an injustice to them. If somebody from hindu community feels it was purposefully indented to depict the gurus they follow, they can protest. But the media portrays the opposition and protest as fascist and criminal in nature. There are two three instances of some stone pelting and all, which need to condemn, which I agree. If the media criticize that, it needs to be welcomed too. It was not that media ‘controversies’ were centered. It was motivated discussion and depicting the protesters as criminals and fascists. Even in the nationwide protest by some religious group two three instances of stone pelting to theatres has made out ‘big controversies’ as fascism. Then the question is can any political party in india, claim there were no instance of violence like stone pelting or breaking some mirrors never happened in their strikes. How many political parties have such a credit in india?. Whether the ahimsa-party congress can claim such a credit in india is the question. But never ever such protests ended with violence never get discussion points as attack on democracy. Two three such instances happened in the whole country was continuous discussion point of “fascism in operation” campaign for the Indian paid media.The other issue was about the perumal murugan episode. It was depicted too as an “attack on freedom of author” by the hindu organisations. But when someone insulted a small hindu community in tamil nadu, their right to protest is not a concern for paid media. Only the right to denigrate a community by an author is the fundamental right according to Indian paid media. Suppose, if that section of community were from muslim community, then the Indian paid media will make 180 degree turn and take a position, it as attack on minority self-respect and a conspiracy of ‘hindu fascists’ by writing derogatory contents. When the cartoon drawing issue prompted a massacre by terrorists, even though cartoon is a universally accepted practice, the paid media discussion was directed to ‘need to be careful about the religious sensitivity’ by everyone. At the same time a protest, without hurting a life is the “fascist activity” of hindu organisation according to Indian news traders.c. Hindus don’t have right to criticize:The issue of the right to criticize for the Hindu becomes evident when the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat criticized Mother Teresa. It was not the first time Mother Teresa got criticized by anyone. There were so many people criticized Mother Teresa before including former PM Moraji desai. Morarji Desai as PM wrote to Mother Teresa in a letter – “If Charity and Philanthropy are not connected with any ulterior motive, they are beneficial. But Charity and Conversion cannot go together. Religion prospers only when Charity and philanthropy are undertaken without any motive”. But when a hindu organisation official or worker criticize Mother Teresa, it is not acceptable for news traders to acknowledge the hindu rights to criticize someone. Even international journalists too had criticized mother Teresa before, like Christopher hitchens done a documentary with name “Hell’s Angel” which was telecasted by BBC in 1994. The same things got published in a book called “The missionary position”. But when the hindu organisation criticize her it become “another fascist activity” for the paid news traders.Let us check who are all the great persons criticized in india, or whether anybody get exempted from criticism in india. Our father of the nation Gandhiji got criticized for various reasons, for some of his policies and strategies. Some are justified and some are not even justified, like calling him a ‘British Agent’ that too by a Supreme Court retired justice.! Nehru the first PM of India, who done great service to build india, was severely criticized for the mistakes and the misdeeds he done. This is a country, having the history of our greatest leaders got critically evaluated and now some paid news media is questioning a Hindu for his rights to criticize Mother Teresa as if she is bigger than nation. As if a hindu needs Vatican’s permission to evaluate a Christian missionary’s activities.!! Yet another open expression of loyalty by news traders to the Four-M leadership which owns them.!d. Hindus don’t have right to raise a complaint:The recent episode that revealed this agenda of Indian paid media was in the ‘love jihad controversy’, how that got treated by news traders against hindu organisation. No, not going into the details and merit of the issue of love jihad here and devious plans behind that. That is another topic. Anybody can get the details about that module of terrorist work, from the online platforms in these days; some of them are shown below and also from Quora itself. But the attack on hindus done by the Indian paid media against raising a complaint in the issue has to be looked carefully here.It was not only the hindu organisation raised this issue of love jihad. Many Christian organisations had raised the same complaint in public domain a few years back. This is quote taken from wikipedia : “Various organisations have joined together against this perceived conduct. Christian groups, such as the Christian Association for Social Action, and the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) banded against it, with the VHP making a specific Hindu helpline that it indicates answered 1,500 calls in three months related to "Love Jihad".[3] The Union of Catholic Asian News (UCAN) has reported that the Catholic Church is concerned about this alleged phenomenon.[39] The Vigilance Council of the Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council (KCBC) raised an alert for the Catholic community against the practice.”This is another report: “The Kerala Catholic Bishops Council claimed in 2009 that up to 4,500 women had been targeted in this way. This was followed up by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, which claimed that 30,000 women in Karnataka alone had already been converted.“These reports evidently prove it is not “a hindu accusation” against love jihad; the same accusation was done by several Christian organisations. But our Indian paid media news traders never ever criticized any Christian organisations for leveling such an accusation. No visual, online, print news traders never ever made any remark there are ulterior motives behind Christian organisation’s charge ( yes facts ). Only hindu organisations and hindu activists selectively targeted by the Indian paid media, btw how can news traders targets their own bosses from the Four-M force for that matter.!Also there are more fundamental questions in this issue. First, There are different kinds of operations planned and executed by the theocratic-terrorist jihadis. It is absurd to assume that terrorists use only the path of arms and ammunitions and will denounce all other ways. It is obvious that they are using financial ways (fake currency, hawala etc), intellectual ways (such organisations), and even human relations too. So the question is why the secularist force coming in defense of terror forces in the matter of love jihad. This is evident proof in the emotional connection between the two forces. How can secularist force guarantee on behalf of terrorists that they are ‘so decent’ and they will not use love and relations in achieving their goals? Second, It is not only an india centric issue, even globally there are so many news available regarding the activities of jihadis. So how can secularists possibly take the advocate role for jihadi terrorists? Some of such news is shown below.To know the details of Love jihad india operations and how deceit is that read:Love Jihad: The Truth Must Be ToldTo know news written by a non-hindu, non-indian about love jihad:Page on frontpagemag.comTo know about jihadis converting girls to Islamic terror:Girls of Jihad: Western Women and the Lure of ISISTo know how targeting girls is global jihadi modus operandi:'Love Jihad' International: ISIS Luring Western Girls OnlineTo know about another kind of jihad called sexual jihad:'Sexual Jihad': British, Australian and Malaysian Women Going to Iraq as 'Comfort Women' for IsisTo know about ‘cricket jihad’ report:"Cricket-Jihad" will lead to further isolation of Pakistan Cricket - NewsroomPostTo know the other kinds of jihad by jihadi terrorists globally follows:Types of Islamic JihadTo know an independent study about love jihad:Page on samvada.orge. Hindus don’t have right to religious organizational work:The other paid media controversy created with the alliance of Four M force is the “Ghar vapsi” episode in the country. The basic point of Indian news traders: Conversion of hindus to Christians and muslims is the “privilege” and “rights” of religious groups in india. When anybody want to come back to Hinduism, it should be condemned, abused, assaulted and even prevent it by charging a case and jail them.So the Indian paid media constantly run a campaign why can’t politicians prevent hindu religious organizational activities through force or by law. But here only concern is, should not bring a law that can make any hindrance to the lured/seduced/forceful/funded conversions of Christian missionaries. After all it is a big industry, a government is not supposed to take any action that will hurt industrial sentiments, seems to be the Indian paid media logic. The logic here for the news traders here seems: A government has to be pro-industry. Not only media and other Four-M forces are all together, even communist party made it very clear about their policy. It was, “There should not be any law to prevent the conversion from hindu to muslim or christian by using forceful/seduced way. But the conversion from other religions to Hinduism should be prevented by all means.” After all communist are honest at least in this. They have made very clear only hindus in the country need to be curbed from their rights for religious organizational activity.These are all about normal Ghar vapsi programs. Let us check what happened in one incident of “allured conversion” allegation happened in Agra. Earlier the secular logic, about Christian missionaries luring people by power of money and other assistances was “It is relief to the poverty of people, if anybody gets converted because of this, it is because those hindus are poor and sidelined, and people responsible for this poverty are really culpable.” Now when the same ‘logic’ was used in return by handful of some hindus, suddenly all the Indian paid media conducted campaign against Hindu organisations, and Four M forces stalled the parliament. Where does that logic, “the poor, jobless, sidelined muslims and Christians are converting because of their own problem” gone now.? How that turned into the fascist communal activity when the same is used by handful of individuals who are hindus? So from all these, it is very clear, it is not “what happened” , the issue for Indian paid media. It is really “who done it” is the issue for news traders. If it is hindus/hindu organisation there is one logic and law for Indian paid media (Four M alliance’s front organ), if it is muslim/Christian organisations then there is a different logic and different law for the news traders.To know the double standards over conversions:The double standards over conversionsTo know the size of the massive operations even in one region:List of Chennai-based Christian organizations receiving funds from abroad - IndiaFacts StaffTo know other hindu views on conversion:Hindu Wisdom - Politics of ConversionTo know how well planned, racial, ethnic profiling and operations are planned read:People Group ListingsTo know how much funding allocated for the planned operations read:It's official! Christian missionaries donate billions to Indian NGOsTo know how disasters and calamities are used for conversion operations read:US Government funded Christian Evangelical groups reach Nepal to provide reliefMore examples of SDP by Indian paid media:The other kind of SDP works (Standard Distortion Procedure) was visible in the Swadhi niranjan jyothi episode. She made an uncivil comment about her political opponents in a political rally. If that is criticized or discussed in media, they are all fine. (How many of our other politicians not made any uncivil comments till now is also a question). But Indian news traders choose this as yet another opportunity to create a hindu-muslim conflict issue and tried to recruit people into theocratic groups. Even the Marxist leader who normally have tendency to distort statements this time criticized her in right spirit only. Sitaram yechuri said in parliament, that he was also described as ‘haramzada’ even though ‘Ram’ is in his name. So this suggests he criticized the statement as ‘uncivil political comment’ rather than ‘communal statement’. But the news trading campaign was focused to addressed to muslims and continuously brainwash them as saying ‘it is you, it is you targeted, come on..’ All the secular columnists also tried their best to provoke muslims to retaliate as if they were ‘missing’ the old times of ‘riots’.The other issue the same way handled by the news traders is in ‘church attacks’. The truth about the same is available in the online media itself. But the campaign conducted by news traders was like it was the prime minister’s people attacked church. To portray that Indian PM is a criminal, and that message to the world. This was evidently proved as wrong because the data about last one year atrocities happened against churched in UPA time and atrocities happened in NDA shows there is no such ‘sudden rise’ than previous year. But the news traders started ‘blistering campaign’ as it is ‘newly started’ and that too ‘by the government’. This all happened besides the evidence available that no organisations role in any of these atrocities (except one incident in hisar). Moreover the evidences prove, atrocities happened in all religious institutions by criminals was in all worship places like hindu,muslim, Christian, sikh etc and not any one type got targeted (Total incidents 214 and church 6 in it) . It was also proved, out of these, not all such ‘atrocities’ are attacks, some are due to short circuits, some theft attempts, one stone pelting may be by children too, one by drunkard people etc.Another instance which invariably proved the SDP operations of Indian paid media was on the incident, rape of a Nun happened in the west bengal. There was wide spread campaign by news traders it was hindu activists done the horrible crime with ‘religious motives’. One minister from West Bengal said it is Ghar vapsi behind this crime. Even when the national paid media abuse hindus and hindu organisations for horrible crime, will the international media stay away. They also reported this as horrible crime with ‘religious motives’ after ‘hindu extremist forces’ coming into power in india. But the truth was later proved that the people robed the institution and raped the nun was Bangladeshi criminal gang. And they were arrested. But even after all these evidences and arrests, one Arch bishop wrote an article in paid media, about ‘minorities attacked’ and a nun got raped in Bengal and then wrote, these things are happening in the name of ‘religious beliefs’, which was a blatant attack on hindu/ hindu organisations without any reason. All secular columnists conducted blazing campaigns in this regard and abet these vicious attacks on Hindu.Finally the Indian paid media do believe the famous quote attributed to Voltaire should not be applicable to Hindus: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” For news traders of Four-M alliance, hindus/hindu organisations have no such rights.To know an indologist perspective of targeting hindu:Koenraad Elst: April 2015[This reply is taken from the below write up. For full details read:What is Wrong with RSS ? by Manoj Siva on Hindu nationalism]

Rarest of rare- Death sentence in IndiaDeath Penalty is a process which is provided as a lawful infliction of punishment to an individual if he or she commits an act which is forbidden by law. This also follows the due procedure of law. The validity of the death penalty has been discussed concerning the Indian Judiciary concept. The arrival of death as a punishment for different crimes as well as the presence of the death penalty in several other countries is discussed in detail. The main focus is on the Indian context and capital punishment laid as a penalty in the legislative acts. The death penalty is a punishment since time immemorial. It is authorized by the government and the expansion of the deterrence theory of punishments. There are various arguments for and against which has not changed and when an issue arises whether the death penalty should be abolished or not it is continuing and reminds ourselves how the Apex court deals with the situation when it has come up before them.Some movements have gained a good momentum to abolish the death penalty. This reminds us of Cesare Beccaria who was successful in convincing people that the death sentence is inhuman and it should be abolished. Michigan was the first state to ban the death sentence in 1846. The abolition movement was also supported by the United Nations during the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHRs) in 1948. The Human Rights Council has been against the Indian view stating, it goes against the statutory law where an execution is carried out in the “rarest of rare” cases. The formal expression of adjudication by the court (Judicial Decree) is a death sentence whereas the process of killing the individual is known as an execution.The offences which result in the death penalty are also known as Capital crimes and heinous crimes. In India, there is Section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides power to the High Courts regarding confirmation of the Death sentence which is given in case of murder, rape, terrorism, waging war, abetting the suicide of minor, acid attacks, drug trafficking and also in Rarest of Rare Cases. The death sentence is present as a punishment in Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. This punishment is very rarely used in India. In the case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, the court had made it clear that capital punishment is given in rarest of rare cases. The precedents were used as an exasperating and mitigating factor before awarding any individual with a death sentence.This shall be followed by a brief of some of the landmark cases relating to the subject matter decided by the Indian Courts. The Indian constitution guarantees that “the government has no right to take any individual’s life”. This punishment still exists and not abolished in India which is a matter of concern. Article 14 of the Indian constitution, states that “equality before the law and equal protection of the laws”, which means that no person shall be discriminated against unless the discrimination is required to achieve equality. The punishment is scantily executed which is irreversible and if any error arises in awarding the death penalty, it cannot be undone as the individual is executed. An individual of different classes, castes, genders, social status is treated differently. It is also found that individuals who belong from a lower socio-economic background, cannot afford proper legal services and are at the receiving end of such punishment.Present scenario of death sentence in IndiaArticle 21 of the Indian constitution states, “Protection of life and personal liberty” which means the government has no right to take any individual’s life. This guarantees Right to Life to each and every individual in India. This punishment still exists and not abolished in India which is a matter of concern. According to Section 354 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 an offence, “where the conviction is punishable with capital punishment, or an alternate, life imprisonment or imprisonment which may be for a term, judgment has to mention the reasons for awarded punishment.”In India, there is Section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 which provides power to the High Courts regarding confirmation of the Death sentence. The death sentence is awarded as a punishment under the Indian Penal Code 1860 for various offenses like murder (S.302), rape (S.375), terrorism, waging war (S.121), abetting suicide of minor (S.309), acid attacks (S.326A), drug trafficking and also in Rarest of Rare Cases.In the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P, the court got a chance to discuss the validity of the death penalty for the first time in India. The first argument was related to the death penalty which violates the rights under Article 19(1) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The second argument was related to not following any policy and there were no guidelines when an individual was awarded the death penalty for a heinous crime. The last argument was related to improper care or discretion violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees, “equality before the law”. This means everyone is equal before the law and if anyone feels his or her right is violated can appeal before the Judiciary system. In this case, it was found that if two accused committed murder, one was sentenced to death whereas others were sentenced to life imprisonment.Article 72 of the Indian constitution has given special powers to the president if he/she thinks can provide mercy of the death penalty to an individual. Under this Article, the President of India has “the power to grant pardon, or commute or remit the death sentence in certain cases.” The constitution of India has also provided certain powers to the governor of the State for granting mercy to the convict who is sentenced to death by the courts and no other option is left. Under this article, if the governor wants “he or she can grant pardon, or commute or remit the death sentence”. This is present in Article 161 of the Indian Constitution. If the Sessions Judge Court has sentenced the death penalty to an individual then it should be confirmed by the High Court. If the High Court also sentences the death penalty then the accused can appeal to the Supreme Court of India. Then a review petition can be filed, followed by a “curative petition” and “mercy petition”. If the Supreme Court rejects the appeal then he/she can file a “mercy petition” to the President of India. If the President rejects the “mercy petition” then he or she can file a petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution for Judicial Review of the rejection of “mercy petition”.In India, there are various NGOs who are fighting and gaining a good momentum to abolish capital punishment. The main purpose is to stop the inhuman as well as cruel punishment which violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer was himself against and supported movements to abolish Capital Punishment in India. According to him, “if God has given life to an individual then no one has the right to take away from him or her”. God has the only right to take away from the individual. Execution leads to inhumanity.In the case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, the court had made it clear that capital punishment is given in rarest of rare cases. The precedents were used as an exasperating and mitigating factor before awarding any individual with a death sentence.In the case of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Bhullar was convicted in a bomb blast case by TADA Court. The incident took place in New Delhi (1993). 9 people were killed in the cruel act by Bhullar. The convict was mentally tortured in prison till his death sentence was converted to life imprisonment in 2014. Some studies have found that death row accused are facing both physical as well as mental torture. Convicts undergo mental torture while waiting for the day they will be executed.In India, there are also certain circumstances where less punishment can be given in case of death row convicts. There is also a Section in the Criminal Procedure Code which states that “if a woman who is awarded hang till death couldn’t be executed if she is pregnant”. The High Court has to order the postponement of the execution. A minor is a person who has not attained the age of majority. In India, a person to be considered as a minor must be under 18 years.In 2015, after the Nirbhaya Rape case, the age of being a minor was changed to 16 years. Then, if a minor is found guilty of a heinous crime must be sent to a juvenile or observation home. The main motive is to provide proper education as well as rehabilitation of minors who are in conflict with the law. If there is a case where more than one accused has committed a murder, all the accused should be given the same punishment under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The court should properly examine the matter and sentence the convicts for the act he or she has committed. Lesser sentences or punishment should be given to the Co-accused.According to a study, “755 people have been hanged to death in independent India until now”. In 2018, the High Court has sentenced death to 23 convicts whereas the lower court has sentenced death to 162 convicts. The previous highest record of court sentencing convicts to death was 154 in the year 2007. In 2019, the courts sentenced 378 prisoners in death row. The highest number of convicts executed was 354 which were found in Uttar Pradesh. Hanging is the only capital punishment given in India.In the last 20years, 8 convicts have been hanged to death. In 1995, a serial killer named Gouri Shankar was hanged to death for killing 6 people in India. Dhananjoy Chatterjee was accused of murder and rape of a 14 year’s old girl and he was the first man to be hanged to death in the 21st century in India. Ajmal Kasab was found guilty of 80 offences under the Indian Penal Code 1860 for murder (S.302), terrorism, waging war (S.121), etc. He was the only terrorist who was caught red-handed and hanged to death in 2012. Afzal Guru was convicted for his involvement in the 2001 parliament attack case and he didn’t get a lawyer to represent himself of his own choice. Afzal was hanged to death in 2013. In the year 2015, Yakub Menon was hanged to death for his involvement in the 1993 Mumbai blast case.Recently 4 convicts were hanged to death on 20th March, 2020. The convicts were accused of brutally raping a paramedical student. The culprits inserted an iron rod into her vagina, abdomen and was thrown out of a bus on the winter nights. The court observed, “Question of awarding sentence is discretion and exercised on consideration of aggravate situation.” This court should not only keep or watch on the rights of criminals as well as the victim. The minor involved in the crime was sent for 3years to shelter home and was acquitted later on.Nowadays, life imprisonment is awarded to the accused of the heinous crime whereas the death penalty is an exception that is rarely used in India. The concept of Capital punishment is questioned as by executing the convict who has killed someone or involvement in a heinous crime like rape, waging war, terrorism, etc. the judicial system is not in alliance with theories it should follow. Keeping in mind everyone’s rights, the execution of the sentence awarded to the convict is quick and simple and after allowing them to employ all legal remedies.Capital punishments present as a penalty in legislative actsArmy Act 1950, Air Force Act 1950 and Navy Act 1956Section 34 of these Acts, states that “if an individual is found to be helping an enemy will be awarded with death penalty”.If anyone helps the enemy with money, ammunition, etc.When someone protects or saves the enemy from being a prisoner.Being intoxicated or sentry in the time of war.When an individual communicates or gives information about the army to intelligence as well as the enemy which is against the country.Treacherously sends a flag of armistice to the enemy.Use any false air signal and the false alarm just to support the enemyNarcotic Drugs and P,sychotropic Substance Act, 1985Section 31-A of the NDPS Act 1985, states that “if an individual is involved in production, manufacture, provide financial support and import drugs will be given punishment like death or life imprisonment”. All the offences are punishable under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act 1985.Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987Section 4 of the Sati Act 1987, states that “if an individual abets someone to practice Sati then he/she will be punishable with death or life imprisonment if found guilty”.The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act, 1989Section 3(2) (i) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act 1989, states that “if an individual gives false evidence which leads to the execution of a member of SC/ST family will be given punishment like death or life imprisonment”. The main motive is to prevent atrocities.Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002, defines a “Terrorist” as whoever threatens or causes harm to the sovereignty of India with the use of bombs, dynamites, explosion, poison, etc to cause the death of people. This also includes the individual who supports association which causes mass destruction that is declared unlawful by the government of India.Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002, states that “if an individual is involve in a terrorist act which results in the death of a person will be awarded with the capital punishment”. For involvement in a terrorist act, the individual is given punishment with imprisonment for a term of 5 years which may extend to life term.

GODHRAThe Godhra Train Burning was an incident that occurred on the morning of 27 February 2002, in which 59 people died in a fire inside the Sabarmati Express train near the Godhra railway station in the Indian state of Gujarat.[1][2]The victims were Hindu pilgrims who were returning from the city of Ayodhya after a religious ceremony at the disputed Babri Masjid site.[3]The commission set up by the Government of Gujarat to investigate the train burning spent 6 years going over the details of the case, and concluded that the fire was arson committed by a mob of 1,000 to 2,000 people.[4]A commission appointed by the central government, whose appointment was later held to be unconstitutional, stated that the fire had been an accident.[5]A court convicted 31 Muslims for the incident and the conspiracy for the crime.[6]The conviction was later upheld by the Gujarat High Court.[7][8][9][10]Commission Report)EditThe incident is said to have taken place a short distance from Godhra JunctionGodhra Train BurningLocationGodhra, Gujarat, IndiaCoordinates22°45′48″N 73°36′22″EDate27 February 20027:43 a.m.Deaths59Injuries48The event is widely perceived as the trigger for the Gujarat riots that followed, which resulted in widespread loss of life, destruction of property and homelessness. Estimates of casualties range from the official figures of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus,[11]to upwards of 2,000 casualties.[12]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burningGodhra train burning - WikipediaForensic Science Laboratory ReportEditA study conducted by the Gujarat Forensic Science Laboratory report states that 60 liters of inflammable liquid had been poured into coach S-6 of the train using a wide-mouthed container. It had been poured by standing on the passage between the northern side-door of the eastern side of the coach, which had been set on fire immediately thereafter. The report also concluded that there had been heavy stone pelting on the train.[19][20]Nanavati-Mehta commissionEditMain article: Nanavati-Mehta commissionAppointmentEditOn 6 March 2002 the Gujarat government set up a commission of inquiry to investigate the incident and submit a report, the chairman and sole member of which was retired Gujarat High Court judge K G Shah.[21]However, Shah's alleged closeness to Narendra Modi generated fierce criticism from the victims, human rights organisations, and political parties, and led to a demand for the appointment of a Supreme Court judge to the commission. As a result, the government reconstituted the commission into a two-member committee, appointing retired Supreme Court judge G T Nanavati to lead the commission, which thus became known as the "Nanavati-Shah Commission".[22]Shah died in March 2008, just a few months prior to the committee submitting its first report, and the Gujarat High Court then appointed retired judge Akshay Kumar Mehta to the committee on 6 April 2008.[23]The commission, during its six-year probe, examined more than 40,000 documents and the testimonies of more than 1,000 witnesses.[24]The initial term of the committee was three months long; however, it received 22 extensions, till June 2014, to submit its final report.[25][26]ReportEditIn September 2008, the commission submitted the "Part I" of the report dealing with the Godhra incident, in which it supported the conspiracy theory originally propounded by the Gujarat police.[5]Maulvi Husain Haji Ibrahim Umarji, a cleric in Godhra, and a dismissed Central Reserve Police Force officer named Nanumiyan were presented as the "masterminds" behind the operation.[27]The evidence marshalled by the committee in favour of this conclusion was a statement made by Jabir Binyamin Behra, a criminal in custody at the time, although he later denied giving any such statement.[28]In addition, the alleged acquisition of 140 litres of petrol hours before the arrival of the train and the storage of the petrol at the guest house of Razzak Kurkur, accused of being a key conspirator, and forensic evidence showing that fuel was poured on the train coach before it burnt, was presented by the committee.[27]The report concluded that the train was attacked by thousands of Muslims from the Signal Falia area.[29][30]ReactionsEditThe Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Indian National Congress objected to the exoneration of the Gujarat government by the commission citing the timing of the report (with general elections months away) as evidence of unfairness. Congress spokesperson Veerappa Moily commented at the strange absolvement of the Gujarat government for complacency for the carnage before the commission's second and final report had been brought out. The CPI(M) said that the report reinforced communal prejudices.[31]The commission has been heavily criticised by academics such as Christophe Jaffrelot for obstructing the course of justice, supporting the conspiracy theory too quickly, and for allegedly ignoring evidence of governmental complicity in the incident.[32][33]Banerjee investigationEditAppointment and ReportEditJustice U.C. Banerjee, presenting the final report of enquiry on Godhra fire incident to the Chairman of the Railway Board, J.P. Batra, in New Delhi in 2006On 17 May 2004, with the victory of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in the Indian general election, Lalu Prasad Yadav was appointed railway minister. In September 2004, two and half years after the train burning, Yadav appointed former Supreme Court Justice Umesh Chandra Banerjee to investigate the incident. In January 2005 Banerjee presented his interim report, which tentatively ascribed the fire as an "accidental fire," after ruling out other theories. He cited a forensic report stating that the injuries on the victims were only compatible with an "internal fire." The report was also critical of the railways' handling of the evidence relevant to the case.[34][35][36]High Court judgmentEditBanerjee's findings were challenged in the Gujarat High Court by Neelkanth Tulsidas Bhatia, who was injured in the incident. In October 2006, the court quashed the conclusions of Banerjee and ruled that the investigation was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void", declared its formation to be a "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions", and its argument of accidental fire "opposed to the prima facie accepted facts on record." The High Court also directed that the report should not be tabled in the Parliament.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43]ReactionsEditThe BJP, which was then in opposition in the union parliament, dismissed the report as an attempt to gain an advantage in the Bihar elections which were to be held soon.[44]It welcomed the High Court judgement, saying that it was a setback for the Congress.[45]Lalu Prasad Yadav, then the minister for railways, cited the report as proof that the Narendra Modi government had organized the riots that followed, and called it an exposure of the BJP.[44]ArrestsEditBy 28 February 2002, 51 people had been arrested for the incident on charges of arson, rioting and looting.[46]One of the alleged organisers of the attack was arrested in West Bengal. West Bengal's Chief Secretary, Sourin Roy, said the detainee was a commander of the Muslim radical group Harkat-ul Jehad-e-Islami, who was allegedly attempting to enter Bangladesh.[citation needed]On 17 March 2002, chief suspect Haji Bilal, a local town councillor and a Congress worker,[47]was captured by an anti-terrorist squad in Godhra. The FIR had alleged that a 1540-strong mob attacked the Sabarmati Express on 27 February, minutes after the delayed train left the Godhra station on the day of the incident. The president of Godhra municipality, Mohammed Hussain Kalota, was arrested in March. Others arrested included corporators Abdul Razak and Shiraj Abdul Jamesha. Bilal was also alleged to have a connection with gang leader Latif and was reported to have visited Karachi in Pakistan several times.[48][49]The charge-sheet filed by the SIT before first class railway magistrate P. K. Joshi, which ran to more than 500 pages, stated that 59 people were killed in the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express when a mob of around 1540 unidentified people attacked it near Godhra railway station.[50][51]The 68 people accused in the charge-sheet included 57 accused of stoning and torching the train. The charge-sheet also stated that a mob attacked the police, prevented the fire brigade from approaching the burning train, and stormed the train for a second time. 11 others were charged with being part of this mob.[52]Initially, 107 people were charged, five of whom died while the case was still pending in court. Eight others were juveniles, who were tried by a separate court. As many as 253 witnesses were examined during the trial and over items of 1500 documentary evidences were presented to the court.[53]On 24 July 2015, the prime accused in the Godhra case, Hussain Suleman Mohammad, was arrested by the Godhra crime branch from Jhabua district of Madhya Pradesh.[54]On 18 May 2016, a heretofore missing `conspirator' of the event, Farooq Bhana, was Arrested from Mumbai by Gujarat Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS).[55]On 30 January 2018, Yakub Pataliya (63) was arrested from Godhra by a team of B Division police in the town after they received a tip-off that he was spotted in a locality.[56]Prevention of Terrorism Act and trialEditOn 3 March 2002, The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance was invoked against all the accused which was later suspended due to pressure from the Central government. On 9 March 2002, Police added Criminal Conspiracy to the charges. In May 2003, the first charge sheet was filed against 54 accused, but they were not charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA became an Act as it was cleared by Parliament). In February 2003, the POTA was re-invoked against all the accused after the BJP retained control of the Gujarat legislature in the 2002 assembly elections.[57][58]In November 2003, the Supreme Court of India put a stay on the trial. In 2004, the POTA was repealed after the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came to power, prompting it to review the invocation of the POTA against the accused. In May 2005, the POTA review commission decided not to charge the accused under POTA. This was later unsuccessfully challenged by a relative of the victim before the Gujarat High Court and later on appeal before Supreme Court. In September 2008, the Nanavati Commission submitted its report on the incident.[57]In 2009, after accepting the report of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by it, the court appointed a special fast-track court to try the case along with 5 other fast track courts established to try the post-incident riots. The bench hearing the case also said that public prosecutors should be appointed in consultation with the SIT chairman. It ordered that the SIT would be the nodal agency for deciding about witness protection and also asked that it file supplementary charge sheets and that it may cancel the bail of the accused.[59]More than 100 people were arrested in relation to the incident. The court was set up inside the Sabarmati Central Jail, where almost all of the accused were confined. The hearing began in May 2009.[60]Additional Sessions Judge P R Patel was designated to hear the case.In May 2010, Supreme Court restrained the trial courts from pronouncing judgement in nine sensitive riot cases, including Godhra train incident. The trial was completed in September 2010; however, the verdict could not be delivered because of the Supreme Court stay.[53]The stay was lifted in January 2011 and the judge announced that he shall pronounce the judgement on 22 February 2011.[57]Court verdictEditIn February 2011, the trial court convicted 31 people and acquitted 63 others, saying the incident was a planned conspiracy. The convictions were based on the murder and conspiracy provisions of Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code respectively and under Sections 149, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 332, 395, 397, and 436 of the Code and some sections of the Railway Act and Police Act.[51]The death penalty was awarded to 11 convicts; those believed to have been present at a meeting held the night before the incident where the conspiracy was formed, and those who, according to the court, had actually entered the coach and poured petrol before setting it afire. Twenty others were sentenced to life imprisonment.[61][62]Maulvi Saeed Umarji, who was believed by the SIT to be the prime conspirator, was acquitted[51]along with 62 other accused for lack of evidence.[63]The convicted filed appeals in the Gujarat High Court. The state government also challenged the trial court's decision to acquit 61 persons in the High Court and sought death sentences for 20 convicts awarded life imprisonment in the case.[64]Gujarat High Court verdictEditGujarat High Court changed the death sentence of 11 accused to life imprisonment.[65]All 31 accused found guilty in 2011 were given life imprisonment.[66]63 accused who were acquitted in 2011 by trial court, were acquitted once again by high court.[67]The court asked the state government and railways to pay 10 lakh compensation to the victims.[68]Reactions to the SIT investigationEditBJP spokesperson Shahnawaz Hussain stated, "The theory propagated by the (central) government and some NGOs (Non-Governmental Organization) has been proved wrong...."[69]Law Minister Veerappa Moily (a Congress Party member) said it was premature to comment and that the courts will take their own course.[70][71]R. K. Raghavan, who was the head of the Special Investigating Team, said he was satisfied with the verdict. BJP spokesperson, Ravi Shankar Prasad said the verdict had exposed the nefarious designs of the UPA government which tried to cover up the entire episode.[70]In popular cultureEditChand Bujh Gaya, a 2005 film, uses the Godhra train burning incident as the background for a love story.[72]The 2013 film Kai Po Che had the Gujarat riots as a backdrop for the main narrative. It was based on the novel The 3 Mistakes of My Life written by Chetan Bhagat.The 2003 documentary Final Solution depicts the train burning and the Gujarat riots that followed.This is a shameful part of the History of India and Gujrat. It severally affected the image of Sri Narendra Modi.Proper inquiry and jurisdiction of case is not dilivered and many charges have been withdrawn from the accused.Mr Vajpayee told Sri Narendra Modi to follow Rajdharma because of this incident. Some bjp want Me Modi to resign.No charges have been proven against Me Modi or Sri Amit Shah ji.2002 Gujarat riotsMain article: 2002 Gujarat riotsOn 27 February 2002, a train with several hundred passengers burned near Godhra, killing approximately 60 people.[e]The train carried a large number of Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya after a religious ceremony at the site of the demolished Babri Masjid.[85][86]In making a public statement after the incident, Modi declared it a terrorist attack planned and orchestrated by local Muslims.[5][85][87]The next day, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad called for a bandh across the state.[88][89]Riots began during the bandh, and anti-Muslim violence spread through Gujarat.[85][88][89]The government's decision to move the bodies of the train victims from Godhra to Ahmedabad further inflamed the violence.[85][90]The state government stated later that 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed.[91]Independent sources put the death toll at over 2000.[85][92]Approximately 150,000 people were driven to refugee camps.[93]Numerous women and children were among the victims; the violence included mass rapes and mutilations of women.[4]The government of Gujarat itself is generally considered by scholars to have been complicit in the riots,[3][4][5]and has otherwise received heavy criticism for its handling of the situation.[94]Several scholars have described the violence as a pogrom, while others have called it an example of state terrorism.[95][96][97]Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law."[4]The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets, but was unable to prevent the violence from escalating.[88][89]The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time.[5]State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there.[98]Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus, although this decision was later reversed after the issue was taken to court.[99]During the riots, police officers often did not intervene in situations where they were able.[4][87][100]In 2012 Maya Kodnani, a minister in Modi's government from 2007 to 2009, was convicted by a lower court for participation in the Naroda Patiya massacre during the 2002 riots.[101][102]Although Modi's government had announced that it would seek the death penalty for Kodnani on appeal, it reversed its decision in 2013.[103][104]On 21 April 2018, the Gujarat High Court acquitted Kodnani while noting that there were several shortfalls in the investigation.[105]Modi's personal involvement in the 2002 events has continued to be debated. During the riots, Modi said that "What is happening is a chain of action and reaction."[4]Later in 2002, Modi said the way in which he had handled the media was his only regret regarding the episode.[106]In March 2008, the Supreme Court reopened several cases related to the 2002 riots, including that of the Gulbarg Society massacre, and established a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the issue.[94][107][108]In response to a petition from Zakia Jafri (widow of Ehsan Jafri, who was killed in the Gulbarg Society massacre), in April 2009 the court also asked the SIT to investigate the issue of Modi's complicity in the killings.[107]The SIT questioned Modi in March 2010; in May, it presented to the court a report finding no evidence against him.[107][109]In July 2011, the court-appointed amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran submitted his final report to the court. Contrary to the SIT's position, he said that Modi could be prosecuted based on the available evidence.[110][111]The Supreme Court gave the matter to the magistrate's court. The SIT examined Ramachandran's report, and in March 2012 submitted its final report, asking for the case to be closed. Zakia Jaffri filed a protest petition in response. In December 2013 the magistrate's court rejected the protest petition, accepting the SIT's finding that there was no evidence against the chief minister.[112]2002 electionIn the aftermath of the violence there were widespread calls for Modi to resign as chief minister from within and outside the state, including from leaders of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the Telugu Desam Party (allies in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance coalition), and opposition parties stalled Parliament over the issue.[113]Modi submitted his resignation at the April 2002 BJP national executive meeting in Goa, but it was not accepted.[114]His cabinet had an emergency meeting on 19 July 2002, after which it offered its resignation to the Gujarat Governor S. S. Bhandari, and the state assembly was dissolved.[115][116]Despite opposition from the election commissioner, who said that a number of voters were still displaced, Modi succeeded in advancing the election to December 2002.[117]In the elections, the BJP won 127 seats in the 182-member assembly.[118]Although Modi later denied it, he made significant use of anti-Muslim rhetoric during his campaign,[119][120][121][122]and the BJP profited from religious polarisation among the voters.[117]He won the Maninagar constituency, receiving 113,589 of 154,981 votes and defeating INC candidate Yatin Oza by 75,333 votes.[123]On 22 December 2002, Bhandari swore Modi in for a second term.[124]Modi framed the criticism of his government for human rights violations as an attack upon Gujarati pride, a strategy which led to the BJP winning two-thirds of the seats in the state assembly.[3][119]Second termDuring Modi's second term the rhetoric of the government shifted from Hindutva to Gujarat's economic development.[78][3][119]Modi curtailed the influence of Sangh Parivar organisations such as the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) and the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP),[125]entrenched in the state after the decline of Ahmedabad's textile industry,[78]and dropped Gordhan Zadafia (an ally of former Sangh co-worker and VHP state chief Praveen Togadia) from his cabinet. When the BKS staged a farmers' demonstration Modi ordered their eviction from state-provided houses, and his decision to demolish 200 illegal temples in Gandhinagar deepened the rift with the VHP.[125][126]Sangh organisations were no longer consulted or informed in advance about Modi's administrative decisions.[125]Nonetheless, Modi retained connections with some Hindu nationalists. Modi wrote a foreword to a textbook by Dinanath Batra released in 2014, which stated that ancient India possessed technologies including test-tube babies.[127][128]Modi's relationship with Muslims continued to attract criticism. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (who asked Modi for tolerance in the aftermath of the 2002 Gujarat violence and supported his resignation as chief minister)[129][130]distanced himself, reaching out to North Indian Muslims before the 2004 Lok Sabha elections. After the elections Vajpayee called the violence in Gujarat a reason for the BJP's electoral defeat and said it had been a mistake to leave Modi in office after the riots.[131][132]Questions about Modi's relationship with Muslims were also raised by many Western nations during his tenure as chief minister. Modi was barred from entering the United States by the State Department, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission on International Religious Freedom formed under the aegis of the International Religious Freedom Act,[133][134]the only person denied a US visa under this law.[135]The UK and the European Union refused to admit him because of what they saw as his role in the riots. As Modi rose to prominence in India, the UK[136]and the EU[137]lifted their bans in October 2012 and March 2013, respectively, and after his election as prime minister he was invited to Washington.[138][139]During the run-up to the 2007 assembly elections and the 2009 general election, the BJP intensified its rhetoric on terrorism.[140]In July 2006, Modi criticised Prime Minister Manmohan Singh " for his reluctance to revive anti-terror legislation" such as the 2002 Prevention of Terrorism Act. He asked the national government to allow states to invoke tougher laws in the wake of the 2006 Mumbai train bombings.[141]In 2007 Modi authored Karmayog, a 101-page booklet discussing manual scavenging. In it, Modi argued that scavenging was a "spiritual experience" for Valmiks, a sub-caste of Dalits.[142][143]However, this book was not circulated that time because of the election code of conduct.[144]After the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, Modi held a meeting to discuss the security of Gujarat's 1,600-kilometre (990 mi)-long coastline, resulting in government authorisation of 30 high-speed surveillance boats.[145]In July 2007 Modi completed 2,063 consecutive days as chief minister of Gujarat, making him the longest-serving holder of that post,[146]and the BJP won 122 of 182 state-assembly seats in that year's election.[147]Mr. Modi profited from Godhra train burning in 2002 election. It dark chapter in his career. Sorry but it is true.Source ( Wikipedia)