All Rights Magazine

04 12 20

‘ÁðÂè’·¤æ ÁæÜ-2

çßEM¤Â× ÕßæçÜØæÙãè´ âßæçÜØæ

çÈ¸¤Ë× ãñ!

AccountingSpies

A Monthly Magazine www.allrights.co.inVolume : 01, Issue : 02, March, 2013 30`

03 ¥æòÜ ÚUæ§ÅU÷â U×æ¿ü 2013ALL RIGHTS

A Monthly Magazine VOLUME : 01, ISSUE : 02, MARCH 2013

Scourge of Child trafficking COVER STORY

Trafficking in human beings is a multi-billion-dollar form of international organized crime,

constituting modern-day slavery.

Farmers IncomeCommission is now

a reality in India

14

28

08

Editor : Gopal Chandra AgarwalExecutive Editor : Pankaj Shukla News Editor : Vivek PathakSpl Correspondent : Subodh KumarCopy Editors : Yogesh Pandey & Subodh KumarContributers : Kumar Sauvir (Independent Journalist)Devinder Sharma (Agriculture and food policy analyst)Anant Asthana (Lawyer and Human Rights Activist)Nickolas Johnson (Policy Analyst at Oakland Institute)Sonali Singh (Research scholar at Deptt. of Political Science, Banaras Hindu University)Shivadas (Web Journalist)Ramesh Kumar Dubey (Independent Journalist)Sayyed Akram Rehman (Photo Assistant)Praveen Kumar & Salam Bijen Singh (Graphic Designer)www.allrights.co.in, [email protected], Write us at : [email protected]

25

Is it right to call Judiciary communal?

The Para-noia ofthe Su-perrichand Su-perpow-

erful

Implica-tions ofNorth

Korea’s Nuclear

Explosion

52

MORE CONTENTS

42

·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ·¤è ·¤Ç¸ßè ã·¤è·¤Ì

09»ÚUèÕæð´ âð çÀÙð»æ, ¥×èÚUô´ ×ð´ Õ´ÅUð»æ

32Capital Punishment

38The Ethiopian Land Grab Crisis

55The Curious Case of Binayak Sen

Owner, Editor, Printer & Publisher : Gopal Chandra Agarwal Published At : 17, Maurya Complex B-28, Subhash Chowk, Laxmi NagarDelhi-110092, Phone: 011-42147246, Printed At : Neeta Press, Shed No. 19, D.S.I.D.C. Indl. Complex Dakshinpuri,New Delhi- 110062

The views expressed by authors are personal and do not necessarily reflect views of AllRights. The magazine is protected under copyright laws, all Content, unless stated, is ownedby All Rights and its content providers and may not be used in any form without prior con-sent. The jurisdiction for all disputes concerning sale, subscription and published matterwill be settled in courts/forum/tribunals at Delhi.

DCP No. F.2 (A-41) Press/ 2012

ãÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ßð ÁÙÌæ ·Ô¤ âðß·¤ ãñ Üðç·¤Ùãé€U× ÕÁæÌð ãñ´ ©lô» ƒæÚUæÙô´ ·¤æÐ ÁðÂèâ×êã ·Ô¤ â´Õ´Ï ×ð ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ·¤è ¹æ·¤è,

¹æÎè ¥õÚU ÜæÜÈ¤èÌæàææãè ·¤è ·¤æØüàæñçÜØô´ âð ÌôØãè ÂÌæ ¿ÜÌæ ãñÐ ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ·Ô¤ âôÙÖÎý çÁÜð×ð´ Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ ßÙ Õ´ÎôÕSÌ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè ßè·Ô¤ŸæèßæSÌß (¥Õ âãæØ·¤ ¥çÖÜð¹ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè,ç×ÁæüÂéÚU) Ùð ÁØ Âý·¤æàæ °âôçâ°ÅU÷â çÜç×ÅUðÇ(Áð°°Ü) Ùæ×·¤ çÙÁè ·¤´ÂÙè ·Ô¤ Âÿæ ×ð´ ßÙçßÖæ» ·¤è v®}x ãð€UÅUðØÚU (·¤ÚUèÕ yw}xÕèƒææ) âð ’ØæÎæ Öêç× âéÂýè× ·¤ôÅUü ·Ô¤ ¥æÎðàæô´¥õÚU ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ‡æ ¥çÏçÙØ× ·Ô¤ ÂýæßÏæÙô´ ·Ô¤ç¹ÜæÈ¤ â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ ÿæð˜æ âð çÙc·¤æçâÌ ·¤ÚU ÎèÐ§âð ¥×ÜèÁæ×æ ÂãÙæÌð ãé° ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ·¤è ÂêßüÕâÂæ âÚU·¤æÚU Ùð ¥çÏâê¿Ùæ Öè ÁæÚUè ·¤ÚU çÎØæÐ

·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ, ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ¥çÏ·¤æÚU Âýæ# âç×çÌ, ÎðãÚUæÎêÙ çSÍÌ ÖæÚUÌèØß‹ØÁèß â´SÍæÙ ¥õÚU çß´ŠØæ¿Ü ×´ÇÜæØéQ¤ ·¤è¥Ü»-¥Ü» Áæ´¿ çÚUÂôÅUôZ ×ð´ ÁÕ ×æ×Üæ âæ×Ùð¥æØæ Ìô ÚUæ’Ø âÚU·¤æÚU Ùð Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ Âÿæ ×ð´â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ ÿæð˜æ âð çÙc·¤æçâÌ Á×èÙ ·¤ô·¤æÙêÙèÁæ×æ ÂãÙæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° âéÂýè× ·¤ôÅUü ×ð´Øæç¿·¤æ Îæç¹Ü ·¤ÚU çÎØæ ('¥æòÜ ÚUæ§ÅU÷â' ·Ô¤È¤ÚUßÚUè ¥´·¤ ×ð´ Âý·¤æçàæÌ çÚUÂôÅUü Îð¹ð´)Ð âæÍ ãè©âÙð ãæ§ü ·¤ôÅUü ·Ô¤ ¥æÎðàæ ·Ô¤ ¥ÙéÂæÜÙ ·¤è ¥æÇ¸×ð ÁðÂè â×êã ·¤ô â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ ÿæð æ ¥õÚU »ýæ× âÖæ·¤è ãÁæÚUô´ °·¤Ç¸ Öêç× ÂÚU ·¤ŽÁæ ·¤ÚUÙð ·¤è ÀêÅU ÎðçÎØæÐ çÙÁè ·¤´ÂÙè ·Ô¤ §â ·¤æØü ×ð´ âôÙÖÎý ¥õÚUç×ÁæüÂéÚU çÁÜæ ÂýàææâÙ ·Ô¤ Ùé×æ§´Îô´ Ùð Á×·¤ÚUâãØô» ç·¤ØæÐ ©‹ãô´Ùð âôÙÖÎý ·Ô¤ ÇæÜæ çSÍÌ×çÜÙ ÕSÌè ·Ô¤ Õæçàæ´Îô´ ·¤ô ÕðƒæÚU ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ°·Ô¤ßÜ ÜæçÆØæ´ ãè Ùãè´ Öæ´Áè ÕçË·¤ ©‹ãð´

·¤æÜ·¤ôÆÚUè ·¤è ãßæ ç¹ÜæÙð ×ð´ Öè ·¤ô§ü ·¤ôÚU-·¤âÚU Ùãè´ ÀôÇ¸èÐ ç×ÁæüÂéÚU ·Ô¤ ¿éÙæÚU ×ð ÁðÂè â×êã·Ô¤ ç¹ÜæÈ¤ ÕôÜÙð ßæÜð ·¤ô Ìô ·¤§ü çÎÙô´ Ì·¤ÁðÜ ·¤è âÜæ¹ô´ ·Ô¤ ÂèÀð ÚUãÙæ ÂÇ¸æÐ ¥æçÎßæâèÕãéUÜ âôÙÖÎý ¥õÚU ç×ÁæüÂéÚU çÁÜô´ ×ð´ ÁðÂè ·Ô¤¥æÌ·¤ ·¤æ ¹õÈ¤ §â ·¤ÎÚU ãñ ç·¤ ·¤ô§ü Öè âÚU·¤æÚUè·¤×ü¿æÚUè ¥Íßæ ÚUæcÅþèØ ¥õÚU ÚUæ’Ø SÌÚUèØÚUæÁÙèçÌ·¤ ÂæçÅUüØô´ ·¤æ Ùé×æ§´Îæ ©â·Ô¤ ç¹ÜæÈ¤ÕôÜÙð ·¤è çãU�×Ì Ì·¤ Ùãè´ ·¤ÚUÌæÐ ¥»ÚU âôÙÖÎýçÁÜæ ÂýàææâÙ ·Ô¤ ·¤éÀ Ùé×æ§´Îô´ ·¤è ·¤æÚU»éÁæçÚUØô´ÂÚU »õÚU ·¤ÚUð´ Ìô ©‹ãô´Ùð ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ×˜ææÜØ ·Ô¤ çÙÎüðàæô ÂÚU ¥×Ü ·¤ÚUÙæ ×éÙæçâÕ Ùãèâ×Ûææ ¥õÚU ÁØ Âý·¤æàæ °âôçâ°ÅU÷â çÜç×ÅUðÇ ·¤è·¤æÚU»éÁæçÚUØô´ ·¤ô ãè âãè ÆãÚUæÌð ÚUãðÐ ÁÕç·¤çß´ŠØæ¿Ü ·Ô¤ Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ ×´ÇÜæØéQ¤ âˆØÁèÌÆæ·¤éÚU, ¥çÌçÚUQ¤ ¥æØéQ¤ (ÂýàææâÙ) Çæò. Çè¥æÚUç˜æÂæÆè, â´ØéQ¤ çß·¤æâ ¥æØéQ¤ °â.°â. ç×Ÿææ

04¥æòÜ ÚUæ§ÅU÷â ×æ¿ü 2013ALL RIGHTS

·¤æòÂæðüÚÔUÅU ÜêÅU

n©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ âÚU·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ ¥õÚUâè§üâè ·Ô¤ çÙÎüðàæô´ ·¤æ ©Ç¸æÌð ÚUãð ×æ¹õÜÐ

n©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ âÚU·¤æÚU Ùð â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙÖêç× ÂÚU ÁðÂè â×êã ·Ô¤ ¥ßñÏ ·¤ŽÁð ×ð´·¤è ×ÎÎÐ

çàæß Îæâ

·¤

¥çÏ·¤æçÚUØô´ ·¤è ÙæÈ¤ÚU×æÙèÇUæÜæ çSÍÌ ×ÜèÙ ÕSÌè ·¤æð ¹æÜè ·¤ÚUæÌð ÂéçÜâ·¤×èü ¥æñÚU È¤çÚUØæÎ Ü»æÌè ×çãUÜæ

È¤æðÅUæð Ñ °·ð¤ »é#æ

ÁðÂè ·¤è ãUÙ·¤ÁðÂè ·¤æ ÁæÜ-2



¥õÚU çß´ŠØæ¿Ü çÇçßÁÙ ·Ô¤ ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ·¤ ¥æÚU.°Ù. Âæ´Çð Ùð ¥ÂÙè â´ØéQ¤Áæ´¿ çÚUÂôÅUü (¥´ÌçÚU×) ×ð´ ÁØ Âý·¤æàæ °âôçâ°ÅU÷â çÜç×ÅUðÇ ·ð¤ Âÿæ ×ð´çÙc·¤æçâÌ ·¤è »§ü â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ Öêç× ·Ô¤ çÜ° ßÙ Õ´ÎôÕSÌ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè ßè·Ô¤ŸæèßæSÌß ·¤ô Îôáè ÆãÚUæØæ ãñÐ â´ØéQ¤ Áæ´¿ ÅUè× Ùð ŸæèßæSÌß ·Ô¤ ç¹ÜæÈ¤Î´ÇÙæˆ×·¤ ¥õÚU ¥æÂÚUæçÏ·¤ ·¤æÚUüßæ§ü ·¤ÚUÙð ·¤è â´SÌéçÌ Öè ·¤è ãñÐ

×æ×Üæ ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ßÙ çßÖæ» âð â´Õ´çÏÌ ãôÙð ·¤è ßÁã âð çß´ŠØæ¿Ü×ÇÜ ·Ô¤ Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ ¥çÌçÚUQ¤ ¥æØéQ¤ (ÂýàææâÙ) ÁèÇè ¥æØü Ùð w| ÙßÕÚU,w®®} ·¤ô çß´ŠØæ¿Ü çÇçßÁÙ ·Ô¤ ×é�Ø ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ·¤ ·¤ô °·¤ Â˜æ çÜ¹æ,çÁâ×ð ©‹ãôÙð ×æ×Üð ×ð ·¤æÚUüßæ§ü ·¤ÚUÙð ·¤è ÕæÌ ·¤ãè Íè Üðç·¤Ù ·¤ô§ü ·¤æÚUüßæ§üÙãè´ ãé§üÐ ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ ·Ô¤ ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ·¤ (×ŠØ ÿæð˜æ)ßæ§ü.·Ô¤. çâ´ã ¿õãæÙ ·¤è ¥ôÚU âð âéÂýè× ·¤ôÅUü mæÚUæ »çÆÌ ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUÂýæ# âç×çÌ (âè§üâè) ·Ô¤ âÎSØ âç¿ß °×·Ô¤ ÁèßÚUæÁ·¤æ ·¤ô ÂýðçáÌ Â˜æÂÚU »õÚU ·¤ÚUð´ Ìô Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ ßÙ Õ´ÎôÕSÌ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè ßè·Ô¤ ŸæèßæSÌß Ùð âéÂýè×·¤ôÅUü ·Ô¤ ¥æÎðàæô´ ·Ô¤ ç¹ÜæÈ¤ ÚUæÁSß ¥çÖÜð¹ ×ð´ ÖæÚUÌèØ ßÙ ¥çÏçÙØ×-v~w| ·¤è ÏæÚUæ-y ·Ô¤ ÌãÌ ¥çÏâêç¿Ì â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ ÿæð˜æ ·¤è Öêç× ·Ô¤·¤æÙêÙè SßM¤Â ·¤ô ãè ÕÎÜ çÎØæÐ âéÂýè× ·¤ôÅUü ·Ô¤ Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ ‹ØæØ×êçÌüÁð°â ß×æü ¥õÚU Õè°Ù ·¤ëÂæÜ ·¤è ÂèÆ Ùð vw çÎâ´ÕÚU, v~~{ ·¤ô ÅUè°Ù»ôÇæß×üÙ çÍL¤×éË·¤ÂæÎ ÕÙæ× ÖæÚUÌ âÚU·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ ×æ×Üð ×ð´ âæÈ¤ ·¤ãæ ãñ ç·¤Sßæç×ˆß ·¤è ÂÚUßæã ç·¤° çÕÙæ â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ ÿæð˜æ ·¤æ SßM¤Â Ùãè´ ÕÎÜæ Áæâ·¤ÌæÐ

§â ÌÚUã »ñÚU-ßÙ Öêç× ×ð´ ÕÎÜð ÁæÙð ·Ô¤ ÕæÎ Öè â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ Öêç× ·¤æ·¤æÙêÙè SßM¤Â Ùãè´ ÕÎÜð»æ, Üðç·¤Ù ßè·Ô¤ ŸæèßæSÌß Ùð ÚUæÁSß ¥çÖÜð¹×ð´ ·¤ôÅUæ, ÂÇ¸ÚUÀ ¥õÚU ×·¤ÚUèÕæÚUè »æ´ßô´ ×ð´ çSÍÌ â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ ÿæð˜æ ·¤è Öêç×·Ô¤ ·¤æÙêÙè SßM¤Â ·¤ô ÂçÚUßçÌüÌ ·¤ÚU çÎØæ ãñÐ ÚUæÁSß ¥çÖÜð¹ ×ð´ ßÙ Öêç×·Ô¤ ·¤æÙêÙè SßM¤Â ·¤æ ÂçÚUßÌüÙ ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ ·Ô¤ ©â¥æÎðàæ ·¤æ Öè ©„´ƒæÙ ãñ Áô ©âÙð v| È¤ÚUßÚUè, w®®z ·¤ô ÁæÚUè ç·¤Øæ ÍæÐ§â×ð´ âæÈ¤ çÜ¹æ ãñ, ·Ô¤´Îý âÚU·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ Âêßü ¥Ùé×ôÎÙ ·Ô¤ çÕÙæ ÚUæÁSß¥çÖÜð¹ô´ ×ð Á´»Ü, ÛææÇ¸ ·Ô¤ M¤Â ×ð ÎÁü Öêç× ·Ô¤ ·¤æÙêÙè SßM¤Â ×ð ÂçÚUßÌüÙ»ñÚU-·¤æÙêÙè ¥õÚU ßÙ âÚUÿæ‡æ ¥çÏçÙØ× ·Ô¤ ÂýæßÏæÙô ·¤æ ©„ƒæÙ ãñÐ âÕçÏÌçßÖæ» ·¤ô çÙÎüðçàæÌ ç·¤Øæ ÁæÌæ ãñ ç·¤ ßð ÌéÚU´Ì Á´»Ü,Ûææ¸Ç¸, ßÙ Öêç× ·Ô¤·¤æÙêÙè SßM¤Â ·¤ô ÕãæÜ ·¤ÚUð´Ð ßæ§ü·Ô¤ çâ´ã ¿õãæÙ ·Ô¤ Â˜æ ÂÚU »õÚU ·¤ÚUð´ Ìô

©â â×Ø ÁØ Âý·¤æàæ °âôçâ°ÅU÷â çÜç×ÅUðÇ ·¤´ÂÙè ßÙ (â´ÚUÿæ‡æ)¥çÏçÙØ×-v~}® ·Ô¤ ÂýæßÏæÙô´ ·¤æ ©„´ƒæÙ ·¤ÚUÌð ãé° â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ Öêç× ÂÚU»ñÚU-·¤æÙêÙè É´» âð ÖßÙ ¥õÚU âÇ¸·¤ çÙ×æü‡æ ·¤ÚU ÚUãè ÍèÐ §â·Ô¤ ¥Üæßæßã ¹ÙÙ ·¤æØôZ ·¤ô Öè ¥´Áæ× Îð ÚUãè ÍèÐ ¿õãæÙ Ùð Â˜æ ×ð´ çßßæçÎÌ Öêç×·Ô¤ ·¤æÙêÙè SßM¤Â ·¤ô ÕãæÜ ·¤ÚUÙð, ßè·Ô¤ ŸæèßæSÌß ·¤è ßÙ ÕÎôÕSÌ ÂýçR¤Øæ·¤ô çÙÚUSÌ ·¤ÚUÙð ¥õÚU ©Ù·Ô¤ ç¹ÜæÈ¤ çßÖæ»èØ ¥Íßæ ¥æÂÚUæçÏ·¤ ·¤æÚUüßæ§ü·¤ÚUÙð ÌÍæ â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ ÿæð˜æ âð çÙc·¤æçâÌ vy}®.®{ ãð€UÅUðØÚU Öêç× ·Ô¤â´Õ´Ï ×ð´ ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ßÙ çßÖæ» ·¤è ¥ôÚU âð ÖæÚUÌèØ ßÙ ¥çÏçÙØ× ·¤èÏæÚUæ-w® ·Ô¤ ÌãÌ ÁæÚUè ¥çÏâê¿Ùæ ·¤ô çÙÚUSÌ ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° â´Õ´çŠæÌçßÖæ» ·¤æð çÙÎðüçàæÌ ·¤ÚUÙð ·¤æ ¥ÙéÚUæðŠæ âè§üâè âð ç·¤Øæ ÍæÐ

·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´ ææÜØ (×ŠØ ÿæð æ), Ü¹Ùª¤ ·Ô¤ ×é�Ø ßÙâ´ÚUÿæ·¤ ¥æÁ× ÁñÎè Ùð Öè w| ×æ¿ü, w®®~ ·¤ô ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ßÙ çßÖæ»·Ô¤ Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ Âý×é¹ âç¿ß ÂÚU×ðEÚU ¥ÄØÚU ·¤ô Â˜æ çÜ¹·¤ÚU §â ×æ×Üð âð¥ß»Ì ·¤ÚUæØæ ÍæÐ âæÍ ãè ©‹ãô´Ùð â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ Öêç× ÂÚU ÁæÚUè »ñÚU-ßæçÙ·¤è·¤æØü ·¤ô ÚUô·¤Ùð, ßè·Ô¤ ŸæèßæSÌß ·¤è ßÙ Õ´ÎôÕSÌ ÂýçR¤Øæ ·¤ô çÙÚUSÌ ·¤ÚUÙð¥õÚU çßŠØæ¿Ü ×ÇÜ ·Ô¤ ¥æØéQ¤ ·¤è âSÌéçÌØô ·Ô¤ ¥ÙéâæÚU Îôáè ¥çÏ·¤æçÚUØô·Ô¤ ç¹ÜæÈ¤ ·¤æÚUüßæ§ü ·¤ÚUÙð ·¤è ×æ´» Öè ·¤è ÍèÐ ÁñÎè Ùð ×æ×Üð ÂÚU ÚUæ’ØâÚU·¤æÚU ·¤è çÅUŒÂ‡æè ¥õÚU ·¤æÚUüßæ§ü ·¤è çÚUÂôÅUü Öè ×æ»è Íè Üðç·¤Ù ÚUæ’Ø âÚU·¤æÚU·¤è ¥ôÚU âð Îôáè ¥çÏ·¤æçÚUØô´ ·Ô¤ ç¹ÜæÈ¤ ·¤ô§ü ·¤æÚUüßæ§ü Ùãè´ ·¤è »§üÐ

©ÏÚU, Áð°°Ü âÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ ÿæð æ ¥õÚU »ýæ× âÖæ ·¤è Á×èÙô ÂÚU ÁÕÚUÎSÌè·¤ŽÁæ ·¤ÚU ÚUãè ÍèÐ ©â·Ô¤ §â ·¤æØü ×ð´ çÁÜæ ÂýàææâÙ ÁôÚU-àæôÚU âð ×ÎÎ·¤ÚU ÚUãæ ÍæÐ ÁðÂè â×êã ·Ô¤ »ñÚU·¤æÙêÙè ·¤ŽÁð ·¤è çàæ·¤æØÌ SÍæÙèØ Üô»ô´ ÙðâôÙÖÎý ·Ô¤ Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ çÁÜæçÏ·¤æÚUè ÂÙÏæÚUè ØæÎß (¥Õ ×é�Ø×´˜æè¥ç¹Üðàæ ØæÎß ·Ô¤ çßàæðá âç¿ß) ¥õÚU ÚUæÕÅU÷âü»´Á (âÎÚU) ÌãâèÜ ·Ô¤Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ ©ÂçÁÜæçÏ·¤æÚUè ¥´ÁÙè ·¤é×æÚU çâ´ã âð ·¤è, Üðç·¤Ù ·¤ô§ü ·¤æÚUüßæ§üÙãè´ ãé§üÐ ÁßæÕ ×ð´ ÇæÜæ çSÍÌ ×ÜèÙ ÕSÌè ·Ô¤ Õæçàæ´Îô´ ·¤ô ÂéçÜâ ¥õÚUÁðÂè â×êã ·Ô¤ ·¤æçÚU´Îô´ ·¤è ÜæçÆØæð´ ·¤æ çàæ·¤æÚU ãUæðÙæ ÂÇ¸æÐ §ÌÙæ ãè Ùãè´SÍæÙèØ Üô»ô´ Ùð ÁðÂè â×êã ¥õÚU çÁÜæ ÂýàææâÙ ·¤è âæ´Æ»æ´Æ ·Ô¤ ç¹ÜæÈ¤âõ âð ’ØæÎæ çÎÙô´ Ì·¤ R¤ç×·¤ ¥ÙàæÙ Öè ç·¤Øæ Üðç·¤Ù çÁÜæ ÂýàææâÙ ·Ô¤Ùé×æ§´Îô´ ·¤è ·¤æÙô´ ÂÚU Áê Ì·¤ Ùãè´ ÚUð»èÐ ¿´ÎõÜè ÁÙÂÎ ·Ô¤ Ùõ»É¸ çß·¤æâ¹´Ç¥Ì»üÌ àæ×àæðÚUÂéÚU »æß çÙßæâè ÕÜÚUæ× çâã ©È¤ü »ôçßÎ çâã Ùð wx ¥€UÅUêÕÚU·¤ô ÂýÏæÙ×´˜æè ×Ù×ôãÙ çâ´ã ·¤ô °·¤ çàæ·¤æØÌè Â˜æ çÜ¹æ, çÁâ×ð´ ©‹ãô´ÙðâôÙÖÎý ¥õÚU ç×ÁæüÂéÚU çÁÜô ×ð âÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ Öêç× ÂÚU ÁØ Âý·¤æàæ °âôçâ°ÅU÷âçÜç×ÅUðÇ mæÚUæ ç·¤° Áæ ÚUãð ¥ßñÏ çÙ×æü‡æ ·¤æØü ·¤è Áæ´¿ ·¤ÚUæÙð ¥õÚU §â·Ô¤çÜ° çÁ�×ðÎæÚU ¥çÏ·¤æçÚUØô´ ·Ô¤ ç¹ÜæÈ¤ ·¤æÚUüßæ§ü ·¤ÚUÙð ·¤è ×æ´» ·¤èÐÂýÏæÙ×´˜æè ·¤æØæüÜØ ×ð´ ÌñÙæÌ Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ âð€UàæÙ ¥æòçÈ¤âÚU ¥æÚU·Ô¤ Îæâ ÙðÕÜÚUæ× çâ´ã ·Ô¤ Â˜æ ·¤ô ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ ·Ô¤ âç¿ß ·Ô¤Âæâ ÖðÁ çÎØæ ¥õÚU ×æ×Üð ×ð´ Áæ´¿ çÚUÂôÅUü ÂýðçáÌ ·¤ÚUÙð ·¤æ çÙÎüðàæ çÎØæÐ×´˜ææÜØ ·Ô¤ ×ãæçÙÎðàæ·¤ (ßÙ) Ùð ×æ×Üð ·¤è Áæ´¿ ·¤æ ¥æÎðàæ ÎðÌð ãé° §âðÜ¹Ùª¤ çSÍÌ ÿæð˜æèØ ·¤æØæüÜØ ·Ô¤ ×é�Ø ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ·¤ ¥æÁ× ÁñÎè ·Ô¤ ÂæâÖðÁæ, çÁ‹ãô´Ùð Áæ´¿ ·¤è çÁ�×ðÎæÚUè ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ·¤ ßæ§ü·Ô¤ çâ´ã ¿õãæÙ ·¤ô âõ´ÂèÐßæ§ü·Ô¤ çâ´ã ¿õãæÙ Ùð w{ ×§ü, w®v® ·¤ô ÂýÖæ»èØ ßÙæçÏ·¤æÚUè, ¥ôÕÚUæ°âÂè ¿õÚUçâØæ, ßÙ ÿæð˜ææçÏ·¤æÚUè ÕèÇè çâ´ã, Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ ©ÂæŠØÿæ ßè·Ô¤àæ×æü ¥õÚU ÂýÕ´Ï·¤ âéÏèÚU ç×Ÿææ, çàæ·¤æØÌ·¤Ìæü ÕÜÚUæ× çâ´ã, ¿õÏÚUè Øàæß´Ìçâ´ã ¥õÚU ¥àæô·¤ ·¤é×æÚU ·Ô¤ âæÍ ·¤ôÅUæ ßÙ ÿæð˜æ ·¤æ çÙÚUèÿæ‡æ ç·¤ØæÐ

·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ ·Ô¤ ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ·¤ ßæ§ü·Ô¤ çâ´ã ¿õãæÙÙð w®v® ×ð´ v ÁêÙ ·¤ô ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ßÙ çßÖæ» ·Ô¤ ¥ôÕÚUæ çÇçßÁÙ ·Ô¤Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ ÂýÖæÚUè ßÙæçÏ·¤æÚUè °âÂè ¿õÚUçâØæ ¥õÚU ÁØ Âý·¤æàæ °âôçâ°ÅU÷âçÜç×ÅUðÇ ·Ô¤ ·¤æØü·¤æÚUè ¥ŠØÿæ ¥ÁØ àæ×æü ·¤ô Â˜æ çÜ¹·¤ÚU ·¤ôÅUæ »æ´ßçSÍÌ â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ Öêç× ÂÚU ÁðÂè âéÂÚU âè×ð´ÅU ŒÜæ´ÅU ·Ô¤ »ñÚU-·¤æÙêÙè çÙ×æü‡æ·¤æØü ·¤ô ÚUô·¤Ùð ·¤æ çÙÎüðàæ çÎØæ, Üðç·¤Ù çÙ×æü‡æ ·¤æØü Ùãè´ L¤·¤æÐ ßæ§ü·Ô¤çâ´ã ¿õãæÙ Ùð y ÁêÙ ·¤ô çÙc·¤æçâÌ ßÙ Öêç× ·Ô¤ â´Õ´Ï ×ð´ ¥ôÕÚUæ ßÙÂýÖæ» ·Ô¤ ÂýÖæ»èØ ßÙæçÏ·¤æÚUè °âÂè ¿õÚUçâØæ, âôÙÖÎý ßÙ ÂýÖæ» ·Ô¤ÂýÖæ»èØ ßÙæçÏ·¤æÚUè ¥õÚU Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ ©ÂæŠØÿæ ßè·Ô¤ àæ×æü ·¤ô Â˜æ çÜ¹·¤ÚU

ÇUæÜæ çSÍÌ ×ÜèÙ ÕSÌèßæçâØæð´ ÂÚU ·¤ãUÚU ÉUæÌè ÂéçÜâ


06¥æòÜ ÚUæ§ÅU÷â ×æ¿ü 2013ALL RIGHTS

·¤éÀ ÎSÌæßðÁ ×æ»ð Üðç·¤Ù ©‹ãôÙð ÎSÌæßðÁ ×éãñØæÙãè´ ·¤ÚUæ°Ð ÕæÎ ×ð´ ×é�Ø ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ·¤ ¥æÁ×ÁñÎè Ùð v® ÁêÙ ·¤ô ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ßÙ çßÖæ» ·Ô¤Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ Âý×é¹ âç¿ß ¿´¿Ü çÌßæÚUè ·¤ô Â˜æçÜ¹·¤ÚU ·¤ôÅUæ »æ´ß çSÍÌ â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ Öêç× ÂÚUÁðÂè âéÂÚU âè×ð´ÅU ŒÜæ´ÅU ·Ô¤ »ñÚU-·¤æÙêÙè çÙ×æü‡æ·¤æØü ·¤ô Ìˆ·¤æÜ ÂýÖæß âð ÚUô·¤Ùð ·¤æ çÙÎüðàæ çÎØæ,Üðç·¤Ù ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ âÚU·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ Ùé×æ§´Îô´ ·¤è·¤æØüàæñÜè ×ð ·¤ô§ü ÕÎÜæß Ùãè ¥æØæ ¥õÚU Áð°°Ü·¤æ çÙ×æü‡æ ·¤æØü ÁæÚUè ÚUãæÐ

ÁØ Âý·¤æàæ °âôçâ°ÅU÷â çÜç×ÅUðÇ ·Ô¤·¤æØü·¤æÚUè ¥ŠØÿæ ¥ÁØ àæ×æü Ùð wx ÁêÙ ·¤ô·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ (×ŠØ ÿæð˜æ)·Ô¤ ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ·¤ ·¤ô Â˜æ çÜ¹·¤ÚU ¥ÂÙè âÈ¤æ§üÎèÐ ©â×ð´ ©‹ãô´Ùð Îæßæ ç·¤Øæ ç·¤ çßßæçÎÌ Öêç×(ŒÜæòÅU â´�Øæ-xw®®) ØêÂè°ââèâè°Ü ·¤è È¤ýèãôËÇ Öêç× ãñ ¥õÚU ßã â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ ÿæð˜æ ·Ô¤ ÌãÌÙãè´ ¥æÌè ãñÐ ©‹ãô´Ùð Øã Öè Îæßæ ç·¤Øæ ç·¤çßßæçÎÌ Á×èÙ ÂÚU ·¤ô§ü »ñÚU-·¤æÙêÙè çÙ×æü‡æ ·¤æØüÙãè´ ãô ÚUãæ ãñÐ

¥ÁØ àæ×æü ·Ô¤ Îæßô´ ·¤ô ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ°ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ Ùð âæÈ¤ ¹æçÚUÁ ·¤ÚU çÎØæ ãñÐ×´ ææÜØ Ùð §â â´Õ´Ï ×ð ßÙ Õ´ÎôÕSÌ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè,¥ôÕÚUæ ·Ô¤ v{ ¥ÂýñÜ,v~~w ·Ô¤ ¥æÎðàæ ·¤æãßæÜæ çÎØæ ãñ, çÁââð âæÈ¤ ãñ ç·¤ ŒÜæ´ÅU â´�Øæ-xw®® ·¤è ßÙ Õ´ÎôÕSÌ ÂýçR¤Øæ âéÂýè× ·¤ôÅUü ·Ô¤¥æÎðàæô´ ·Ô¤ ÌãÌ ÂêÚUè ãô ¿é·¤è Íè ¥õÚU ßã Öêç×â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ Öêç× ƒæôçáÌ ãô ¿é·¤è ÍèÐ ©â Öêç×·Ô¤ ÂýSÌæß ·¤ô ÖæÚUÌèØ ßÙ ¥çÏçÙØ× ·¤è ÏæÚUæ-w® ·Ô¤ ÌãÌ ¥çÏâêç¿Ì ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæßÙ çßÖæ» ·Ô¤ Âæâ ÖðÁæ »Øæ ÍæÐ ¥ÁØ àæ×æü¥ÂÙð Â˜æ ×ð´ â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ Öêç× ÂÚU ØêÂèâèâè°Ü·Ô¤ ¹ÙÙ Â ð ·¤ô Öè È¤ýè ãôËÇ Öêç× ãôÙð ·¤æ Îæßæ·¤ÚUÌð ãñ ÁÕç·¤ ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´ ææÜØ·¤æ Îæßæ ãñ ç·¤ â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ Öêç× ·¤´ÂÙè ·¤ô Â^ðÂÚU Îè »§ü Íè, çÁâ·¤è ¥ßçÏ ·¤ÚUèÕ ÇðÉ¸ Îàæ·¤ÂãÜð ãè ¹ˆ× ãô ¿é·¤è ãñÐ ¥Õ ©â Öêç× ÂÚU

¹ÙÙ ·¤æØü ·Ô¤ çÜ° âéÂýè× ·¤ôÅUü ·Ô¤ ¥æÎðàæ ·Ô¤ÌãÌ ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ âð¥ÙæÂçžæ Âý×æ‡æ-Â˜æ ÜðÙæ ÂÇ¸ð»æÐ Øã âæÈ¤ ãô¿é·¤æ ãñ ç·¤ Â^æÏæÚU·¤ Â^ð ßæÜè Öêç× ·¤æ Sßæ×èÙãè´ ãôÌæ ãñÐ

§â â´Õ´Ï ×ð´ âôÙÖÎý ·Ô¤ ¥çÌçÚUQ¤çÁÜæçÏ·¤æÚUè ·Ô¤. çâ´ã ¥õÚU ¥ôÕÚUæ ßÙ ÂýÖæ» ·Ô¤ÂýÖæÚUè ßÙæçÏ·¤æÚUè °âÂè ¿õÚUçâØæ Ùð wz ÁéÜæ§ü·¤ô âôÙÖÎý ·Ô¤ çÁÜæçÏ·¤æÚUè ÂÙÏæÚUè ØæÎß ·¤ôçÙÚUèÿæ‡æ çÚUÂôÅUü âõ´ÂèÐ ©âè çÎÙ ©‹ãô´Ùð ·Ô¤´ÎýèØÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ ·Ô¤ ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ·¤ ·¤ôÖè Â˜æ çÜ¹·¤ÚU Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ Îæßô´ ·Ô¤ â´Õ´Ï ×ð´ÁßæÕ ÖðÁæÐ ¥»ÚU çÁÜæ ÂýàææâÙ ·Ô¤ çÙÚUèÿæ‡æçÚUÂôÅUü ¥õÚU °âÂè ¿õÚUçâØæ ·Ô¤ Â˜æ ÂÚU »õÚU ·¤ÚUð´Ìô ßð ÁØ Âý·¤æàæ °âôçâ°ÅU÷â çÜç×ÅUðÇ ·Ô¤ Îæßô´·¤è ãè ÂéçC ·¤ÚUÌð ÙÁÚU ¥æÌð ãñÐ ÎôÙô´ ¥çÏ·¤æçÚUØô´Ùð âéÂýè× ·¤ôÅUü ·Ô¤ ¥æÎðàæ ÌãÌ â´Âóæ ãé§ü ßÙÕ´ÎôÕSÌ ÂýçR¤Øæ ·¤ô Ù¸ÁÚU ¥´ÎæÁ ·¤ÚUÌð ãé°Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ Âÿæ ×ð´ Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ ßÙ Õ´ÎôÕSÌ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè ßè·Ô¤ ŸæèßæSÌß ·Ô¤ Èñ¤âÜð ·¤ô Ìß’ÁôÎèÐ ©‹ãô´Ùð Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ ·¤æØü·¤æÚUè ¥ŠØÿæ ¥ÁØàæ×æü ·Ô¤ Îæßô´ ·¤ô âãè ÆãÚUæØæÐ

§ââð ¥´ÎæÁæ Ü»æØæ Áæ â·¤Ìæ ãñ ç·¤ °·¤âô¿è-â×Ûæè ØôÁÙæ ·Ô¤ ÌãÌ âôÙÖÎý çÁÜæÂýàææâÙ, ¥ôÕÚUæ ÂýÖæ»èØ ßÙæçÏ·¤æÚUè °âÂè¿õÚUçâØæ ¥õÚU Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ ·¤æØü·¤æÚUè ¥ŠØÿæ¥ÁØ àæ×æü Ùð ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ·¤ô ÁßæÕ ÖðÁæÐ ßæ§ü·Ô¤ çâã ¿õãæÙ Ùð vw ÁéÜæ§ü·¤ô ¥ôÕÚUæ ßÙ ÂýÖæ» ·Ô¤ ÂýÖæ»èØ ßÙæçÏ·¤æÚUè°âÂè ¿õÚUçâØæ ·¤ô °·¤ ÕæÚU çÈ¤ÚU Â˜æ çÜ¹æ ¥õÚU©Ù·Ô¤ ÁßæÕ âð âÕçÏÌ ÎSÌæßðÁ ©ÂÜŽÏ ·¤ÚUæÙð·¤æ çÙÎüðàæ çÎØæ Üðç·¤Ù ©‹ãô´Ùð ÎSÌæßðÁ ©ÂÜŽÏÙãè´ ·¤ÚUæ°Ð ¿õãæÙ Ùð v} ¥»SÌ ·¤ô ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæßÙ çßÖæ» ·Ô¤ ç×ÁæüÂéÚU çÇçßÁÙ ·Ô¤ ×é�Ø ßÙâ´ÚUÿæ·¤ °â·Ô¤ àæ×æü ·¤ô Â˜æ çÜ¹æ, çÁâ×ð ©‹ãô´Ùð©Ùâð ¥ÙéÚUôÏ ç·¤Øæ ç·¤ ßð ÂýÖæ»èØ ßÙæçÏ·¤æÚUè,¥ôÕÚUæ ¥õÚU ÚUæÕÅU÷âü»´Á ·¤ô â´Õ´çÏÌ ¥çÖÜð¹

©ÂÜŽÏ ·¤ÚUæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° çÙÎüðàæ Îð Ìæç·¤ ©Ù·Ô¤ Îæßô·¤è ÂéçC ·¤è Áæ â·Ô¤ Üðç·¤Ù ×æ×Üæ Áâ ·¤æ ÌâÕÙæ ÚUãæÐ §ÌÙæ ãè Ùãè´ ¿õãæÙ Ùð w® çÎâ´ÕÚU ·¤ô©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ßÙ çßÖæ» ·Ô¤ Âý×é¹ ×é�Ø ßÙâ´ÚUÿæ·¤ ·¤ô Öè Â˜æ çÜ¹æ ¥õÚU ÚUæÕÅU÷âü»´Á ·Ô¤Ìˆ·¤æÜèÙ âãæØ·¤ ¥çÖÜð¹ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè ßè·Ô¤ŸæèßæSÌß ·¤ô ßÙ Õ´ÎôÕSÌ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè çÙØéQ¤·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ â´Õ´Ï ×ð´ ÁæÚUè ¥çÏâê¿Ùæ ¥õÚU ¥‹Øâ´Õ´çÏÌ ÎSÌæßðÁô´ ·¤è ×æ´» ·¤èÐ âæÍ ãè ©‹ãô´ÙðßÙ â´ÚUÿæ‡æ ¥çÏçÙØ× ·Ô¤ ÂýæßÏæÙô´ ¥õÚU âéÂýè×·¤ôÅUü ·Ô¤ ¥æÎðàæô´ ·¤æ ©„´ƒæÙ ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ Îôáè ßè·Ô¤ŸæèßæSÌß ·Ô¤ ç¹ÜæÈ¤ ·¤æÚUüßæ§ü ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ°·¤ãæÐ ãæÜæ´ç·¤ ÚUæ’Ø âÚU·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ Ùé×æ§´Îô´ ÂÚU §ÙÂ˜æô´ ·¤æ ·¤ô§ü ¥âÚU Ùãè´ ãé¥æÐ ßáü w®vv ×ð´·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´ ææÜØ ·Ô¤ ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ·¤



ßæ§ü·Ô¤ çâ´ã ¿õãæÙ Ùð v} ÁÙßÚUè ¥õÚU wy ×æ¿ü·¤ô ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ âÚU·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ âç¿ß (ßÙ) ÂßÙ·¤é×æÚU ·¤ô Â˜æ çÜ¹·¤ÚU ×æ×Üð ÂÚU ·¤è »§ü ·¤æÚUüßæ§ü·¤è çÚUÂôÅUü ×æ´»è Üðç·¤Ù ·¤ô§ü ÁßæÕ Ùãè´ ¥æØæÐÁÕç·¤ âôÙÖÎý ×ð´ â´ÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ Öêç× ÂÚU ÁØÂý·¤æàæ °âôçâ°ÅU÷â çÜç×ÅUðÇ ·¤æ ¥ßñÏ çÙ×æü‡æ·¤æØü ÁæÚUè ÚUãæÐ Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ ¥ßñÏ çÙ×æü‡æ âðç¿´çÌÌ ¿õãæÙ Ùð wy ×æ¿ü ·¤ô ãè ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ßÙçßÖæ» ·Ô¤ ×é�Ø ßÙ â´ÚUÿæ·¤ Çè°Ù°â âé×Ù ·¤ôÖè Â˜æ çÜ¹æ ¥õÚU ×æ×Üð ÂÚU ·¤è »§ü ·¤æÚUüßæ§ü·¤è çÚUÂôÅUü ×æ´»è Üðç·¤Ù ÁßæÕ Éæ·¤ ·Ô¤ ÌèÙ ÂæÌßæÜæ ãè ÚUãæÐ ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ·¤è ¥ôÚU âð ÕæÚU-ÕæÚU Â˜æ çÜ¹Ùð ·Ô¤ ÕæÎ Öè ©žæÚUÂýÎðàæ âÚU·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ Ùé×æ§´Îô´ Ùð ÁØ Âý·¤æàæ°âôçâ°ÅU÷â çÜç×ÅUðÇ ·¤è ¥ôÚU âð ç·¤° Áæ ÚUãð

¥ßñÏ çÙ×æü‡æ ·¤ô ÚUô·¤Ùð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ·¤ô§ü ÂãÜ Ùãè´·¤è ¥õÚU Ùæ ãè ßÙ âÚUÿæ‡æ ¥çÏçÙØ× ·Ô¤ ÂýæßÏæÙô·Ô¤ ©„´ƒæÙ ·Ô¤ çÜ° çÁ�×ðÎæÚU ¥çÏ·¤æçÚUØô´ °ß´·¤×ü¿æçÚUØô´ ·Ô¤ ç¹ÜæÈ¤ ·¤æÚUüßæ§ü ·¤èÐ Øãæ´ Ì·¤ ç·¤Á´»Ü âð Ü·¤Ç¸è ¿éÙ·¤ÚU ÂðÅU ÂæÜÙð ßæÜð »ÚUèÕô´ÂÚU ÁéË× ÉæÙð ßæÜð ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ßÙ çßÖæ» ·Ô¤Ùé×æ§Îð âÚUçÿæÌ ßÙ ÿæð æ ¥õÚU ·ñ¤×êÚU ß‹ØÁèß çßãæÚU·¤è ãÁæÚUô´ °·¤Ç¸ Öêç× ÂÚU Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ ¥ßñÏ ·¤ŽÁð¥õÚU çÙ×æü‡æ ·¤æØü ·¤ô ÚUô·¤Ùð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ¥æ»ð Ùãè´¥æ°Ð ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ âÚU·¤æÚU Ùð Öè ×æ×Üð ·¤ô âéÂýè×·¤ôÅUü ×ð´ ÖðÁ·¤ÚU ÁðÂè â×êã ·¤ô ÚUæãÌ ÎèÐ ¥Õ×æ×Üæ âéÂýè× ·¤ôÅUü ·¤è ÂèÆ ·Ô¤ Âæâ Ü´çÕÌ ãñÜðç·¤Ù çßßæçÎÌ Öêç× ÂÚU Áð°°Ü ·¤æ çÙ×æü‡æ ·¤æØü¥Öè Öè ÁæÚUè ãñÐ §â·¤æ ¥´ÎæÁæ çÂÀÜð çÎÙô´ ¿é·¤ü×ð Â˜æ·¤æÚU ßæÌæü ·Ô¤ ÎõÚUæÙ ÁØ Âý·¤æàæ °âôçâ°ÅU÷âçÜç×ÅUðÇ ·¤è ¥ôÚU ç·¤° »° Îæßô´ âð Ü»æØæ Áæâ·¤Ìæ ãñÐ §â×ð´ Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ ¥çÏ·¤æçÚUØô´ Ùð ·¤ãæÍæ ç·¤ ¿é·¤ü ·¤è ÂýSÌæçßÌ ·ñ¤ŒÅUèß Í×üÜ ÂæòßÚUŒÜæ´ÅU ·¤è ÌèÙ §ü·¤æ§Øæ´ §â âæÜ ÁêÙ ×ð´ ¿æÜê ãôÁæ°´»èÐ ÁÕç·¤ ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ·Ô¤ ÙðàæÙÜ ÕôÇü ¥æòÈ¤ ßæ§ËÇÜæ§È¤ ·¤è SÍæ§ü

âç×çÌ Ùð Áð°°Ü ·¤è ·ñ¤ŒÅUèß Í×üÜ ÂæòßÚU ŒÜæ´ÅU·¤è ¿æÚUô´ §ü·¤æ§Øô´ ·¤ô ¥ÙæÂçžæ Âý×æ‡æ-Â˜æ ÎðÙð ·Ô¤Øô‚Ø Ùãè ÂæØæ ãñUÐ âç×çÌ ·¤è âÎSØ âç¿ß ÂýðÚU‡ææçÕ´Îýæ Ùð Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ ÂæòßÚU ŒÜæ´ÅU ·Ô¤ ÂýSÌæß ·¤ô ßÙâ´ÚUÿæ‡æ ¥çÏçÙØ×, ÂØæüßÚU‡æ â´ÚUÿæ‡æ ¥çÏçÙØ×¥õÚU ß‹ØÁèß â´ÚUÿæ‡æ ¥çÏçÙØ× ·Ô¤ ÂýæßÏæÙô´ ·¤æ©„´ƒæÙ ÕÌæØæ ãñÐ ÂæòßÚU ŒÜæ´ÅU ·¤è §ü·¤æ§Øô´ ·Ô¤çÙ×æü‡æ ¥õÚU â´¿æÜÙ ·Ô¤ çÜ° ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ßÙ ×´ ææÜØ Ùð ¥Öè Ì·¤ ¥ÙæÂçžæ Âý×æ‡æ-Â˜æ ÖèÁæÚUè Ùãè´ ç·¤Øæ ãñÐ §â·Ô¤ ÕæßÁêÎ ÁØ Âý·¤æàæ°âôçâ°ÅU÷â çÜç×ÅUðÇ çÙ×æü‡æ ·¤æØôZ ·¤ô ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ðãé° ãñ ¥õÚU çÁÜæ ÂýàææâÙ ×ê·¤ Îàæü·¤ ·¤è Öêç×·¤æçÙÖæ ÚUãæ ãñÐ §Ù ãæÜæÌ ×ð´ ©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ ·Ô¤Ùõ·¤ÚUàææãô´ ·Ô¤ ãæÍ ×ð´ ÁÙÌæ ·¤è â´Âçžæ ç·¤ÌÙèâéÚUçÿæÌ ãñ, §â·¤æ ¥ÎæÁæ ¥æÂ Õ¹êÕè Ü»æ â·¤Ìðãñ´Ð ¥æçÎßæâè ÕãéÜ âôÙÖÎý ¥õÚU ç×ÁæüÂéÚU ·Ô¤¥æçÎßæçâØô´ ¥õÚU ßÙçÙßæçâØô´ ·¤ô ©Ù·¤æâ´ßñÏæçÙ·¤ ¥çÏ·¤æÚU ç×Ü Âæ°»æ! çÎ¹æ§ü Ùãè´ ÎðÌæÐ n

©žæÚU ÂýÎðàæ âÚU·¤æÚU Ùð Öè ×æ×Üð ·¤ô âéÂýè× ·¤ôÅUü ×ð´ ÖðÁ·¤ÚU ÁðÂè â×êã ·¤ô ÚUæãÌ ÎèÐ ¥Õ×æ×Üæ âéÂýè× ·¤ôÅUü ·¤è ÂèÆ ·Ô¤ Âæâ Ü´çÕÌ ãñ Üðç·¤Ù çßßæçÎÌ Öêç× ÂÚU Áð°°Ü ·¤æ

çÙ×æü‡æ ·¤æØü ¥Öè Öè ÁæÚUè ãñÐ §â·¤æ ¥´ÎæÁæ çÂÀÜð çÎÙô´ ¿é·¤ü ×ð´ Â˜æ·¤æÚU ßæÌæü ·Ô¤ ÎõÚUæÙÁØ Âý·¤æàæ °âôçâ°ÅU÷â çÜç×ÅUðÇ ·¤è ¥ôÚU ç·¤° »° Îæßô´ âð Ü»æØæ Áæ â·¤Ìæ ãñÐ §â×ð´Áð°°Ü ·Ô¤ ¥çÏ·¤æçÚUØô´ Ùð ·¤ãæ Íæ ç·¤ ¿é·¤ü ·¤è ÂýSÌæçßÌ ·ñ¤ŒÅUèß Í×üÜ ÂæòßÚU ŒÜæ´ÅU ·¤èÌèÙ §ü·¤æ§Øæ´ §â âæÜ ÁêÙ ×ð´ ¿æÜê ãô Áæ°´»èÐ ÁÕç·¤ ·Ô¤´ÎýèØ ÂØæüßÚU‡æ °ß´ ßÙ ×´˜ææÜØ·Ô¤ ÙðàæÙÜ ÕôÇü ¥æòÈ¤ ßæ§ËÇÜæ§È¤ ·¤è SÍæ§ü âç×çÌ Ùð Áð°°Ü ·¤è ·ñ¤ŒÅUèß Í×üÜ ÂæòßÚU

ŒÜæ´ÅU ·¤è ¿æÚUô´ §ü·¤æ§Øô´ ·¤ô ¥ÙæÂçžæ Âý×æ‡æ-Â˜æ ÎðÙð ·Ô¤ Øô‚Ø Ùãè´ ÂæØæ ÍæÐ

([email protected])

07 ¥æòÜ ÚUæ§ÅU÷â UU×æ¿ü 2013ALL RIGHTS

08¥æòÜ ÚUæ§ÅU÷â UU×æ¿ü 2013ALL RIGHTS

Âè° âÚU·¤æÚU Ùð ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ×ð´ ÁÕÎüSÌÕÉ¸ôžæÚUè ·¤è ãñU Üðç·¤Ù §â·¤æ È¤æØÎæ ¥æ×·Ô¤ ÕÁæØ ¹æâ ç·¤âæÙ ©Ææ ÚUãð ãñ´Ð ØçÎ

§â·¤è Áæ´¿ ·¤ÚUæ§ü Áæ° Ìô °·¤ ¥õÚU ·¤ôÜ»ðÅU âæ×Ùð¥æ â·¤Ìæ ãñUÐ ·ë¤çá «¤‡æ w®®y-®z ×ð´ ·¤éÜ °·¤Üæ¹ Âæ¢¿ ãUÁæÚU ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤ÂØð Íæ Áô w®vw-vx ×ð´ÕÉ¸·¤ÚU z Üæ¹ |z ãUÁæÚU ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤ÂØð ãô »ØæÐçÂÀÜð ¥æÆ ßáôZ ×ð´ ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ×ð´ Ù çâÈ¤ü Âæ´¿ »éÙæâð ’ØæÎæ ·¤è ÕÉ¸ôˆÌÚUè ãé§ü ÕçË·¤ ãÚU âæÜ ÜÿØ ·¤èÌéÜÙæ ×ð´ ’ØæÎæ ·¤Áü Õæ´ÅUð »°Ð }v È¤èâÎè ÀôÅUð ßâè×æ´Ì ç·¤âæÙô´ ·Ô¤ çãSâð ×ð´ Õ×éçà·¤Ü §â·¤æ zÈ¤èâÎè ·¤Áü ãè ¥æØæÐ àæðá ×Üæ§ü ÕÇ¸ð ç·¤âæÙô´,ÃØæÂæçÚUØô´ ß ©lô»ÂçÌØô´ ·Ô¤ ¹æÌð ×ð´ »§üÐ ©ÎæãÚU‡æ·Ô¤ çÜ° ¹ðÌè ·Ô¤ çÜ° çÎ° ÁæÙð ßæÜð ·¤Áü ×ð´âÕâð ’ØæÎæ çãSâðÎæÚUè çÎËÜè ¥õÚU ¿´Çè»É¸ ·¤è ãñÐw®®~-v® ×ð´ §Ù Îô àæãÚUô´ ·¤ô çÁÌÙæ ·¤ëçá«¤‡æ (xw,y®® ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤ÂØð) çÎØæ »Øæ ßã ©ˆÌÚUÂýÎðàæ, çÕãæÚU, Âçà¿× Õ´»æÜ ¥õÚU ÛææÚU¹´Ç ·¤ô ç×Üð·¤éÜ ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ (xv,®®® ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤ÂØð) âð Öè¥çÏ·¤ ãñ Ð âæÌ È¤èâÎè ·¤è ŽØæÁ ÎÚU, â×Ø ÂÚU·¤Áü ¿é·¤æÙð ßæÜð ç·¤âæÙô´ ·¤ô ŽØæÁ ×ð´ ÌèÙ È¤èâÎèÚUæãÌ ÎðÙð ¥õÚU ç·¤âæÙ R¤ðçÇÅU ·¤æÇü ·¤ô S×æÅUü ·¤æÇü×ð´ ÕÎÜ·¤ÚU ¥ÂÙè ÂèÆ ÍÂÍÂæÙð ßæÜè ·Ô¤´Îý âÚU·¤æÚU·Ô¤ Âæâ Øã Îð¹Ùð ·¤è È¤éâüÌ Ùãè´ ãñ ç·¤ ßãÁM¤ÚUÌ×´Îô´ Ì·¤ Âãé´¿ Öè ÚUãæ ãñ Øæ Ùãè´ Ð çßˆÌèØâ×æßðàæÙ ·Ô¤ ÜÿØ ·¤ô ãæçâÜ ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° Õñ´·¤ô´ÂÚU Øã ÎÕæß ÕÙæØæ »Øæ ãñ ç·¤ ßð ’ØæÎæ âð ’ØæÎæÀôÅUð ß âè×æ´Ì ç·¤âæÙô´ ·Ô¤ ¹æÌð ¹ôÜð¢Ð §â·Ô¤ ÕæÎÕñ·¤ô´ Ùð ç·¤âæÙô´ ·Ô¤ ¹æÌð ¹ôÜÙð àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU çÎ°Üðç·¤Ù ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ·¤è ÂçÚUÖæáæ ×ð´ ÕÎÜæß Ùð âÕ»éÇ¸ »ôÕÚU ·¤ÚU çÎØæÐ §â·Ô¤ ÌãÌ ÃØæÂæçÚUØô´,©lô»ÂçÌØô´, ·¤´ÂçÙØô´, âÚU·¤æÚUè ÂýçÌcÆæÙô´ ¥æçÎ ·¤ôçÎ° »° ·¤Áü ·¤ô Öè ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ·ð¤ ÎæØÚUð ×ð Üð çÜØæ»Øæ Ð çÈ¤ÚU ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ·¤è ª¤ÂÚUè âè×æ ×ð´ ÕÉ¸ôˆÌÚUè·Ô¤ ¿ÜÌð ©â·¤æ ÜæÖ ÕÇ¸ð ·¤ÁüÎæÚUô´ ·¤ô ç×ÜÙð Ü»æãñ Ð Áãæ´ v~~® ×ð´ ·¤éÜ ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ·¤æ Ü»Ö» {®È¤èâÎè çãSâæ ÀôÅUð ß âè×æ´Ì ç·¤âæÙô´ ·¤ô çÎØæ »Øæßãè´ v~~z ×ð´ Øã zw È¤èâÎè, w®®x ×ð´ wx.zÈ¤èâÎè ¥õÚU w®®{ ×ð´ vx.x È¤èâÎè ãè ÚUã »ØæÐÎêâÚUè ¥ôÚU §â ¥ßçÏ ×ð´ ÕÇ¸ð ·¤ÁüÎæÚUô´ ·¤ô çÎ° ÁæÙðßæÜð °·¤ ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤ÂØð âð ¥çÏ·¤ ·Ô¤ «¤‡æô´ ·¤è ×æ˜ææ×ð´ ¿æÚU »éÙð âð ¥çÏ·¤ ·¤è ßëçh ãô ¿é·¤è ãñ Ð

Õñ´·¤ô´ ·Ô¤ ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ·¤ô âæ×æ‹ØÌØæ Îô çãSâô´×ð´ Õæ´ÅUæ ÁæÌæ ãñ, ¥ÂýˆØÿæ ¥õÚU ÂýˆØÿæÐ ÂýˆØÿæ «¤‡æ×ð´ âèÏð ç·¤âæÙô´ ·¤ô çÎ° ÁæÙð ßæÜð ·¤Áü àææç×Üç·¤° ÁæÌð ãñ ÁÕç·¤ ¥Âý Øÿæ «¤‡æ âèÏð ç·¤âæÙô´ ·¤ôÙ Îð·¤ÚU ·¤ëçá ©ˆÂæÎÙ ×ð´ âãæØÌæ ÎðÙð ßæÜè»çÌçßçÏØô´ ·Ô¤ çÜ° çÎ° ÁæÌð ãñ´ Áñâð ¹æÎ, ÕèÁ,ÂæÙè Øæ çÕÁÜè ÕôÇü ·¤ô çÎ° »° ·¤ÁüÐ ßáü v~~®Ì·¤ Õñ´·¤ô´ mæÚUæ çßÌçÚUÌ ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ×ð´ ÂýˆØÿæ ß¥ÂýˆØÿæ «¤‡æô´ ·¤æ â´ÌéÜÙ ÕÙæ ÚUãÌæ Íæ Üðç·¤Ù

©â·Ô¤ ÕæÎ ¥Âý Øÿæ «¤‡æô´ ·¤æ ÂÜÇ¸æ ÖæÚUè ãôÙð Ü»æÐ©ÎæãÚU‡æ ·Ô¤ çÜ° v~~® ×ð ¥Ùéâêç¿Ì Õñ·¤ô´ ·Ô¤ ·¤éÜ·¤ëçá «¤‡æ ×ð ¥Âý Øÿæ çßˆÌ ·¤æ çãSâæ vx.w È¤èâÎèÍæ Áô w®®v ×ð´ v{.v È¤èâÎè ãUô »ØæÐ ©â·Ô¤ ÕæÎØãU ÌðÁè âð ÕÉ·¤ÚU w®®{ ×ð w|.~ È¤èâÎè ãô »ØæÐ§â Âý·¤æÚU ßáü w®®® ·Ô¤ ÕæÎ ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ×ð´ ÁôÕÉ¸ôˆÌÚUè çÎ¹æ§ü Îð ÚUãè ãñ, ©â×ð´ ÕÇ¸æ Øô»ÎæÙ¥ÂýˆØÿæ «¤‡æô´ ØæÙè »ñÚU ç·¤âæÙô´ ·¤ô çÎ° »° ·¤ÁôZ·¤æ ãñ Ð ÎÚU¥âÜ Õñ´·¤ô´ ·¤ô ·¤ëçá ¥õÚU â´Õh ÿæð˜æô´·Ô¤ çÜ° ¥ÂÙð ·¤éÜ «¤‡æ ·¤æ ·¤× âð ·¤× ¥Å÷UÆUæÚUãÈ¤èâÎè «¤‡æ ÎðÙð ·¤æ Áô ÜÿØ çÎØæ ÁæÌæ ãñ, ÂãÜð©â×ð´ ÂýˆØÿæ «¤‡æô´ ·¤è ãè ç»ÙÌè ãôÌè ÍèÐ ßáüv~~x âð §â ÜÿØ ÂêçÌü ×ð´ ¥ÂýˆØÿæ ·¤ëçá «¤‡æ ·¤ôÖè àææç×Ü ç·¤Øæ ÁæÙð Ü»æÐ §â·Ô¤ ÕæÎ ¥ÂýˆØÿæ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ·¤æ ÎæØÚUæ Ü»æÌæÚU ÕÉ¸æÌð ãé° ©â×ð´ ·¤§üÙ° «¤‡æô´ ·¤ô àææç×Ü ç·¤Øæ ÁæÙð Ü»æÐ ©ÎæãÚU‡æ ·Ô¤çÜ° ×§ü v~~y âð ·¤ëçá âð ÁéÇ¸ðU Ï´Ïô´ ·Ô¤ ÃØæÂæçÚUØô´·¤ô, v~~{ âð çÇþÂ-çSÂý´·¤ÜÚU çâ´¿æ§ü ©Â·¤ÚU‡æô´ ·Ô¤ÇèÜÚUô´ ·¤ô, w®®v âð ·¤ëçá ÂýØôÁÙ ·Ô¤ çÜ° çÕÁÜèÂý‡ææÜè âéÏæÚU ·¤ô, ¥»SÌ w®®v âð °»ýè-ç€UÜçÙ·¤¥õÚU °»ýè çÕÁÙâ ·Ô¤Îýô ·¤ô, ÁéÜæ§ü w®®v âð »ýæ×è‡æçßléÌè·¤ÚU‡æ çÙ»× mæÚUæ ÕæÇô ·¤è ¹ÚUè¼ ·¤ô Öè Âý Øÿæ«¤‡æô´ ×ð´ àææç×Ü ·¤ÚU çÜØæ »ØæÐ §â·ð¤ ¥ÜæßæÙß´ÕÚU w®®w âð »ýæ×è‡æ §Üæ·¤ô´ ×ð´ »ôÎæ×,·¤ôËÇSÅUôÚUðÁ, ×´Çè ƒæÚU ÕÙæÙð ·Ô¤ «¤‡æ ·¤ô, w®®zâð çÕÁÜè çßÌÚU‡æ ·¤´ÂçÙØô´ ·¤ô, ¥ÂýñÜ w®®| âð¹ðÌè ¥õÚU ÂàæéÂæÜÙ ·Ô¤ çÜ° ·¤´ÂÙè ·¤ô çÎ° »° °·¤·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤ÂØð âð ’ØæÎæ ·Ô¤ ·¤Áü ¥õÚU ¥ÂýñÜ w®®|âð ãè ¹æl °ß ·¤ëçá ÂýâS·¤ÚU‡æ ©lô»ô ·¤ô Îâ ·¤ÚUôÇL¤ÂØð Ì·¤ çÎ° ÁæÙð ßæÜð «¤‡æô´ ·¤ô ÂýˆØÿæ «¤‡æô´ ×ð´

àææç×Ü ·¤ÚU çÜØæ »ØæÐ ¥ÂýˆØÿæ «¤‡æ ·Ô¤ ¥ÜæßæÂýˆØÿæ ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ·¤è ÂçÚUÖæáæ ·¤ô Öè ÕÎÜæ »Øæ ÐÕæ»æÙô´, ŒÜæ´ÅUðàæÙô´ ¥õÚU Õ»è¿ô´ ·¤ô çÎ° ÁæÙð ßæÜðâÖè Âý·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ «¤‡æô´ ·¤ô Âý Øÿæ ·¤ëçá «¤‡æ ×ð àææç×Ü·¤ÚU çÜØæ »ØæÐ §â Âý·¤æÚU ·¤ëçá «¤‡æ ·¤è ÂçÚUÖæáæ,ÎæØÚUð ¥õÚU âè×æ¥ô´ ·¤ô ÕÎÜ ·¤ÚU ç·¤âæÙô´ ·¤ô ·¤ÁüÎðÙð ·Ô¤ ÕÁæØ ÃØæÂæçÚUØô´, çÕ¿õçÜØô´, ©lô»ÂçÌØô´,·¤´ÂçÙØô´ ¥õÚU âÚU·¤æÚUè ÂýçÌcÆæÙô´ ·¤ô ·¤Áü çÎØæ ÁæÚUãæ ãñ Ð Øãæ´ °·¤ ¥õÚU ©ËÜð¹ÙèØ ÕæÌ ãñ ç·¤ç·¤âæÙô´ ·¤ô Áô «¤‡æ âèÏð ç×Ü ÚUãæ ãñ ©â×ð´ ÕÇ¸ðç·¤âæÙô´ ·¤æ çãSâæ ÕÉ¸ ÚUãæ ãñ Ð ÂýˆØÿæ ·¤ëçá «¤‡æ ×ð´Â‘¿èâ ãÁæÚU L¤ÂØð Ì·¤ ·Ô¤ «¤‡æô´ ·¤æ çãSâæ v~~®×ð´ {{.v È¤èâÎè Íæ Ð ßáü w®®{ ×ð´ Øã ƒæÅU·¤ÚUv}.v È¤èâÎè ãô »Øæ Ð ÎêâÚUè ¥ôÚU Îô Üæ¹ L¤ÂØðâð ª¤ÂÚU ·Ô¤ «¤‡æô´ ·¤æ çãSâæ v~~® ×ð´ |.} È¤èâÎâð ÕÉ¸·¤ÚU w®®{ ×ð´ x~.w È¤èâÎè ãô »ØæÐ çÈ¤ÚUçÁÙ âã·¤æÚUè â´SÍæ¥ô´ ·¤ô ç·¤âæÙô´ ·¤æ ç×˜æ â×ÛææÁæÌæ ãñ, ©UÙ·¤è ãUçSâð¼æÚUè ·¤éÜ ·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ×ð´v~~x-~y ×ð´ {w È¤èâÎè âð ƒæÅU·¤ÚU w®®~ ×ð´ vwÈ¤èâÎè ÚUã »§üÐ §âè Âý·¤æÚU ÿæð˜æèØ »ýæ×è‡æ Õñ´·¤ÂéÙ»üÆÙ ·Ô¤ ÕæÎ ×éÙæÈÔ¤ ·¤ô ÂýæÍç×·¤Ìæ ÎðÙð Ü»ð ãñ´ Ð§â·¤æ ÙÌèÁæ Õãéâ´�Ø·¤ ç·¤âæÙô´ ·Ô¤ âæãê·¤æÚUô´-×ãæÁÙô´ ¥õÚU âêÿ× «¤‡æ â´SÍæ¥ô´ ÂÚU ÕÉ¸Ìè çÙÖüÚUÌæ·Ô¤ M¤Â ×ð´ âæ×Ùð ¥æØæ Áô ©‹ãð´ ·¤´»æÜè ¥õÚU È¤æ´âè·Ô¤ È¤´Îð Ì·¤ Üð »Øæ Ð ÚUæcÅþèØ ¥ÂÚUæÏ çÚU·¤æÇü ŽØêÚUô·Ô¤ ×éÌæçÕ·¤ v~~z âð w®v® ·Ô¤ Õè¿ w.z| Üæ¹¥‹ÙÎæÌæ ç·¤âæÙô´ Ùð ¥æˆ×ãˆØæ ·¤ô »Üð Ü»æØæÐ n

·¤ëçá «¤‡æô´ ·¤è·¤Ç¸ßè ã·¤è·¤Ì

ØêÚ×ðàæ ·é¤×æÚU ÎéÕð

×éÎ÷Îæ

Üð¹·¤ SßÌ´˜æ Â˜æ·¤æÚU ãñ´UÐ([email protected])

âçŽâÇUè


âÎ ×ð´ Âðàæ ¥æçÍü·¤ âßðü 2012-vx ×ð´ ·¤§üU âéŠææÚUæð´ ·ð¤ âæÍâçŽâÇUè ·¤× ·¤ÚUÙð ·¤è çâÈ¤æçÚUàæ ·¤è »§üU ãñUÐ °·¤ ¥ôÚU Áãæ´Õãéâ´�Ø·¤ ¥æÕæÎè ·¤è âæ×æçÁ·¤ âéÚUÿææ ·¤ô È¤ýè Ü´¿ ·Ô¤ ÌõÚU ÂÚU

Îð¹æ Áæ ÚUãæ ãñ, ßãè´ àææØÎ ãè ·¤ô§ü ÂñÙðçÜSÅU Øæ ¥¹ÕæÚU ·Ô¤ Üð¹·¤ §´ÇSÅþè·¤ô âæÜ-ÎÚU-âæÜ çÎ° Áæ ÚUãð È¤ýè ×´ÍÜè ÚUæàæÙ ·¤è ·¤Öè ÕæÌ ·¤ÚUÌð ãô´ÐÈ¤·¤ü çâÈ¤ü §ÌÙæ-âæ ãñ ç·¤ ¥×èÚUô´ ·¤ô Îè Áæ ÚUãè çÚUØæØÌ âçŽâÇè Ùãè´·¤ãÜæÌèÐ §‹ãð´ çß·¤æâ ·Ô¤ çÜ° §´âðç‹ÅUÃâ ·¤ãæ ÁæÌæ ãñÐ âçŽâÇè °·¤ ÕéÚUæàæŽÎ ÕÙ »Øæ ãñ, ÁÕç·¤ §´âð´çÅUß â�×æÙ ·Ô¤ âæÍ ÕôÜæ ÁæÌæ ãñÐ àææØÎ ãè°ðâæ ·¤ô§ü çÎÙ »éÁÚUÌæ ãô, ÁÕ ¥¹ÕæÚUô´ ·Ô¤ ÂãÜð Âóæð ÂÚU ÅUèßè ·¤æØüR¤×ô´×ð´ »ÚUèÕô´ ·¤ô Îè ÁæÙð ßæÜè âçŽâÇè ·¤× ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ Ì·¤ü ¥õÚU SÅUôÚUè âéÙÙð-Îð¹Ùð ·¤ô Ù ç×ÜÌè ãô´Ð ×éÛæð ç×ÅU ÚUô×Ùè ·Ô¤ ©â Îæßð ·¤è ØæÎ ¥æÌè ãñ,çÁâ×ð ©‹ãô´Ùð ·¤ãæ Íæ ç·¤ y| È¤èâÎ ¥×ÚUè·¤è ·¤ÚU Ùãè´ ÎðÌð, §âçÜ° ©‹ãô´Ùðâ×Ûææ ç·¤ çÚUÂçŽÜ·¤Ù ·¤ô ©Ù·Ô¤ ÕæÚUð ×ð´ ç¿´Ìæ ·¤ÚUÙð ·¤è ÁM¤ÚUÌ Ùãè´ ãñÐ ßáüw®vw-vx ×ð´ Áãæ´ ·¤éÜ ÕÁÅU ¹¿ü vy.~ Üæ¹ ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ Íæ, âçŽâÇè ·Ô¤çÜ° v.|} Üæ¹ ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤ÂØð ÚU¹ð »° Íð ¥õÚU Îéãæ§ü Øã Îè Áæ ÚUãè ãñ ç·¤ÚUæÁ·¤ôáèØ ƒææÅUð ·¤ô ·¤× ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° âçŽâÇè ×ð´ ·¤ÅUõÌè ·¤è Áæ°Ð

»õÚUÌÜÕ ãñ ç·¤ §Ù âçŽâÇèÁ ·¤æ °·¤ ÕÇ¸æ çãSâæ ÖôÁÙ, È¤çÅUüÜæ§ÁÚU ¥õÚUÂðÅþôçÜØ× ·¤ô ÁæÌæ ãñÐ çÂÀÜð ·¤éÀ ×ãèÙô´ âð ·Ô¤´Îý âÚU·¤æÚU Ùð ÂðÅþôçÜØ× âçŽâÇèâð Ü»æÌæÚU ãæÍ ÂèÀð ¹è´¿ð ãñ´Ð ÂãÜð ÂðÅþôÜ ·¤ô çÙØ´˜æ‡æ ×éQ¤ ç·¤Øæ »Øæ ¥õÚU ¥ÕãæÜ ãè ×ð´ ÇèÁÜ ·¤ô ¥æ´çàæ·¤ ÌõÚU ÂÚU çÙØ´˜æ‡æ ×éQ¤ ç·¤Øæ »Øæ ãñÐ çÚUØæØÌè°ÜÂèÁè çâÜð´ÇÚUô´ ÂÚU Îè ÁæÙð ßæÜè âçŽâÇè Öè ·¤× ·¤ÚU Îè »§ü ãñÐ ·Ô¤ÚUôâèÙ ÂÚUâçŽâÇè ¥Öè Õ¿è ãé§ü ãñÐ È¤êÇ ¥õÚU È¤çÅUüÜæ§ÁÚU ·¤è ÕæÌ ·¤ÚUð´, Ìô ÇæØÚUð€UÅU ·ñ¤àæÅþæ´âÈ¤ÚU â×ðÌ âÖè ÌÚUã ·¤è çÌ·¤Ç¸× ÂýSÌæçßÌ ãñ´Ð ÚUðÜ ç·¤ÚUæØð ×ð´ ÕÉ¸ôÌÚUè ·¤è Áæ¿é·¤è ãñÐ âÚU·¤æÚU ·¤ô ç·¤ÚUæØæ ÕÉ¸æÙð ·Ô¤ ÕæÎ âæÜæÙæ {{ âõ ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ M¤ÂØð ¥æÙð·¤è ©�×èÎ ãñÐ §âçÜ° âÖè Âý·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ 'È¤ýè Ü´¿ðÁ', Áñâæ ç·¤ Âý×é¹ ¥ÍüàææS˜æè¥õÚU ·¤´âËÅUð´âè È¤×ü °‚Áè€UØêçÅUß ÅUðÜèçßÁÙ ÂÚU Ü»æÌæÚU ·¤ãÌð ãñ´, ÏèÚUð-ÏèÚUð ·¤×ç·¤° Áæ ÚUãð ã´ñÐ Üðç·¤Ù ÁÕ ÕæÌ §´ÇSÅþè ·¤è ãô, Ìô Ù çâÈ¤ü 'ÕýðÇ °´Ç ÕÅUÚ', ÕçË·¤ÂêÚUð ×ãèÙð ÖÚU ·¤æ ÚUæàæÙ ×é�UÌ ×éãñØæ ·¤ÚUæØæ Áæ ÚUãæ ãñÐ È¤·¤ü çâÈ¤ü §ÌÙæ-âæ ãñ,Áñâæ ç·¤ ×ñ´Ùð ÂãÜð Öè ÎôãÚUæØæ ç·¤ §‹ãð´ ç×ÜÙð ßæÜè çÚUØæØÌ ·¤ô âçŽâÇè Ùãè´,

ÕçË·¤ '§´âðç‹ÅUUÃâ È¤æòÚU »ýôÍ' ·¤æ Ùæ× çÎØæ ÁæÌæ ãñ ØæÙè ¥×èÚUô´ ·¤ô ÕãéÌ ¿ÌéÚUæ§ü·Ô¤ âæÍ »ýôÍ ·¤è ¥æÇ¸ ×ð´ âçŽâÇè ÂÚUôâè Áæ ÚUãè ãñÐ ×ñ´ °·¤ ãæçÜØæ ©ÎæãÚU‡æ ÎðÙæ¿æãê´»æÐ ÂýÏæÙ×´˜æè ·Ô¤ ×é�Ø ¥æçÍü·¤ âÜæã·¤æÚU âè. ÚU´»ÚUæÁÙ Ùð Øã ÂýSÌæß çÎØæç·¤ ÖæÚUÌ ×ð´ 'âéÂÚU-çÚU¿' Üô»ô´ ÂÚU ×õÁêÎæ x® È¤èâÎ ·¤è ÎÚU ·¤è ÕÁæØ y®È¤èâÎ ·¤è ©‘¿ ÎÚU âð ·¤ÚU ßâêÜÙæ ¿æçã°Ð ©Ù·Ô¤ Øã ·¤ãÙð ·Ô¤ ÕæÎ ÕßæÜ-âæ×¿ »ØæÐ §´çÇØæ §´·¤ ¥õÚU çÕÁÙðâ ÅUèßè ¿ñÙÜ ß ¥¹ÕæÚUô´ ·Ô¤ Üð¹·¤ô´ Ùð °·¤ÜØ ×ð´ 'âéÂÚU-çÚU¿' ÌÕ·Ô¤ ·¤ô ©‘¿ ·¤ÚU SÜñÕ ×ð´ Ù ÜæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ¥çÖØæÙ ÀðÇ¸çÎØæÐ §â·Ô¤ ÕæÎ °Ù¥æÚU¥æ§ü ¥ÍüàææS˜æØô´ Ùð Öè ÖæÚUÌèØ ¥¹ÕæÚUô´ ×ð´ Öæ»èÎæÚUèçÎ¹æÌð ãé° ¥ÂÙð ·¤æòÜ×ô´ ·Ô¤ ÁçÚUØð ·¤æòÚUÂôÚUðÅU ×´˜æ ·¤æ ÚUæ» ¥ÜæÂæÐ

¥»ÚU ¥æØ·¤ÚU ·¤è âè×æ ·¤ô 'âéÂÚU-çÚU¿' ÌÕ·Ô¤ ÂÚU ÕÉ¸æ çÎØæ Áæ°, Ìô âÚU·¤æÚU·¤ô âæÜæÙæ ww ãÁæÚU ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ ·¤æ ÚUæÁSß Âýæ# ãô»æÐ ¥Öè ·¤éÀ çÎÙô´ ÂãÜð SÅUæò·¤×æ·¤üðÅU w® ãÁæÚU ·Ô¤ ¥æ´·¤Ç¸ð ·¤ô ÂæÚU ·¤ÚU »Øæ, €UØô´ç·¤ âÚU·¤æÚU Ùð '»æÚU' ·¤ô w®v{

Ì·¤ ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÅUæÜ çÎØæÐ ¥·Ô¤Üð §â ·¤Î×âð ×æòÚUèàæâ Áñâð ÅUñ€Uâ Sß»ü Áñâð Îðàæô´ âð¥æÙð ßæÜð ·¤æÜð ÏÙ ÂÚU Ü»æ× Ü» ÁæÌèÐçÈ¤P¤è ¥õÚU âè¥æ§ü¥æ§ü ·Ô¤ ¥ŠØÿæ â×ðÌÕÇ¸ð çÕÁÙðâ ƒæÚUæÙô´ ·Ô¤ ×éç¹Øæ âæÈ¤ ÌõÚUÂÚU ¹éàæ çÎ¹æ§ü çÎ° ç·¤ »æÚU ·¤ô ÅUæÜ çÎØæ»Øæ ãñÐ ÎêâÚUð Ü�UÁô´ ×ð´ ·¤ãð´ Ìô çßÎðàæèâ´SÍæ»Ì çÙßðàæ·¤ô´ mæÚUæ ¥æ ÚUãð çÙßðàæ ÂÚU·¤ÚU ÀêÅU ÁæÚUè ÚUãÙð âð ßð ÕÇð ¹éàæ ãé°Ð ×ðÚUæ×æÙÙæ ãñ ç·¤ ¥»ÚU §â·¤æ çR¤Øæ‹ßØÙ ãôÁæÌæ Ìô Øã z® ãÁæÚU ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ âð ’ØæÎæ ·¤æâÈ¤æØæ ·¤ÚU ÎðÌæ, Üðç·¤Ù ¥×èÚUô´ ·¤ô ×é�UÌ×æçâ·¤ ÚUæàæÙ ç×ÜÙð Ì·¤ Ìô ØÍæçSÍçÌ·¤æØ× ãè ÚUãð»èÐ ßñâð Øã ¥×èÚU Á×æÌ ãèãñ Áô ·¤ÚU ·¤æÙêÙô´ ×ð´ âð »çÜØæ´ çÙ·¤æÜ·¤ÚUÁæØÁ ·¤ÚU ¿é·¤æÙð âð Õ¿Ìè ãñÐ ·Ô¤ÎýèØ çßžæ×´˜æè Âè. ç¿Î�ÕÚU× Ùð »éSâæ ÁæçãÚU ç·¤ØæÍæ ç·¤ ·¤ÚU ¥Îæ ·¤ÚUÙð ßæÜð x.z ·¤ÚUôÇ¸Üô»ô´ ×ð´ âð ×ãÁ vy.{ Üæ¹ Üô»ô´ Ùð ãè¥ÂÙè ¥æØ âæÜæÙæ v® Üæ¹ âð ’ØæÎæçÎ¹æ§ü Íè ØæÙè ÁæçãÚU ãñ ç·¤ ·¤ÚU ·¤æÙêÙô´·¤ô Üð·¤ÚU °·¤ ÕÇ¸è ¥çÙØç×ÌÌæ ãñ ¥õÚU·¤ÚU ·¤æÙêÙô´ ·¤è ÂæÜÙæ ·Ô¤ çÜ° âÖè ÂýØæâç·¤° ÁæÙð ÕðãÎ ÁM¤ÚUè ãñ´Ð ÂÚU ÕÇ¸æ âßæÜãñ ç·¤ €UØæ ¥×èÚUô´ âð ÂêÚUæ ·¤ÚU ßâêÜÙð ·¤ôÜð·¤ÚU »´ÖèÚU ÂýØæâ ãé° ãñ? ¥æÂ·¤æ ¥Ùé×æÙÖè ×ðÚUð Áñâæ ãè ãô»æÐ Ùãè´, ·¤Öè Ùãè´...¥æç¹ÚU·¤æÚU ¥×èÚUô´ ·¤ô ©Ù·¤æ ×é�UÌ ÚUæàæÙç×ÜÌð ÚUãÙæ ÁM¤ÚUè ãñÐ »õÚU ·¤ÚUÙð ÜæØ·¤

ÕæÌ ãñ ç·¤ w®vw ·Ô¤ ÕÁÅU ×ð´ §´çÇØæ §´·¤ ·¤ô z.w~ Üæ¹ ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤ÂØð ·¤è ·¤ÚUÀêÅU- çÁâð '§´âð´çÅUß È¤æòÚU »ýôÍ' ·¤ãæ ÁæÌæ ãñ- ç×ÜèÐ Øã ÚUæçàæ ©â ÚUæÁ·¤ôáèØƒææÅUð ·¤ô ¹ˆ× ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ·¤æÈ¤è ãñ, çÁâ·¤æ ÚUôÙæ ç¿Î�ÕÚU× ÚUôÌð ÚUãð ãñ´Ð ·¤ÚUÀêÅU ·Ô¤ ¥Üæßæ §Ù·Ô¤ mæÚUæ Âýæ·¤ëçÌ·¤ â´âæÏÙô´ ·¤è ÜêÅU ×ð´ Öè âÚU·¤æÚU âãæØ·¤ ÚUãèãñÐ ©lô»ô´ mæÚUæ Á×èÙ ãçÍØæÙð ·¤ô Üð·¤ÚU âÚU·¤æÚUð´ çÁâ ÌÚUè·Ô¤ âð çÙØ×-·¤æÙêÙô´·¤ô ×ôÇ¸Ìè ãñ´, ßã Öè °·¤ ÌÚUã ·¤è âçŽâÇè ãè ãñÐ Øã âÕ ·¤éÀ ©l×àæèÜÌæ ·¤ôÕÉ¸æßæ ÎðÙð ·Ô¤ Ùæ× ÂÚU ç·¤Øæ ÁæÌæ ãñÐ ¥»ÚU ©lô»ÂçÌ ©l×è ãñ´ Ìô €UØæ °·¤ç·¤âæÙ, çàæËÂ·¤æÚU, °·¤ Îé·¤æÙÎæÚU ¥õÚU â´ƒæáüÚUÌ ¥æ× ¥æÎ×è ©l×è Ùãè´ ãñ?°ðâæ ·ñ¤âð ãô â·¤Ìæ ãñ ç·¤ ©âð ç·¤âè âãæÚUð ·¤è ÁM¤ÚUÌ Ùãè´ ãñ ¥õÚU çâÈ¤ü °·¤¥×èÚU ãè âÚU·¤æÚUè ¹ÁæÙð ÂÚU ÁèÙð ·¤æ ã·¤ÎæÚU ãñ? n

»ÚUèÕæð´ âð çÀÙð»æ,¥×èÚUô´ ×ð´ Õ´ÅUð»æ

¥»ÚU ¥æØ·¤ÚU ·¤è âè×æ·¤ô 'âéÂÚU-çÚU¿' ÌÕ·Ô¤ ÂÚUÕÉ¸æ çÎØæ Áæ°, Ìô âÚU·¤æÚU

·¤ô âæÜæÙæ ww ãÁæÚU·¤ÚUôÇ¸ ·¤æ ÚUæÁSß Âýæ#ãô»æÐ ¥Öè ·¤éÀ çÎÙô´ÂãÜð SÅUæò·¤ ×æ·¤üðÅU w®ãÁæÚU ·Ô¤ ¥æ´·¤Ç¸ð ·¤ô ÂæÚU·¤ÚU »Øæ, €UØô´ç·¤ âÚU·¤æÚUÙð '»æÚ' ·¤ô w®v{ Ì·¤ ·Ô¤

çÜ° ÅUæÜ çÎØæÐ

â´Îðçß´ÎÚU àæ×æü

Üð¹·¤ ·¤ëçcæ °ß´ ¹æl ÙèçÌØæð´ ·ð¤ çßàÜðá·¤ ãñ´UÐ([email protected])

·¤ â×Ø ÕÇü �UÜê ·¤æ ãõÃßæ ¹Çæ ·¤ÚU §â·¤èÎßæ§ü ÎéçÙØæ ÖÚU ×ð Õð¿ Îè »§ü ÍèÐ ÕÇü �UÜê·¤è Îßæ ÕÙæÌè ãñ ç»ÜðÇ ÌÍæ ÃØæÂæÚU ·¤ÚUÌè

ãñ ÚUôàæ È¤æ×æüÐ ç»ÜðÇ Üæ§È¤âæ§´âðâ Ùæ× ·¤è §âè·¤�ÂÙè ×ð´ ¥×ðçÚU·¤æ ·Ô¤ Âêßü ÚUÿææ×´˜æè ÇôÙæËÇÚU�âÈ¤èËÇ ÕÇ¸ð àæðØÚU ÏæÚU·¤ ãñ´Ð Áñâð ãè ÚU�âÈ¤èËÇ¥×ÚUè·¤æ ·Ô¤ ÚUÿææ×´˜æè ÕÙð ·¤æÂôüÚUðÅU ×èçÇØæ ·Ô¤×æŠØ× âð ÕÇü �UÜê ·¤æ â×æ¿æÚU Âý×é¹Ìæ âð Âðàæç·¤Øæ ÁæÙð Ü»æÐ §â ÎõÚU ×ð´ ç»ÜðÇ Üæ§È¤âæ§´âðâÙð ¥ÚUÕô´ L¤Â° ·¤×æ° âæÍ ãè ÚU�âÈ¤èËÇ Ùð ÖèÐÁÕç·¤ ßæØÚUôÜæòçÁSÅU ¿è¹-¿è¹ ·¤ÚU ·¤ã ÚUãð Íðç·¤ ÕÇü �UÜê ÕÇôZ ·¤è ØæÙè Â´çÿæØô´ ·¤è Õè×æÚUè ãñÐØã ×ÙécØô´ ×ð´ ×ãæ×æÚUè ·¤æ M¤Â Ùãè´ Üð â·¤Ìè.©â·¤æ ßæØÚUâ ¥Öè §ÌÙæ âÿæ× Ùãè´ ãñÐ ·Ô¤ßÜ×éÙæÈ¤æ ·¤×æÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂÎ ·¤æ ©ÂØô» ç·¤Øæ »Øæ ÍæÐ

Üðç·¤Ù L¤ç·¤ØðÐ ÕæÌ ·Ô¤ßÜ ÚU�âÈ¤èËÇ ¥õÚUÕÇü �UÜê ·¤è Ùãè´ ãñÐ Îßæ§ü ¥õÚU ÅUè·¤æ·¤ÚU‡æ ·¤èÎéçÙØæ ·¤è °·¤ ¹õÈ¤Ùæ·¤ ã·¤è·¤Ì Øð ãñ ç·¤ çÁÙßñç€UâÙ ØæÙè ÅUè·¤æ ·¤ô ÁæÙÜðßæ Õè×æçÚUØô´ ·¤æãõÃßæ ÕÙæ ·¤ÚU Õð¿æ ÁæÌæ ãñ, ©Ù×ð´ âð ÕÇ¸è â´�Øæ°ðâð ãè ÅUè·¤ô´ ·¤è ãñ´, Áô ÕæÁæÚU ×ð´ ÁæÙÜðßæ ÖØÂñÎæ ·¤ÚU·Ô¤ ×éÙæÈ¤æ ·¤×æÙð ·Ô¤ ©gðàØ âð ãè çÙ·¤æÜè»§ü ãñ´Ð ×éÙæÈ¤æ ·¤×æÙð ·Ô¤ çÜØð °ðâæ ¥ÂÚUæÏ ·¤ÚUÙðßæÜô´ ×ð´ ×ãæ·¤æØ Îßæ ƒæÚUæÙð àææç×Ü ãñ´, ÚUæÁÙðÌæàææç×Ü ãñ´ ¥õÚU Ùõ·¤ÚUàææã ÖèÐ ÕÇ¸ð Îðàæô´ ×ð´ Ìô Øã¥æØ ·¤æ °·¤ ÕÇ¸æ dôÌ ÕÙ »Øæ ãñÐ

·¤Öè ·¤ôÜ´Õâ ÕæÁ¸æÚU ·¤è ¹ôÁ ÂÚU çÙ·¤ÜðÍð, ÌÕ ©‹ãô´Ùð ¹ôÁ çÙ·¤æÜæ Íæ ¥×ÚUè·¤æ ·¤ôÐ¥æÁ ¥×ÚUè·¤æ ·Ô¤ ÙðÌë ß ×ð ßñçE·¤ ÃØæÂæÚUè çÙ·¤Üðãñ´ ÕæÁæÚU ·¤è ¹ôÁ ×ð´Ð °·¤ °ðâæ ÕæÁæÚU Áôçß·¤æâàæèÜ ãôÐ ¥×ÚUè·¤æ ÌÍæ ØêÚUôÂ ·Ô¤ çâ·¤éÇ¸ÌðÕæÁæÚU ·¤è ÌéÜÙæ ×ð´ »çÌ×æÙ ãô´Ð ßã ÕæÁ¸æÚU ãñÂæ¡¿ Îðàæô´ ·¤æ â×êã çÁâð çÕý€Uâ ·¤´ÅþèÁ¸ ·¤ãæ ÁæÌæãñÐ §â×ð´ àææç×Ü ãñ ÕýæÁèÜ, M¤â, ÖæÚUÌ, ¿èÙæ

¥õÚU Îçÿæ‡æ ¥È¤ýè·¤æÐ §Ù Âæ¡¿ Îðàæô´ ·¤è ÁÙâ´�ØæÎô ¥ÚUÕ ÙŽÕð ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ âð ª¤ÂÚU ãñ, ÁÕç·¤ çßE ·¤è·¤éÜ ÁÙâ´�Øæ ãñ ·¤ÚUèÕ âæÌ ¥ÚUÕ ãñÐ

§Ù Âæ¡¿ Îðàæô´ ×ð´ ÖæÚUÌ â×éÎýÂæÚUèØ ÃØæÂæçÚUØô´·¤æ âÕâð Ââ´ÎèÎæ ×é·¤æ× ãñÐ ·¤æÚU‡æ Øã ãñ ç·¤ Øãæ´ç·¤ ÁÙâ�Øæ °·¤ ¥ÚUÕ §P¤èâ ·¤ÚUôÇ ãñ, Áô ¥ÂÙð¥æÂ ×ð´ çßE ÁÙâ´�Øæ ·Ô¤ âæÌßð´ çãSâð âð ÕÇ¸æãñÐ ÉèÜð-ÉæÜð ·¤æÙêÙ Ìô ÃØæÂæçÚUØô´ ·¤è ¹æâ Ââ´Îãé¥æ ·¤ÚUÌð ãñ´Ð §â çßàææÜ ÕæÁ¸æÚU ×ð´ Îßæ ©lô»·¤æ çß·¤æâ ·¤ÚUèÕ vy ÂýçÌàæÌ ·¤è ÎÚU âð ãô ÚUãæãñÐ §â·Ô¤ ©ÜÅU ØêÚUôÂ-¥×ÚUè·¤æ ·Ô¤ Îßæ ©lô» ·¤æçß·¤æâ ¿æÚU ÂýçÌàæÌ âð Öè ·¤× ãñÐ §âè ·¤æÚU‡æçßE ·¤è ÕÇ¸è-ÕÇ¸è Îßæ ·¤´ÂçÙØô´ Ùð ÖæÚUÌ ·¤æ L¤¹ç·¤Øæ ãé¥æ ãñÐ §â×ð´ âÕâð çÎÜ¿SÂ ãñ ÖæÚUÌ ·¤æÅUè·¤æ·¤ÚU‡æ ·¤æ ÕæÁ¸æÚUÐ

ÖæÚUÌ ·¤æ ÅUè·¤æ·¤ÚU‡æ ÕæÁ¸æÚU Ü´Õð â×Ø âðâé# ¥ßSÍæ ×ð´ ÍæÐ §âð ¥Õ Á»æØæ Áæ ÚUãæ ãñ¥ÍæüÌ Ù°-Ù° ÅUè·Ô¤ ÖæÚUÌèØô´ ·¤ô Æô´·Ô¤ Áæ ÚUãð ãñ´,ÖÜð ãè ÖæÚUÌèØ ÂçÚUçSÍØô´ ·Ô¤ ¥ÙéâæÚU Øð

¥ÙæßàØ·¤ ãñ´Ð ßÌü×æÙ ×ð´ ÖæÚUÌèØ ÅUè·Ô¤ ·¤æ ƒæÚUðÜêÕæÁ¸æÚU Âæ¡¿ ãÁ¸æÚU ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤Â° ·¤æ ãñÐ

â×éÎýÂæÚUèØ Îßæ ·¤´ÂçÙØô´ ·Ô¤ âæ×Ùð °·¤ ¥õÚU·¤æÚU‡æ ãñ çÁâ·Ô¤ çÜ° ßð ÖæÚUÌèØ ÅUè·¤æ ÕæÁ¸æÚU ×ð´¥ÂÙè ÂñÆ ÕÙæÙæ ¿æãÌð ãñ´Ð ßã Øã ãñ ç·¤ ¥Õ©Ù·¤è ¥ÚUÕô´-¹ÚUÕô´ ÇæòÜÚU ·¤è Îßæ¥ô´ ·¤æ ÂðÅUð´ÅU¥çÏ·¤æÚU ¹ˆ× ãôÌæ Áæ ÚUãæ ãñÐ çÕR¤è ·¤ô ÕÙæ°ÚU¹Ùð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ßð ¥Õ ÅUè·¤æ·¤ÚU‡æ ·Ô¤ ¥çÖØæÙ ×ð´©ÌÚU ¥æ° ãñ´Ð ÖçßcØ ·¤è â´ÖæßÙæ¥ô´ ·¤ô Îð¹Ìðãé° §Ù ·¤´ÂçÙØô´ mæÚUæ Îô ÌÚUã ·¤è ÚU‡æÙèçÌ ¥ÂÙæ§ü»§ü ãñÐ §Ù·¤è ÂãÜè ÚU‡æÙèçÌ ãñ ç·¤ ÖæÚUÌ ·Ô¤ ÅUè·¤æ©ˆÂæÎÙ §·¤æ§ü ·¤ô ¹ÚUèÎ çÜØæ Áæ°Ð çÁâ×ð´âÚU·¤æÚUè ÙèçÌ Öè §Ù·¤è ×ÎÎ ·¤ÚU ÚUãè ãñÐ âÙw®®} ×ð´ ÌèÙ ÖæÚUÌèØ âÚU·¤æÚUè ÅUè·¤æ ©ˆÂæÎÙ·¤ÚUÙð ßæÜè ·¤´ÂçÙØô´- v®x ßáü ÂéÚUæÙæ âð´ÅþÜçÚUâ¿ü §´SÅUèÅU÷ØêÅU-·¤âõÜè, v®® ßáü ÂéÚUæÙæ ÂæSÌêÚU§´SÅUèÅU÷ØêÅU-·¤ôóæêÚU ÌÍæ {® ßáü ÂéÚUæÙæ Õè.âè.Áè,ßñ€UâèÙ ÜðÕôÚUðÅUÚUè ¿ðóæ§ü ·¤ô Õ´Î ·¤ÚU çÎØæ »Øæ ãñÐ§â·Ô¤ ¥Üæßæ ·Ô¤´Îý âÚU·¤æÚU Ùð Îßæ ©lô» ×ð´


SßæS‰Ø

ÅUè·¤æ·¤ÚU‡æ ·¤æ ¹ÌÚUÙæ·¤¹ðÜ¹ÌÚUÙæ·¤¹ðÜ°

Áð. ·Ô¤. ·¤ÚU

àæÌÂýçÌàæÌ çßÎðàæè çÙßðàæ ·¤è ÀêÅU Îð ÚU¹è ãñÐ çÁâ·¤æÚU‡æ È¤ýæ´â ·¤è ÅUè·¤æ ·¤´ÂÙè âÙôÈ¤è-°ßð´çÅUâ ÙðÖæÚUÌ ·Ô¤ âæ´Ìæ ÕæØôÅUð·¤ ·¤ô ¹ÚUèÎ çÜØæÐ Õñ´»ÜôÚU·Ô¤ ÕæØôßæÜ ·¤ô ÁæÂæÙ ·¤è ÇæØ¿è-âð´€UØô Ùð,Á×üÙè ·Ô¤ ×·¤ü °ß´ çSßÅU÷ÁÚUÜñ´Ç ·¤è Üô´Áæ ÙðÕñ´‚ÜôÚU ·¤è Îô ÅUè·¤æ ©ˆÂæÎÙ ·¤ÚUÙð ßæÜè ·¤´ÂçÙØô´·¤ô ¹ÚUèÎ çÜØæÐ §â·Ô¤ ¥Üæßæ ¥×ÚUè·¤æ ·Ô¤ßð€UâÜÙðÅU Ùð ÕæØôÜæçÁ·¤Ìæ §ü. °ß´ Ùôßôßð€Uâ ÙðÖæÚUÌèØ Îßæ ·¤´ÂÙè ·ñ¤çÇÜæ ·Ô¤ âæÍ ÅUè·¤æ ·Ô¤ÃØæÂæÚU ·Ô¤ çÜ° âæÛæðÎæÚUè ·¤ÚU Üè ãñÐ §Ù ·¤´ÂçÙØô´·¤è ÎêâÚUè ÚU‡æÙèçÌ ãñ ç·¤ »ðÅU÷â È¤æ©´ÇðàæÙ ÌÍæ »æßè·Ô¤ ×æŠØ× âð ÂÚUôÂ·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ Ùæ× ÂÚU ¥ÙæßàØ·¤ÅUè·¤ô´ âð ÖæÚUÌèØ ÕæÁ¸æÚU (ÂÉð ÖæÚUÌèØ ÁÙÌæ) ·¤ôÜæÎ çÎØæ ÁæØðÐ »æßè °·¤ ¥´ÌÚUÚUæcÅþèØ â´SÍæ ãñçÁâð ‚ÜôÕÜ °ÜæØ´â È¤æòÚU ßñç€UâÙðàæÙ °´Ç§�ØêÙæ§ÁðàæÙ ·¤ãæ ÁæÌæ ãñÐ §â »æßè ×ð´ çß·¤çâÌÎðàæô´ ·Ô¤ ÅUè·¤æ ·¤´ÂçÙØô´ ÌÍæ çßE Õñ´·¤ ·¤æÕôÜÕôÜæ ãñÐ ÂÚUôÂ·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ Ùæ× ÂÚU ßæSÌß ×ð´ Øã»æßè çß·¤æâàæèÜ Îðàæô´ ×ð´ ÅUè·Ô¤ çÕ·¤ßæÙð ·Ô¤

ÒÂéÙèÌÓ ·¤æØü ·¤ô ¥´Áæ× ÎðÌè ãñÐ ·Ô¤´Îý âÚU·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ÕÁÅU ÂÚU °·¤ âÚUâÚUè çÙ»æã ÇæÜÙð âð Øã SÂCãô ÁæÌæ ãñ ç·¤ ßã ÅUè·¤æ·¤ÚU‡æ ·¤æØüR¤× ·Ô¤ ÕÁÅU·¤ô ·¤× ·¤ÚUÌè Áæ ÚUãè ãñÐ ÎêâÚUè ÌÚUÈ¤ SßæS‰Ø ·Ô¤ÕÁÅU ·¤ô ÕÉ¸æØæ Áæ ÚUãæ ãñÐ âÙ w®®~-v® ×ð´ÅUè·¤æ·¤ÚU‡æ ·¤æØüR¤× ÂÚU v.{ ãÁæÚU ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤Â°·¤æ ÕÁÅU Íæ, çÁâð âÙ w®vv-vw ×ð´ ƒæÅUæ·¤ÚUv.w ãÁæÚU ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤Â° ·¤ÚU çÎØæ »ØæÐ ÁÕç·¤ §âèÎõÚUæÙ SßæS‰Ø ÕÁÅU ·¤ô w® ãÁæÚU ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ âðÕÉ¸æ·¤ÚU wz ãÁæÚU ·¤ÚUôÇ¸ L¤Â° ·¤ÚU çÎØæ »ØæÐ ·Ô¤´ÎýâÚU·¤æÚU SßØ ¥ÂÙð Îðàæ ·¤è ÁÙÌæ çßàæðá·¤ÚU Õ‘¿ô·¤ô »ñÚU-ÁM¤ÚUè ÅUè·Ô¤ ¥ÂÙð Âñâð âð Ü»ßæÙæ ¿æãÌèãñ. ãðÂðÅUæ§çÅUâ ·¤æ ãõÃßæ ¹Ç¸æ ·¤ÚU §â·Ô¤ ÅUè·Ô¤ ·¤ôÚUæcÅþèØ ÅUè·¤æ·¤ÚU‡æ ·¤æØüR¤× ×ð àææç×Ü ·¤ÚUßæ çÎØæ»Øæ ãñÐ Øã ÂèçÜØæ Èñ¤ÜæÌæ ãñ â´R¤ç×Ì ÚUQ¤ÎæÙ,àæËØ çR¤Øæ ·Ô¤ â´R¤ç×Ì ¥õÁæÚUô´ Øæ âé§ü âðÐ ·¤éÀãÎ Ì·¤ ØõÙ â´Õ´Ïô´ âðÐ ¥æÂ âÕ ·¤ô ™ææÌ ãô»æç·¤ ÚUQ¤ÎæÙ âð ÂãÜð ©â·¤æ ÂÚUèÿæ‡æ ·¤ÚUæØæ ÁæÌæãñ ç·¤ ©â ÃØçQ¤ ·¤ô ÂèçÜØæ, ×ÜðçÚUØæ, °Ç÷â Øæ

ØõÙ ÚUô» Ù ãôÐ ç¿ç·¤ˆâæ ÌÍæ àæËØçR¤Øæ ·Ô¤ âÖè¥õÁæÚUô´ ·¤ô ©ÂØô» ·Ô¤ ÂãÜð â´R¤×‡æ ÚUçãÌ ÕÙæØæÁæÌæ ãñÐ ßÚUÙ ç¿ç·¤ˆâæ âðßæ ×ð´ ÚUÌ ç¿ç·¤ˆâ·¤ô´ÌÍæ ·¤×ü¿æçÚUØô´ ·¤ô ×ÚUèÁô´ âð ÂèçÜØæ âð ÂèçÇ¸ÌãôÙð ·¤æ ÇÚU ÚUãÌæ ãñÐ §âèçÜ° ãðÂæÅUæ§çÅUâ Õè ·¤æÅUè·¤æ ç¿ç·¤ˆâæ ·¤×ü¿æçÚUØô´ ·Ô¤ çÜ° Áô ×ÚUèÁ ·Ô¤â´Â·¤ü ×ð´ ÚUãÌð ãñ´, ©â·Ô¤ çÜ° ¥æßàØ·¤ ãñÐ Ï‹Øãô »æßè ·¤æ çÁâÙð ÖæÚUÌ ·¤è ¥çÏ·¤æ´àæ ÁÙÌæ ·¤ôØã ÅUè·¤æ Ü»ßæ çÎØæ ãñÐ ¥Õ Ìô ÚUæcÅþèØ ·¤æØüR¤××ð àææç×Ü ãôÙð ·Ô¤ ·¤æÚU‡æ âÖè Õ‘¿ô´ ·¤ô Øã ÅUè·¤æÜ»æØæ Áæ ÚUãæ ãñÐ

ÎêâÚUæ ÅUè·¤æ çÁâð Üð·¤ÚU ¹êÕ ãô ã„æ ×¿æØæÁæ ÚUãæ ãñ ßã ãñ çãÕ ¥ÍæüÌ çã×ôçÈ¤Üâ §‹�UÜê°ÁæÅUæ§Â Õè. ¥×ÚUè·¤è âÚU·¤æÚU ·Ô¤ SßæS‰Ø çßÖæ» ·Ô¤¥ÙéâæÚU Øã â´R¤×‡æ, â´R¤ç×Ì ÃØçQ¤ ·Ô¤ Ùæ·¤ °ß´»Üð ·Ô¤ àÜðc×æ Øæ ÕÜ»× âð Èñ¤ÜÌæ ãñÐ §â×ð´×ðÙÙÁæ§çÅUâ, çÙ×ôçÙØæ ÌÍæ ßæÌ ÚUô» ãôÌæ ãñÐçßE SßæS‰Ø â´»ÆÙ ·Ô¤ v~}® âð ©ÂÜŽÏ¥æ´·¤Çô´ ·Ô¤ ¥ÙéâæÚU w®vv Ì·¤ ÖæÚUÌ ×ð´ ç·¤âè·¤ô Öè §ââð çÙ×ôçÙØæ Øæ ×ðÙÙÁæ§çÅUâ Ùãè´ ãé¥æãñÐ çÈ¤ÚU Öè ·Ô¤‹Îý âÚU·¤æÚU Ùð´ §Ù ÅUè·¤ô´ ·¤ô ÖæÚUÌ ×ð´©ˆÂæÎÙ ÌÍæ ©ÂØ¸ô» ·¤ÚUÙð ·¤è §ÁæÁÌ Îð Îè ãñÐ

ÌèâÚUæ ÅUè·¤æ çÁâð Üð·¤ÚU Îßæ ·¤´ÂçÙØæ´ âèÏðÌõÚU ÂÚU Âý¿æÚU ·¤ÚU ÚUãè ãñ´ ßã ãñ ÚUôÅUæ-ßæ§ÚUâ ·¤æÅUè·¤æÐ ÚUôÅUæ ßæ§ÚUâ ×ð´ ÇæØçÚUØæ ãôÌæ ãñ, Áô ¥æ×ÌõÚU ÂÚU Âçp×è Îðàæô´ ×ð´ ãôÌæ ãñÐ çÈ¤ÚU Øã ×ã´»æÅUè·¤æ ÖæÚUÌèØ Õ‘¿ô´ ·¤ô €UØô´ Ü»æØæ Áæ ÚUãæ ãñÐØçÎ ·¤éÀ Õ‘¿ô´ ·¤ô §â ßæØÚUâ âð ÇæØçÚUØæ Øæ¥çÌâæÚU ãôÌæ ãñ Ìô ©âð ¥ô¥æÚU°â Âæ©ÇÚU ÂæÙè×ð ƒæôÜ ·¤ÚU ÎðÙæ ¿æçã°Ð Øã ÇæØçÚUØæ ÌèÙ âð ¥æÆçÎÙô´ Ì·¤ ÚUãÌæ ãñÐ ÂýˆØð·¤ |® â´R¤ç×Ì Õ‘¿ô´ ×ð´âð ·Ô¤ßÜ °·¤ Õ‘¿ð ·¤ô ¥SÂÌæÜ ×ð´ Îæç¹Ü·¤ÚUÙæ ÂÇ¸Ìæ ãñÐ ÚUôÅUæ ßæ§ÚUâ ·Ô¤ ÅUè·Ô¤ ·Ô¤ ×é·¤æÕÜð§â·¤æ ©Â¿æÚU ’ØæÎæ âSÌæ ÂÇÌæ ãñÐ §Ù·Ô¤ ¥ÜæßæÖè ÜÇ¸ç·¤Øô´ ·¤ô »ÖæüàæØ ·Ô¤ ·ñ¤´âÚU âð Õ¿Ùð ·Ô¤Ùæ× ÂÚU ßñ€UâèÙ Ü»æ° Áæ ÚUãð ãñ´Ð §â ßñ€UâèÙ ·¤æÙæ× ãñ °¿ÂèÃãè- sê×Ù ÂñÂèÜôÙæ ßæØÚUâÐ »æßè·Ô¤ ¿ÜÌð M¤ÕðÜæ ÌÍæ ØÜô È¤èßÚU ·¤æ ÅUè·¤æ ÖèÜ»æÙð ·¤è ÌñØæÚUè âÚU·¤æÚU ·¤ÚU ÚUãè ãñÐ çßE SßæS‰Øâ´»ÆÙ ·Ô¤ ¥æ¡·¤Çô´ ·Ô¤ ¥ÙéâæÚU v~}® âð Üð·¤ÚUÌæÁæ ©ÂÜŽÏ ÌæÚUè¹ ·Ô¤ âßüðÿæ‡æ ØæÙè w®vv Ì·¤ç·¤âè Öè ÖæÚUÌèØ ·¤ô L¤ÕðÜæ ÌÍæ ØÜô È¤èßÚU Ùãè´ãé¥æ ãñÐ

§â Âý·¤æÚU ¥æÂ Îð¹ ß â×Ûæ â·¤Ìð ãñ´ ç·¤·Ô¤ßÜ â×éÎýÂæÚUèØ ÃØæÂæçÚUØô ÌÍæ ÕÇð ÖæÚUÌèØ ÎßæÃØæÂæçÚUØô´ ·¤è çÌÁôÚUè ÖÚUÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÖæÚUÌèØ ÁÙÌæçßàæðá·¤ÚU Õ‘¿ô´ ·¤ô ç»ÙèçÂ» ·¤è ÌÚUã §SÌð×æÜç·¤Øæ Áæ ÚUãæ ãñÐ ¥»Üè ÕæÚU ÁÕ ·¤ô§ü ¥æÂ·¤ô Øæ¥æÂ·Ô¤ ÂçÚUßæÚU ·Ô¤ ç·¤âè âÎSØ ·¤ô ç·¤âè¹õÈ¤Ùæ·¤ Õè×æÚUè ·¤æ ãßæÜæ Îð ·¤ÚU ÅUè·¤æ Ü»ßæÙð·Ô¤ çÜØð ÂýðçÚUÌ ·¤ÚUð Ìô °·¤ ÕæÚU Øã Îð¹Ùæ ×ÌÖêçÜØð»æ ç·¤ ßã ç·¤ÌÙæ ÁL¤ÚUè ãñÐ n

SßæS‰Ø


(Üð¹·¤ ßçÚUD ç¿ç·¤ˆâ·¤ ãñ´Ð âæÖæÚUÑ raviwar.com)


çâÙð×æ

Ì´·¤ßæÎ ·Ô¤ ×âÜð ÂÚU çÁâ ÅþèÅU×ð´ÅU ·Ô¤ âæÍ Îðàæ ×ð´ çÈ¸¤Ë×ð´ ÕÙÌè ÚUãè ãñ´,çßEM¤Â× ©ââð ¥Ü» Ùãè´ ãñÐ ã×ð´ °·¤ ¥ÎÎ ¥çÖÙðÌæ ·¤è ÎÚU·¤æÚU ãôÌèãñ Áô ÂãÜð, ÎêâÚUð M¤Â ÏÚU·¤ÚU ¥ÂÙè ×æâêç×ØÌ âð Üô»ô´ ·¤ô ×ôãð ¥õÚU çÈ¤ÚU

¥¿æÙ·¤ È¤éÌèüÜð, »ÆèÜð ¥õÚU ÕãæÎéÚU ÕÙÌð ãé° ã×ð ¥ÂÙè »¸ÜÌè ·¤æ °ãâæâ ·¤ÚUßæ°¥õÚU ©â ÂÚU ã×âð ãæòÜ ãè ×ð´ ÌæÜè ÕÁßæ°Ð ç·¤âè Îðàæ ·Ô¤ §´ÅUðçÜÁð´â ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè ·Ô¤ç·¤ÚUÎæÚU ·¤ô çÈ¸¤Ë×ô´ Ùð ÊØæÎæÌÚU §âè M¤Â ×ð´ ã×æÚUð âæ×Ùð Âðàæ ç·¤Øæ ãñÐ °ðâè çÈ¸¤Ë×ô´·¤ô Îð¹Ìð ãé° Îàæü·¤ô´ ·¤è Áô ·¤éÜ ÖæßÙæ çß·¤çâÌ ãôÌè ãñ ©â·¤è çÎàææ ¥çÖÙðÌæ·Ô¤ ×æØæßè ãôÙð ·¤è ¥ôÚU ·Ô¤´çÎýÌ ÚUãÌè ãñUÐ ÚUæÁÙèçÌ·¤ çßáØô´ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ Ùãè´ ÁæÌæÐ×æÚU-ÏæÇ-°€UàæÙ âð ÖÚUÂêÚU çÍýÜÚU çÈ¤Ë×ô ×ð Ìô Îàæü·¤ ¿ç·¤Ì-¿õ·¤óæð ãô·¤ÚU ¥çÖÙðÌæ·Ô¤ ·¤ÚUÌÕ Îð¹Ìæ ãñÐ ×âÜÙ ©Ù·¤æ ¥çÖÙðÌæ ·¤çÆÙÌ× ÿæ‡æô´ ×ð Öè ãæÚU Ùãè´ ×æÙð»æÐßô z®-{® Üô»ô´ ·¤ô ·¤Öè Öè ç¿žæ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìæ ãñ ¥õÚU ¹¸æâ·¤ÚU ¥»ÚU çÈ¸¤Ë×ô´ ×ð´Îçÿæ‡æ ÖæÚUÌèØ ÅU¿ Á¸ÚUæ-âè Öè ÚUã Áæ° Ìô ãèÚUô ·¤æ È¸¤õÜæÎ ×ð ÌŽÎèÜ ãôÙæ ÜæçÁ×èãñÐ ÕæòÜèßéÇ ×ð´ Øð »õÚUß âóæè Îð¥ôÜ ¥õÚU ©Ù·Ô¤ çÂÌæŸæè Ï×üð´Îý âçãÌ ÕãéÌ ·¤×Üô»ô´ ·¤ô ãæçâÜ ãñÐ ·¤×Ü ãæâÙ §â çÈ¸¤Ë× ·Ô¤ ÖèÌÚU ÚUæò ·Ô¤ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè ãñ´ ¥õÚU çã´Îè·Ô¤ ¥Üæßæ ×êÜ M¤Â âð çÈ¸¤Ë× Ìç×Ü ×ð´ ÕÙæ§ü »§ü ãñ Ìô ª¤ÂÚU ·Ô¤ âæÚUð »é‡æô´ ·¤ô ¥ÂÙðÖèÌÚU â×ðÅUð ÂÎüð ÂÚU ßô Ù×êÎæÚU ãôÌð ãñ´Ð S˜æñ‡æ ÃØßãæÚU ·Ô¤ âæÍ ·¤ëc‡æ ¥õÚU »ôÂè ßæÜð»æÙð ×ð´ Ùæ¿Ìð ãé° ßô ÁÕ ÂãÜè ÕæÚU çÈ¸¤Ë× ×ð´ çÎ¹Ìð ãñ´ Ìô ÌæçÜØæ´ ÕÁÌè ãñ´Ð ÇæòçÙL¤Â×æ (ÂêÁæ ·¤é×æÚU) ·¤æ ¥æòçÈ¸¤â ×ð´ ¥È¸¤ðØÚU ãñ ¥õÚU ©â·¤ô àæ·¤ ÚUãÌæ ãñ ç·¤©Ù·Ô¤ ÂçÌ çßEÙæÍ (·¤×Ü ãæâÙ) ·¤è Áç¸´Î»è Öè çÕÙæ ç·¤âè ¥È¸¤ðØÚU ·Ô¤ Ùãè´¿ÜÌè ãô»è, ¿æãð ßô ¥õÚUÌ ·Ô¤ âæÍ ãô Øæ çÈ¤ÚU ç·¤âè ×Îü ·Ô¤ âæÍÐ Ìô, âÕ ·¤éÀ

çßEM¤Â× ÕßæçÜØæ Ùãè´âßæçÜØæ çÈ¸¤Ë× ãñ!

çÎÜèÂ ¹æÙ

Ò...ãæâÙ âæÓÕ ©×ÚU âð âßæÜ ÂêÀÌð ãñ´ ç·¤ ©âÙð çã´Îè ·¤ãæ´ âè¹è, Ìô ÁßæÕç×ÜÌæ ãñ- ¥ØôŠØæ, ×éÕ§ü, ·¤à×èÚU ¥õÚU ×æÜð»æ´ß ·Ô¤ ÎõÚUð âðÐ çÈ¸¤Ë× ·¤ô çßàæéh×ÙôÚU´ÁÙ ×æÙÙð ßæÜð Üô»ô´ ·¤ô °ðâð ÇæòØÜæò» âð ·¤ô§ü ¥æÂçžæ Ùãè´ ãô»è, Üðç·¤ÙÁÕ çÈ¸¤Ë×ô´ ×ð´ ç·¤âè ßæSÌçß·¤ Á»ã ¥õÚU ƒæÅUÙæ¥ô´ ·¤æ Áç¸R¤ ãôÌæ ãñ Ìô ©âðÂðàæ ·¤ÚUÙð ×ð ÚUæÁÙèçÌ·¤ §ü×æÙÎæÚUè ÕÚUÌÙè ¿æçã°Ð ©×ÚU ·Ô¤ ÁßæÕ âð Øð ŠßçÙÌãôÌæ ãñ ç·¤ §Ù Á»ãô´ ÂÚU ¥Ü-·¸¤æØÎæ Ùð ¥æÌ´·¤è ßæÚUÎæÌô´ ·¤ô ¥´Áæ× çÎØæ¥õÚU ©âè ç×àæÙ ·¤ô ÂêÚUæ ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ßô »çÜØô´ ·¤è ¹æ·¤ ÀæÙÌð ÚUãð ¥õÚUçã´Îè âè¹ ÜèÐ ØæÙè ¥ØôŠØæ ×ð´ ÁÕ-·¤Öè (ØæÎ ãñ Ù ·¤Õ?) Áô-·¤éÀ ãé¥æ©â·Ô¤ çÜ° ¥Ü-·¸¤æØÎæ ¥õÚU ×éçSÜ× Áç¸�×ðÎæÚU ãñ ¥õÚU ×æÜð»æ´ß ×ð´ ÖèÐ...Ó

¥æ


çâÙð×æ

ÂæçÚUßæçÚU·¤ Ùô´·¤-Ûæô´·¤ ß àæ·¤-âéÕãæ ·Ô¤ §Îü-ç»Îü ¿ÜÌæ ÚUãÌæ ãñ ¥õÚU §âè R¤× ×ð´ÂˆÙè °·¤ Âýæ§ßðÅU Áæâêâ, ·¤×Ü ãæâÙ ·Ô¤ ÂèÀð Ü»æ ÎðÌè ãñÐ ãôÌæ ·¤éÀ ¹¸æâ Ùãè´ãñ Õéhê âð çÎ¹Ùð ßæÜð çßEÙæÍ ·¤ô ÂÌæ ¿Ü ÁæÌæ ãñ ç·¤ ÂˆÙè Ùð ©â·Ô¤ ÂèÀðÁæâêâ ÀôÇ¸ ÚU¹æ ãñ Áô ¹ôÁè ·¤éžæð ·¤è ÌÚUã ©â·Ô¤ ÂèÀð ç¿Â·¤æ ãé¥æ ãñÐ àæð¹ÚU·¤ÂêÚU ·¤è âÜæã ÂÚU ·¤×Ü ãæâÙ ©ââð ÂèÀæ ÀéÇ¸æÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÌðÁ ÎõÇ¸ Ü»æÌæ ãñ¥õÚU °·¤ ÎèßæÚU ·¤è ¥ôÅU âð ¿·¤×æ Îð·¤ÚU ©âè çÎàææ ×ð´ ßæÂâ Öæ» ÜðÌæ ãñÐ ¥Õ°·¤ Ùõçâç¹° ·¤è ÌÚUã ßô Áæâêâ âæ×Ùð ·¤è §×æÚUÌ ×ð´ Ìæ·¤-Ûææ´·¤ ·¤ÚUÌæ ãñ ¥õÚUçÈ¤ÚU Áô ·¤éÀ ãôÌæ ãñ, çÈ¸¤Ë× ·¤è ¥âÜ àæéL¤¥æÌ Öè ßãè´ âð ãôÌè ãñÐ §×æÚUÌ âðçÙ·¤ÜÙð ßæÜæ ¥æÎ×è Áæâêâ ·Ô¤ âÚU ÂÚU Á¸ôÚU âð Üôãð ·¤æ âçÚUØæ Îð ×æÚUÌæ ãñ ¥õÚUÕæÎ ×ð´ ÂÇ¸ð ·¤éÀ ¥õÚU ¿ôÅUô´ âð ©â·¤è ×õÌ ãô ÁæÌè ãñÐ ¥âÜ ×ð´ ßô §×æÚUÌ ©×ÚU(ÚUæãéÜ Õôâ) ·¤è ÂýØô»àææÜæÙé×æ Á»ã ãñ, Áãæ´ ¥æÌ´·¤è »çÌçßçÏØô´ ·¤ô ©Ù·Ô¤àææç»Îü ¥´Áæ× ÎðÙð ·¤æ ãéÙÚU âè¹Ìð ãñ´Ð

¥Õ Øãæ´ âð ƒæÅUÙæ¥ô´ ·¤è ·¤çÇ¸Øæ´ ÁéÇ¸Ìè ¿Üè ÁæÌè ãñ´Ð Áæâêâ ·¤è ÇæØÚUè âð€UÜæ§´ÅU ·¤æ Ùæ× ÂÌæ ãæçâÜ ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ ÕæÎ ¥´ÌÌÑ ÂˆÙè ·Ô¤ Õæòâ-·¤×-Âýð×è ÎèÂ·¤·Ô¤ ÚUæSÌð, çßEÙæÍ ¥õÚU Çæò çÙL¤Â×æ ¥æÌ´ç·¤Øô´ ·Ô¤ ·¤ŽÁð ×ð´ ¥æÌð ãñ´Ð ¥õÚU Øãè´ ÂÚUçÙL¤Â×æ ·Ô¤ âæÍ-âæÍ Îàæü·¤ô´ ·¤ô ÂãÜè ÕæÚU ÂÌæ ¿ÜÌæ ãñ ç·¤ ·¤×Ü ãæâÙ ¥âÜ×ð´ ãñ ·¤éÀ ¥õÚU ãè ÕÜæÐ ßô çâÈ¤ü¸ ƒæé´»M¤ Õæ´Ï ·Ô¤ Ùæ¿Ìæ Ùãè´ ãñ, ÕçË·¤ ÎÁü¸Ùô´Üô»ô´ ·¤ô ¥·Ô¤Üð ×æÚU·¤ÚU çÕË·¤éÜ ãèÚUô ·¤è ×æçÈ¤·¤ çÂÀÜð ÎÚUßæÁð âð ÂˆÙè ·Ô¤ âæÍÖæ» ÜðÌæ ãñÐ ©×ÚU (ÚUæãéÜ Õôâ) ·¤×Ü ãæâÙ ·¤ô Âã¿æÙÌæ ãñ ¥õÚU Øãè Âã¿æÙçÎ¹æÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° çÈ¸¤Ë× �UÜñàæÕñ·¤ ×ð´ ¿Üè ÁæÌè ãñÐ çÈ¤ÚU ¥×ðçÚU·¤æ âð çÙ·¤Ü·¤ÚUçÈ¸¤Ë× âèÏð ¥È¸¤»æçÙSÌæÙ ×ð´ ¥æ ç»ÚUÌè ãñÐ çÈ¸¤Ë× ×ð´ ÖæÚUÌ ·¤ãè´ Ùãè´ ãñ, ãñ ÌôçâÈ¤ü¸ ¥×ðçÚU·¤æ ¥õÚU ¥È¸¤»æçÙSÌæÙÐ ãæÜæ¡ç·¤, çÁ·ý¤ ×ð´ ÖæÚUÌ Öè ãñ, Âæç·¤SÌæÙ Öè,Ùæ§ÁèçÚUØæ Öè ¥õÚU ·¤éÀ ¥õÚU Îðàæ ÖèÐ ÖæÚUÌèØ Á¸×èÙ ÂÚU Ìô çßEM¤Â×-w ©ÌÚUð»èçÁâ·¤è ×éÙæÎè çÈ¸¤Ë× ·Ô¤ çÕË·¤éÜ ¥æç¹ÚU ×ð´ ·¤è ÁæÌè ãñÐ ¹¸ˆ× ãôÙð ·Ô¤ ÕæÎÐ Ìô,ÚUãSØôfæÅUÙ Øð ãôÌæ ãñ ç·¤ ·¤×Ü ãæâÙ ¥õÚU ©×ÚU (ÚUæãéÜ Õôâ) Ùð ¥Ü-·¸¤æØÎæ×ð´ âæÍ-âæÍ ·¤æ× ç·¤Øæ ãñÐ

·¤à×èÚU ·Ô¤ ×éÁæçãÎ ·Ô¤ ÌõÚU ÂÚU ·¤×Ü ãæâÙ ·¤æ ÙØæ ÂçÚU¿Ø ã×ð´ ×æÜê× ãôÌæãñ ¥õÚU ÙØæ Ùæ× Öè çßâæß ¥ã×Î ·¤à×èÚUèÐ Øð Öè ÂÌæ ¿ÜÌæ ãñ ç·¤ ©â·Ô¤çÂÌæÁè ©ââð Öè ÕÇ¸ð ×éÁæçãÎ ÍðÐ çßâæß ¥ã×Î ·¤à×èÚUè (ãæâÙ) ·Ô¤ Ùæ× ÂÚUz Üæ¹ L¤Â° (àææØÎ L¤Â° ãè) ·¤æ §üÙæ× ÖæÚUÌ âÚU·¤æÚU Ùð ƒæôçáÌ ·¤ÚU ÚU¹æ ãñ ØðÂôSÅUÚU ÂêÚUè çÈ¸¤Ë× ×ð´ Îô-ÌèÙ ÕæÚU SR¤èÙ ÂÚU ¿×·¤Ìæ ãñÐ ¥õÚU ·¤ãæÙè Øãè ·¤ãÌèãñ ç·¤ §üÙæ×è ¥æÌ·¤ßæÎè ãôÙð ·¤è ßÁã âð ÖæÚUÌ ÀôÇ·¤ÚU ßô ¥ÌÚUÚUæcÅþèØ ¥æÌ·¤ßæÎèÙðÅUß·¤ü ·Ô¤ âæÍ ÁéÇ¸·¤ÚU ·¤éÀ ¥Ü» ·¤ÚUÙæ ¿æãÌæ ãñÐ ÚUæãéÜ Õôâ ¥Ü-·¸¤æØÎæ âðÁéÇ¸æ ãñÐ ãæâÙ ©â·Ô¤ Âæâ Âãé´¿Ìæ ãñ ¥õÚU ÂãÜè ×éÜæ·¸¤æÌ ×ð´ ãè Øð âæçÕÌ ·¤ÚUÌæãñ ç·¤ ßô Ù çâÈ¤ü¸ àææÙÎæÚU ÜÇ¸æ·¤æ ãñ, ÕçË·¤ Üô»ô´ ·¤ô ÁæÙÙð-Âã¿æÙÙð ·¤æ Öè©â×ð´ ÕðãÎ ÕæÚUè·¤ ãéÙÚU ãñÐ ¥Ü-·¸¤æØÎæ ·Ô¤ ÜÇ¸æ·¤ô´ ·¤ô ÂýçàæçÿæÌ ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ R¤× ×ð´ãè ßô, ©×ÚU ØæÙè ÚUæãéÜ Õôâ ·Ô¤ ·¤æÈ¸¤è ·¤ÚUèÕ ãô ÁæÌæ ãñÐ ßô ©×ÚU âð ¥×ðçÚU·¤èÕ´Ï·¤ô´ ·¤æ çÆ·¤æÙæ ÁæÙÙæ ¿æãÌæ ãñ, ¥Ü-·¸¤æØÎæ ·Ô¤ ÜÇ¸Ùð ·Ô¤ ÌÚUè·Ô¤ ÁæÙÙæ¿æãÌæ ãñ ¥õÚU Øð Öè ÁæÙÙæ ¿æãÌæ ãñ ç·¤ ¥È¸¤»æÙè ©×ÚU ·¤ô çã´Îè ÕôÜÙæ ·ñ¤âð¥æÌæ ãñ? §â ÎõÚUæÙ ÀôÅUè-ÀôÅUè ƒæÅUÙæ¥ô´ ·Ô¤ ¥æ§Ùð âð Øð çÎ¹æØæ »Øæ ç·¤ ãæâÙ·Ô¤ ÖèÌÚU ÕÕüÚUÌæ ·¤æ °çÜ×ð´ÅU ×éÁæçãÎ ÕÙÙð ·Ô¤ çãâæÕ âð ·¤× ãñÐ

ÕãÚUãæÜ, ×ñ´ Øãæ´ ÂêÚUè ·¤ãæÙè çÜ¹Ùð ·¤è ÕÁæØ çÈ¸¤Ë× âð çÙ·¤Ü ÚUãð â´ÎðàæÂÚU ÕæÌ ·¤ÚUÙæ Ââ´Î ·¤M¤´»æÐ �ÜñàæÕñ·¤ ·Ô¤ ÌèÙ-¿æÚU §SÌð×æÜ âð ¥Ü»-¥Ü»âð»×ð´ÅU ×ð´ Õ´ÅUè çßEM¤Â× ×ð´ Îàæü·¤ô´ ·Ô¤ âæ×Ùð ¹éÜæâæ ãôÌæ ãñ ç·¤ ·¤×Ü ãæâÙ ÙÌô âæ×æ‹Ø »ëãSÍ ãñ ¥õÚU Ù ãè ¥æÌ´·¤ßæçÎØô´ ·Ô¤ »éÅU ·¤æ ·¤ô§ü ÜÇ¸æ·¤æ, ÕçË·¤ ßôÖæÚUÌèØ ¹éçÈ¸¤Øæ °Áð´âè ·¤æ ·¤ô§ü ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè ãñÐ °·¤ Áæ´ÕæÁ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè! ¥õÚU ¥Ü-·¸¤æØÎæ ·Ô¤ ÖèÌÚU âð´Ï×æÚUè ·¤ÚU ßô ©âð ÖèÌÚU âð ÙC ·¤ÚUÙð ·¤è ÌñØæÚUè ×ð´ ÍæÐ©âè R¤× ×ð´ ÁÕ ãæâÙ âæÓÕ ©×ÚU âð âßæÜ ÂêÀÌð ãñ´ ç·¤ ©âÙð çã´Îè ·¤ãæ´ âè¹è,Ìô ÁßæÕ ç×ÜÌæ ãñ- ¥ØôŠØæ, ×é´Õ§ü, ·¤à×èÚU ¥õÚU ×æÜð»æ´ß ·Ô¤ ÎõÚUð âðÐ çÈ¸¤Ë× ·¤ôçßàæéh ×ÙôÚU´ÁÙ ×æÙÙð ßæÜð Üô»ô´ ·¤ô °ðâð ÇæòØÜæò» âð ·¤ô§ü ¥æÂçžæ Ùãè´ ãô»è,Üðç·¤Ù ÁÕ çÈ¤Ë×ô´ ×ð´ ç·¤âè ßæSÌçß·¤ Á»ã ¥õÚU ƒæÅUÙæ¥ô´ ·¤æ çÁ·ý¤ ãôÌæ ãñ Ìô©âð Âðàæ ·¤ÚUÙð ×ð ÚUæÁÙèçÌ·¤ §ü×æÙÎæÚUè ÕÚUÌÙè ¿æçã°Ð ©×ÚU ·Ô¤ ÁßæÕ âð Øð ŠßçÙÌãôÌæ ãñ ç·¤ §Ù Á»ãô´ ÂÚU ¥Ü-·¸¤æØÎæ Ùð ¥æÌ´·¤è ßæÚUÎæÌô´ ·¤ô ¥´Áæ× çÎØæ ¥õÚU©âè ç×àæÙ ·¤ô ÂêÚUæ ·¤ÚUÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ßô »çÜØô´ ·¤è ¹æ·¤ ÀæÙÌð ÚUãð ¥õÚU çã´Îè âè¹

ÜèÐ ØæÙè ¥ØôŠØæ ×ð´ ÁÕ-·¤Öè (ØæÎ ãñ Ù ·¤Õ?) Áô-·¤éÀ ãé¥æ ©â·Ô¤ çÜ°¥Ü-·¸¤æØÎæ ¥õÚU ×éçSÜ× Áç¸�×ðÎæÚU ãñ ¥õÚU ×æÜð»æ´ß ×ð´ ÖèÐ çßEM¤Â× ·Ô¤ çÚUÜèÁãôÙð âð ×ãèÙô´ ÂãÜð ·¤ôÅUü ·¤æ (çÁâ ÂÚU Üô» Ø·¸¤èÙ ·¤ÚUÌð ãñ´) È¸¤ñâÜæ ¥æ »Øæç·¤ ×æÜð»æ´ß Ï×æ·Ô¤ ×ð´ Â·¤Ç¸ð »° ~ ×éçSÜ× çÙÎôüá ãñ´Ð âæŠßè Âý™ææ çâ´ã Ææ·¤éÚU °´Ç·¤´ÂÙè Ùð ©â Ï×æ·Ô¤ ×ð´ â´çÜ#Ìæ ÂÚU ¥ÂÙè âã×çÌ ÁæçãÚU ·¤è ãñÐ çÈ¤Ë× ×ð´ ·¤§üÁ»ã °ðâè ¿æÜæç·¤Øæ´ ÕÚUÌè »§ü ãñ´Ð çÈ¤Ë× âæÜ w®vv ¥æâ-Âæâ ¿ÜÌè ãñ, ÁÕÕÚUæ·¤ ¥ôÕæ×æ ¥×ðçÚU·¤æ ·Ô¤ ÚUæcÅþÂçÌ ãñ´ ¥õÚU ¥È¸¤»æçÙSÌæÙ ÂÚU ã×Üð ·¤ô ÁæØÁÆãÚUæÙð ßæÜæ âÕâð ÕÇ¸æ Âý×æ‡æÂ˜æ ¥ôâæ×æ-çÕÙ-ÜæÎðÙ ×æÚUæ ÁæÌæ ãñÐ çÈ¤Ë× ·Ô¤àæéL¤¥æÌè ·¤éÀ ÎëàØô´ ×ð´ ¥ôÕæ×æ ·¤ô ÅUèßè ÂÚU Öæá‡æ ÎðÌð çÎ¹æØæ ÁæÌæ ãñ ¥õÚUçßEM¤Â× §âè âð ·¤æÜ ·¤ô Öè SÍæçÂÌ ·¤ÚUÌæ ãñÐ çÈ¤Ë× ·Ô¤ ÖèÌÚU Øð çÎ¹æØæ »Øæãñ ç·¤ ÎéçÙØæ ÖÚU ·Ô¤ ×éçSÜ× ¥æÌ´·¤ßæÎè °·¤-ÎêâÚUð âð »ãÚUð ÙðÅUß·¤ü ·Ô¤ âæÍ ÁéÇ¸ðãñ´ ¥õÚU ¥È¸¤»æçÙSÌæÙ ×ð´ Ü»Ö» ãÚU ƒæÚU ×ð´ Õ×-ÕæM¤Î-Õ´Îê·¤ ·¤æ Á¹èÚUæ ãñ ¥õÚUÜô» Ï×ü ·Ô¤ Ùæ× ÂÚU ãè ×ÚU-ç×ÅUÙð ·¤ô ÌñØæÚU ãñ´Ð ßð Õ´Îê·¤ ¿ÜæÌð ãñ´ Ï×ü ·Ô¤ Ùæ×ÂÚU, ãˆØæ ·¤ÚUÌð ãñ´ Ï×ü ·Ô¤ Ùæ× ÂÚU ¥õÚU Ï×ü ·Ô¤ Ùæ× ÂÚU ¹éÎ ·¤ô ©Ç¸æ ÜðÙæ ¿æãÌðãñ´Ð âÕ ·¤éÀ Ï×ü ÌØ ·¤ÚU ÚUãæ ãñÐ ~/vv ·¤Õ ·¤æ ÕèÌ ¿é·¤æ ãñ ¥õÚU ÜæÎðÙ ·¤ôÉê´ÉÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ¥×ðçÚU·¤æ ¥õÚU ÙæÅUô Ùð ¥È¸¤»æçÙSÌæÙ ·¤ô »Îü ×ð´ ÌŽÎèÜ ·¤ÚU çÎØæ ãñÐÜðç·¤Ù Ùãè´, ßð çâÈ¤ü¸ ÜæÎðÙ ·¤ô ãè Ùãè´ Éê´É ÚUãð ãñ´ ÕçË·¤ ¥ÂÙð Õ´Ï·¤ âñçÙ·¤ô´ ·¤ôÕ¿æÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ßô Õ× È¤ôÇ¸Ìð ãñ´Ð ÙæÅUô ·¤è ÊØæÎæÌÚU ·¤ôçàæàæ ÒçÙÎôüáô´Ó ·¤ô »éÈ¤æ âðÕæãÚU çÙ·¤æÜ·¤ÚU ÎéçÙØæ ·¤è ÚUôàæÙè çÎ¹æÙð ·¤è ãñÐ ¥õÚU, ÖæÚUÌ ©â·¤æ âçR¤ØâãØô»è ãñÐ ¥È¸¤»æçÙSÌæÙ ·¤æ ç×àæÙ, ÙæÅUô Ùð ÖæÚUÌèØ ×ÎÎ âð ÁæÚUè ÚU¹æ ãñÐ

çÈ¤Ë× Øð Öè çÎ¹æÌè ãñ ç·¤ ¥È¸¤»æçÙSÌæÙ ×ð´ ¥Öè ÙæÅUô ·Ô¤ ÚUãÙð ·¤è ç·¤ÌÙèÁ¸M¤ÚUÌ ãñ! ¥Õ Øð Ì‰Ø çÎ×æ» ×ð´ ×Ì Üæ§° ç·¤ w®vy Ì·¤ âñ‹Ø ßæÂâè ·¤è ÕæÌ¥×ðçÚU·¤æ âçãÌ ÙæÅUô ·¤ÚU ÚUãð ãñ´ €UØô´ç·¤ çÈ¤Ë× Ùð àæéL¤¥æÌ ×ð´ ãè ƒæôá‡ææ ·¤ÚU Îè ãñç·¤ ßô ·¤æËÂçÙ·¤Ìæ ·¤è ÇôÚU Íæ×ð ãñÐ Øð Öè çÎ×æ»¸ ×ð´ ×Ì Üæ§° ç·¤ ãæòÜèßéÇ ·¤è·¤§ü çÈ¤Ë×ð´ çâÈ¤ü¸ ¥×ðçÚU·¤è âæ×ýæ’ØßæÎ ·¤ô Üô·¤çÂýØ â´S·¤ëçÌ ·Ô¤ ÁçÚU° ßñÏÌæ ÎðÙð·Ô¤ çÜ° ÕÙæ§ü »§ZÐ çÈ¤Ë× ·¤è ×æÙð Ìô Øð ßæÂâè ßñçE·¤ àææ´çÌ ·Ô¤ çÜ° »ÜÌ âæçÕÌãô»èÐ â´ÿæðÂ ×ð´ ·¤ãð´ Ìô çßEM¤Â× ÒßæòÚU ¥æòÙ ÅUðÚUÚUÓ ·¤è ¥×ðçÚU·¤è ×éçã× ·¤ô ÁæØÁÆãÚUæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ×ÙôÚU´Á·¤ ÌÚUè·Ô¤ âð ÁÙ×Ì çÙ×æü‡æ ·¤ÚUÌè ãñÐ ÚUæãéÜ Õôâ °·¤ ¥‘Àð¥çÖÙðÌæ ãñ´ §â SÍæÂÙæ ·¤ô §â çÈ¸¤Ë× ·Ô¤ ×æÈ¤ü¸Ì ·¤éÀ ¥õÚU ¥´·¤ ãæçâÜ ·¤ÚU©‹ãô´Ùð ×Á¸ÕêÌ ç·¤Øæ ãñÐ Çæò. çÙL¤Â×æ ·¤è Öêç×·¤æ ×ð ÂêÁæ ·¤é×æÚU ·¤ô Îð¹·¤ÚU ÕÚUÕâ¿R¤ÃØêã çÈ¸¤Ë× ·¤è çÚUØæ ×ðÙÙ (°àææ »é#æ) ØæÎ ¥æ°»è çÁ‹ãð´ ÂÌæ ãè Ùãè´ ç·¤ÖôÜðÂÙ ·¤ô Öè ç·¤â ÖôÜðÂÙ ·Ô¤ âæÍ çÙÖæÙæ ãôÌæ ãñÐ

àæð¹ÚU ·¤ÂêÚU ¥õÚU ·¤×Ü ãæâÙ ÕÇð Ùæ× ãñ ¥õÚU °ç€UÅU´» ·Ô¤ ÁçÚU° ©‹ãô´Ùð çÙÚUæàæÖè Ùãè´ ç·¤ØæÐ çÈ¤Ë× ×ð´ ¹¸¿æü ãé¥æ ãñ §ââð §Ù·¤æÚU Ùãè´ ç·¤Øæ Áæ â·¤Ìæ, €UØô´ç·¤ÕéÉ¸æÌð ·¤×Ü ãæâÙ ·¤ô SÅU´ÅU ·¤ÚUæÌð çÎ¹æÙð ×ð´ ãè ·¤æÈ¸¤è ×ðãÙÌ ¥õÚU ÏÙ ÁðÕ âðçÙ·¤Ü »Øæ ãô»æÐ °çÇçÅU´» ÕãéÌ ¥‘Àè Ùãè´ ãñ, Îô-ÌèÙ Á»ã Ìô Á·¤ü âæÈ¸¤-âæÈ¸¤ÂÌæ ¿Ü ÚUãæ Íæ ¥õÚU çã´Îè ·¤æ Áô çÂý´ÅU ã×Ùð Îð¹æ ßô àææØÎ çÕÙæ ·¤ÅU ·Ô¤ çÚUÜèÁãé§ü çÈ¸¤Ë× Íè, Ìô ßæSÌçß·¤ °çÇçÅU´» ×ð´ ãè ·¤ô§ü »Ç¸ÕÇ¸è ãñÐ Øð çÈ¤Ë× ç×€Uâ Èýê¤ÅU-¿æÅU ãñÐ §â×ð´ ÎÕ´» Öè ãñ, ° ßðÇÙâÇð Öè, ÚUôÁæ Öè ¥õÚU Î ãèÚUô ÖèÐ çÚUÜèÁ ãôÙðÂÚU ÕßæÜ ©Ù Üô»ô´ Ùð ·¤æÅUæ ãô»æ çÁ‹ãð´ §ââð ÂãÜð ·¤è çÈ¤Ë×ô´ ·Ô¤ ÕæÚUð ×ð´ ·¤ô§üÁæÙ·¤æÚUè Ùãè´ ÚUãè ãô»èÐ Áô ÖæÚUÌèØ çÈ¤Ë× ÂÚU´ÂÚUæ âð ÂçÚUç¿Ì ãñ ßô ·¤æãð ·¤ô ÕßæÜ·¤æÅUð Ö§ü! Ù×æÁ ¥Ìæ ·¤ÚU Õ× È¤ôÇ¸Ùæ ãñ, È¤ôÇ¸ôÐ çÈ¤Ë× Îð¹Ùð ¥æÂ Áæ°´»ð ÌôÂæ°´»ð ç·¤ ÚUæò ·Ô¤ ¥çÏ·¤æÚUè çßEÙæÍ (·¤×Ü ãæâÙ) §ÌÙð Áæ´ÕæÁ ãñ´ ç·¤ â×ê¿è°È¸¤Õè¥æ§ü ·¤ô ¥·Ô¤Üð ãñ´ÇÜ ·¤ÚUÌð ãñ´, ¥ÂÙð §àææÚUô´ ÂÚU Ù¿æÌð ãñ´ ¥õÚU ÂêÚUè çÈ¤Ë× ×ð´ãñÚUæÙ-ÂÚUðàææÙ ÚUãÙð ßæÜè ¥ÂÙè Âè°¿Çè ÂˆÙè ·Ô¤ âæÍ ç×Ü·¤ÚU ¥×ðçÚU·¤æ ·¤ôÙæçÖ·¤èØ Õ× (çââç×·¤ Õ×) ·Ô¤ Âý·¤ôÂ âð Õ¿æ ÇæÜÌð ãñÐ ÁæçãÚU ãñ §ÌÙð ÕãæÎéÚUÂýôÅUñ»ôçÙSÅU ¥»ÚU çÙ×æüÌæ-çÙÎüðàæ·¤ ¥õÚU ·¤ãæÙè·¤æÚU ·¤è ÁðÕ ×ð´ ãô Ìô çÈ¸¤Ë× ·¤æâè`¤Ü Á¸M¤ÚUè ãñÐ Ìô, ¥×ðçÚU·¤æ ·¤ô Õ¿æÙð ·¤è ¥ÂæÚU âÈ¸¤ÜÌæ ·Ô¤ ÕæÎ ¥»ÜèçÈ¸¤Ë× ×ð´ çßEM¤Â× âæãÕ ÖæÚUÌ ×ð´ ãô´»ð ¥õÚU ÖæÚUÌ ·¤ô Õ¿æ°´»ðÐ §´ÌÁ¸æÚU ·¤èçÁ°çßEM¤Â×-w ·¤æ ÎÕ´»-w, ÚUðâ-w, çÁS×-x ·Ô¤ ×æçÈ¸¤·¤Ð n

Üð¹· Â˜æ·¤æÚU ãñ´Ð ¥Öè ÚUæ’ØâÖæ ÅUèßè âð ÁéÇ¸ð ãñ´Ð§Ùâð â´Â·¤ü ·¤æ ÂÌæ [email protected]


COVER STORY

hat afternoon thingsturned murkier for Sad-dam. He and his two-

year-old sister were playing inan auto rickshaw parked neartheir home, suddenly a manwho Saddam remembers, as“tall, short haired with a limpin his right leg” appeared on

the driver’s seat and startedmaneuvering the auto-rick-shaw through the pathways.“At a speed breaker when thevehicle slowed down, the boy,then four years old jumpedout. Watching the vehiclegoing afar, desperately, heshouted. “Please someone

Scourgeof Childtrafficking T

by Subodh Kumar

Child :Anisha Parents: Fatima Missing Since: 1990Adopted in: 1991Country: GermanyAgency: International Social Service(ISS)- German Branch Indian Agency- Tender Loving Care

Fatima had been divorced fromher husband when she was preg-nant. Working in a household asa domestic maid she was taken todelivery to St. Theresa’s TenderLoving Care Home, an adoptionagency in Hyderabad, AndhraPradesh. After delivery, theagency demanded Rs 10,000 forthe same. Fatima could only payRs 1,500, she was allowed to takeher baby to home, but only undercircumstances that she wouldhave to pay the remainingamount later. After few days, theagency reached Fatima’s houseand forcibly took the baby awayfrom her. Repeated attempts byFatima to reclaim her baby failedand she was threatened with po-lice action. Anisha has since metFatima twice. But Fatima continues to miss her daughterevery day. Fatima is not onealone who is deprived of her parents’ rights.

COVER STORY


save my sister.” Since then Jabeen has never

returned. That was November1998 and the place was Wash-ermanpet in north Chennai.

Jabeen was one of the 100children Malaysian SocialService (MSS) had given up foradoption overseas. There arenumber of the participatingadoption agencies have beenin the news for inter-countryadoption rackets and havedone nothing to assist familieswhose children were fraudu-lently or forcefully taken awayand put into inter-countryadoption, giving them a newname, fabricated history andan obviously uncertain futurefor them.

Holding a international con-ference on adoption on Febru-ary 19 and 20 in the capitalchild rights activists pitchedimpassioned plea and de-manded that internationaladoption should be bannedfrom India till comprehensivelaws are put in place to pre-vent ‘trafficking’ of children inthe name of adoption.

The event was organised bythe Indian Central AdoptionResource Authority (CARA)and other government officialsand adoption agencies likeACT (Against Child Traffick-ing Org.), Sakhi and HAQ(Center for Child Rights) in anattempt to promote India’smutual cooperation on inter-country adoption, to discussissues and challenges and todemand urgent governmentintervention in the matter.

Child Trafficking a KeyConcern

The stories of trafficking ofchildren for and through adop-tion are not unknown. But thewoes remain the same andnow new negotiations are tak-ing place in the business ofadoption at the internationalmeets. CARA claims betterregulation of inter-countryadoption through the new

2011 adoption guidelines buthold back information onnumber of children adoptionthrough the new 2011 adop-tion and number of Indian par-ents waiting to adopt. It treatsNRI adoptions as domesticadoptions, but gets the NRIadoptive parents to pay the

same fee as that charged fromforeign adoptive parents.Voices raised against the exist-ing system are met with legalcases filed against the adoptionthose who raise them.

And amidst all these par-ents, who have been craving tomeet their missing children,subsequently located in differ-ent parts of the world withtheir adoptive parents, havemet with no justice whatso-ever. In nation like India wheregovernment's perception is"one is not poor if he/she earnsRs 32 a day" not all can affordlitigation and not all can havethe means to fight for justice.

Responding to queries inRaja Sabha, then Minister ofState for Home Affairs, Jiten-dra Singh had said that asmany as 5,000 children werereported missing in 2011.

It makes clear that, a childgoes missing every eight min-utes in India. Between 2010and 2011, the number of casesof kidnapping and abductionwent up by 43 percent, as per areport prepared by the Min-istry of Statistics and Pro-gramme Implementation.

More than 3700 childrenwent missing from Delhi in thelast five years and are still un-traceable, according to a statusreport filed by the Delhi gov-ernment in Supreme Court

Child: Satish Parents: Kathirvel and Nagarani Missing Since: 1999Adopted in: 2000 Country: Netherland Agency: Meiling Indian Agency: Malaysian SocialService (MSS)

It was 3’O clock in the night, no elec-tricity in the house, when she wokeup to feed her child (Satish) who wassleeping outside the house, there wasno one, her son went missing. In May 2007, a Dutch TV programmeshowed an extensive documentaryabout the case of Satish and otherpossible stolen children who havebeen sent to Netherland. Subse-quently, the Dutch Minister of Justiceordered a three tier administrativeinquiry. The parents personallylodged a police complain in theNetherland and the India but till datethey have never seen their son, notreceived any information about him. While telling the tale of her missingchild Nagarani’s eyes burst into tearsas she says her only desire to see herson and she has came here only toseek justice with great hope in herheart.


COVER STORY

during the hearing of a PIL."As these cases show, many

such kidnapped and missingchildren are victims of gangswhich place children in over-seas adoption with the help ofadoption agencies," said AnjaliPawar of Sakhi, a Pune basedNGO, referring to the familieswho had come to the nationalcapital to protest inter-countryadoptions.

In 1984 the supreme court ofIndia ruled clearly in favour ofdomestic adoptions over inter-country adoptions. TheSupreme Court also looked atthe issue of child traffickingthat could pave the ways forregulation on adoptions in amanner that would prevent il-legalities and exploitations ofchildren. However, the imple-mentation of the judgment hasfailed to prevent child abduc-tion for adoption, as adoptioninstead has become a boomingindustry.

Thousands of women andchildren are trafficked everyday. Within the overall profileof trafficking in South Asia,India is a country of both tran-sit and destination. There is aconsiderable degree of internaltrafficking as well as some traf-ficking from India to GulfStates and to South East Asia.Sale of children and theirmovement across the state bor-ders takes place within thecountry too.

Adoption and Child Trafficking

The biggest challenges arethat most agencies across theworld fail to make the connec-tion between adoption andtrafficking. Even agencies likeUNICEF, at the global level,hesitate to link adoption withchild trafficking; they arerather reluctant to use theword trafficking in the case of

adoption, though they do ac-cept that children are boughtand sold for the purpose ofadoption.

Absence of a comprehen-sive, well-monitored pro-gramme enables hundreds ofchildren to be given away inadoption in informal and per-haps illegal ways.

In India, while the discus-sions in the Lakshmi KantPandey case went into theissue of trafficking and how, inthe name of adoption, there arepossibilities of children beingtrafficked and how childrenare suffering, the Court re-volved more around the proce-dural aspects and did not lookat the question of establishingthe rights of the children in thecontext of trafficking for adop-tion.

In the wake of this lack ofawareness, there are caseswhere children have beenstolen, grabbed by the adop-

COVER STORY


tion mafias or just removedfrom the custody of their bio-logical parents. Families reg-ister an FIR with the localpolice as a case of missingchild. These FIRs get docu-mented and become spumestatistics somewhere. In fewsuch cases, it has been laterfound that the children wereplaced in adoption to foreignthrough a legal process andthey were living and growingabroad.

The children who lost theirbiological parents and arenow with adoptive parentsremain undetermined, andthere is the question of therights of adoptive parentswho adopted through a legalprocess to continue to havetheir children.

The common mind-setwith which inter-countryadoptions are promotedneeds to be questioned. Therealso needs to be a new law ontrafficking that covers allforms and purposes of childtrafficking.

Argument in support ofInter-country adoption

- Inter-country adoption canhelp provide a better life tochildren. It is seen as takingchildren out of hell and intoheaven. Those who contendthis are seen as people againstchildren and child rights.

- In India, there are no takersfor certain children, even ifthey are for example, childrenwith minor correctable disabil-ity. Therefore some childrenwill never find Indian parentsand will have to be given toforeign parents, who do comeforward to adopt them.

- There are hardly any num-bers being placed in inter-country adoptions. In 2009,only 666 children were givenin inter-country adoption asopposed to 1,852 placed in do-mestic adoption. The childrenwho are going into inter-coun-try adoptions are who have re-peatedly not been accepted by

Indian families. Against Inter-country

adoption Those oppose inter-country

adoption and favour in-coun-try adoptions argue that thefirst choice for homes must bewithin the country, in a socialmilieu that they can identifywith as they grow up; severalother factors also come intoplay.

"We don not have a law onadoption and guidelines cannot be a law," said Bharti Ali ofHAQ.

"The government and thesocieties should first look forthe inter-state adoption in 8oper cent cases and inter-coun-try adoption should be the lastchoice, "Bharti had empha-sized.

- How can the governmentallow inter-country adoption,when there are many Indianparents in waiting?

- Why there is poor linkageamong the different states or

simply not allowed when itcomes to in-country adoptions,to the contrary there is a wellestablished inter-countryadoption system. This reflectson the lack of a political will topromote domestic adoptions.

- Inter-country adoptionsonly promote illegal sourcingof children.

Dishonest and illegal Practices continue

There can be no denial of thefact that illegal practices aregoing on in the name of adop-tion across the States. Prosecu-tion of offenders in casesinvolving adoption and childtrafficking is far more difficultin the absence of a comprehen-sive law. The existing legalframework and various di-chotomies within that frame-work have only led to furthervulnerability of the child is theway to check trafficking. Im-proper paper work and cor-ruption make things worse.Making the implementing

YEAR 2003 2004 200 2006 2007 2008

Adoption 21 15 41 23 36 34Begging 6 20 19 24 13 17Camel Racing 0 0 0 0 0 0Illicit Intercourse 383 414 501 676 649 825Marriage 1369 1593 1693 2621 3224 4003Prostitution 58 101 117 148 130 130Selling body Parts 0 1 3 1 0 0Unlawful activity 109 92 58 30 84 138Slavery 6 16 4 15 35 32Sale 13 13 9 11 12 14

Source : Crime in India 2003-2005, National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry ofHome Affairs, and Government of India

Cases of Kidnapping and Abduction of Children(below 18 years) that qualify as cases of Trafficking

VariousPurposesof kid-napping/abduc-tion/traffick-ing

Out of2265cases ofkidnap-ping andabduc-tion thatqualifyas traf-ficking

Out of2265cases ofkidnap-pingand ab-ductionthatqualifyas traf-ficking



0ut of4 1 8 3cases ofkidnap-p i n gand ab-ductiont h a tqualifyas traf-ficking

Out of5193cases ofkidnap-pingAnd ab-ductionthatqualifyas traf-ficking


COVER STORY

agencies transparent and ac-countable is therefore critical.

The root of the problemlies in illegal sourcing of

children - The most common form of

illegal sourcing thrives on ex-ploiting the most vulnerablepopulation of India- the poor.

- Recent fact-finding hasbrought to light the big compe-tition among agencies to getbabies from the governmentunder the cradle baby scheme.Investigations have shown ev-idence of mothers being co-erced, tricked or surrenderdocuments simply forged inorder for brokers to acquire thebabies through what appearsto be a willing surrender. Cur-rently there are no DNA (Di-oxiribo Nucleic Acid) testingrequirements in place.

-In Orissa, a study has beendone on informal traffickingi.e. trafficking from hospi-tals/nursing homes. Thisstudy established that the hos-pitals have a whole list of con-tact persons to whom theyhand over abandoned chil-dren. Out of the children aban-doned in the hospitals, only 10per cent are coming to the rec-ognized childcare institutionswhereas 90 per cent of them gothe non-recognised agencies.Hospitals definitely need to bementioned.

-Also, all hospitals need toensure 100 per cent birth regis-tration.

-Only 20 per cent of our dis-tricts have a (Child WelfareCommittee) CWC, lack ofCWCs in many of the districtsalso leads to child traffickingthrough not only the non-li-censed news agencies but li-censed agencies and many ofthe hospitals and/or childcarecenters as well.

A 70-year-old KisabaiLokhande of Pune, in her voicewobbled with emotions recalls,“I had placed my two grand-children Ashwini and Komal

in a boarding school in the Ob-servation Home in Satara.Without my consent they (Ob-servation Home) transferredboth to Preet Mandir, an or-phanage cum adoption agencyin Pune.”

Since Kisabai has not heardfrom her grandchildren as shecame to know that they weregiven to adoptive parents inSpain, through the mediationof a Spanish adoption agency.The adoptive family denies allcontact.

“I want to see my grandchil-dren before my last breath,”she choked up while describ-ing her last wish.

Trafficking in Human Be-ings and World Scenario According to INTERPOL

(World’s largest InternationalPolice Organisation) traffick-ing in human beings is a crimeunder international law andmany national and regionallegal systems. Given the com-plexities of the issue, a multi-tude of strategies are necessary

at a range of levels in order toreduce the problem.

Trafficking in human beingsis a multi-billion-dollar form ofinternational organized crime,constituting modern-day slav-ery.

Victims are recruited andtrafficked between countriesand regions using deception orcoercion. They are stripped oftheir autonomy, freedom ofmovement and choice, andface various forms of physicaland mental abuse.

There are three main typesof human trafficking:

•Trafficking for forcedlabour;

•Trafficking for sexual ex-ploitation;

•Trafficking of organs.Closely connected is the issueof people smuggling in whichsmugglers procure, for finan-cial or material gain, the illegalentry of an individual into acountry of which he is neithera citizen nor a permanent resi-dent. Generally speaking, oncepayment is completed, the re-lationship between the illegalimmigrant and the smuggler isterminated.

Child Protection All children have the right

to be protected wherever theyare — at home, in school, onthe streets, and at all times —in times of peace or conflict orcalamity. Their right to protec-tion is as intrinsic to their wellbeing, as is the right to sur-vival, development and partic-ipation. Children deserve tolive in an environment wheregood governance and the fullenjoyment of human rights aremutually reinforcing.

In its simplest form, childprotection addresses everychild’s right not to be subjectedto harm. It thus complementsother provisions that ensurethat children receive all thatthey need in order to survive,develop and thrive. It must re-late to the child’s capacity for

COVER STORY


self-reliance and self-defence and to the rolesand responsibilities of family, community, soci-ety and State.

Children are 'un-protected" and vulnerabledue to both acts of omissions (neglect and de-nial of basic rights) and commission (acts of vi-olence, abuse and exploitation).

ALARMING STATISTICS

• In 2008, 5193 cases of kidnapping of minorsamounting to child trafficking were registered

• Between 2003 and 2008, kidnapping of mi-nors amounting to child trafficking increased by164 %.

• 3/4th of all incidents of kidnapping of mi-nors amounting to child trafficking in 2008 re-lated to kidnapping for marriage.

• Kidnapping of children for unlawful activ-ities saw a 64.3% increase between 2007 and2008.

• In 2008, there was a 30.8% increase in kid-napping of children for begging while kidnap-ping for sale of children

Arund Dohle of Against Child Trafficking(ACT), Netherlands and Brussels based organi-sation, which claims to have reunited 20 plusadopted kids to their biological families, says,"In the discourse on foreign adoption, we haveforgotten Jabeen and similar other cases."

Dohle adds that in cases where adopted chil-dren were able to trace their parents of birth, thedamage done was irreparable. "By that time,they are grown up adults. They don't speakHindi and are not accustomed to the Indian cul-ture."

There is no law governing adoptions in India.There are only CARA guideline based on childprotection principles and provisions mandatedin Juvenile Justice (care & protection ofchildren) Act.

CARA guidelines say that adoption agencieshave to follow 80-20 ratio between domesticand foreign adoptions, failing which they canloose their licenses.

The guidelines say that while sending chil-dren for inter-country adoptions, agenciesshould give priority to Indian nationals, Indiannationals living abroad (NRI), Overseas Citizenof....India card holders, and foreign nationals, inthat order.

Between 2009 and March 2012, more than13000 children were placed in domestic adop-tion against 1848 inter-country adoptions, as perCARA data.

For every adoption, domestic or inter-coun-try, Child Welfare Committee (CWC), a quasi-judicial body formed under the Juvenile JusticeAct- has to declare a child legally free for adop-tion.

But in many cases, says Enakshi Ganguly ofHAQ- Centre for Child Rights, a Delhi basedNGO, the committee's role has been unsatisfac-tory. "Gangs involved in adoption mislead thecommittee," she says.

In international law, trafficking was first de-fined by the 2000 UN Protocol to Prevent, Sup-press and Punish Trafficking in PersonsEspecially Women and Children, (known as the“Palermo protocol”). This does not restrict traf-ficking to cases of force or deception but also in-culpates “the abuse of power or of a position ofvulnerability.” Thus, consent can never consti-tute a defence to a charge of trafficking. Decep-tion or lack of consent may not be present at allstages.Making stringent laws alone will not takethe society to a pedestal better than the one wefind it at now. It is in recognition of this fact thatthe nation has to write separate chapter that candeals with the proposition of bringing about po-lice reforms. Such reforms are necessary notonly to curb gender based violence but also todeliver justice effectively.

Rather than treating child trafficking as anisolated issue, the government of India shouldrespond by creating comprehensive and inte-grated child protection mechanisms. Traffickingis hard to define simply. The stereotypicalimage is of young women or girls sold into sexual slavery, but the reality is more complex.Not to put too fine a point on it, child traffickingis serious threat to the society and there is needto unveil the reality. n

([email protected])


GOVERNANCE

ere comes another blast thistime in the city of nizamswith same questions-intel-

ligence failure and India soft onterror? Our internal securityagencies are battling for theirown credibility and relevance.Not one terror attack case hasbeen solved since 2009. After26/11, our intelligence agenciescame under severe criticism.Yet, the government's responsewas not to reform intelligencegathering but to set up an inves-tigation agency with an unclearmandate. The result was the Na-tional Investigation Agency(NIA), with a grand total of zerocases solved to its credit. Ideasfor reforming India's internal se-curity already exist, published inreports commissioned by suc-cessive governments. But allgathering dust now.

So it doesn’t come as toomuch of a surprise when the

Supreme Court seeks centre's re-sponse on a PIL demanding aregulatory mechanism and ac-countability for Intelligence Bu-reau (IB), Research & AnalysisWing (RAW) and NationalTechnical Research Organisation(NTRO). On the one hand, thenature of their work demandsthe intelligence agencies work in

secrecy. On the other hand,there is a demand for transparency and accountabilityfor them.

Since the very inceptionthese intelligence agencies areonly public authorities whichhave been operating under exec-utive orders issued by the gov-ernment without anyaccountability to parliament orany other democratic institution.The Intelligence Bureau (IB),India's internal intelligenceagency, has its origins in theThuggee Office set up in Ja-balpur by Colonel Sleeman in1835 to gather intelligence aboutthe movements and modusoperandi of the ‘thugs’ and da-coits who rampaged the plainsof northern India in the 18th and19th centuries. After the GreatIndian Mutiny of 1857, when thereins of government of the In-dian Empire were taken overfrom the East India Company bythe British Crown, the ThuggeeOffice was renamed the Intelli-gence Bureau and began to col-lect political and othernon-criminal intelligence.

Like the IB, the RAW isone of India’s premier intelli-gence agencies, responsible forexternal intelligence. Before thecreation of RAW in 1968, the IBwas responsible for both internaland external intelligence. Dur-ing the 1962 and 1965 conflictswith China and Pakistan, anumber of shortcomings werenoticed. Based on the conceptpaper submitted by the Army,the govt. approved the creationof an independent intelligenceagency to gather external intelli-gence. However, instead of theMinistry of Defence, as recom-mended in the paper submittedby the Army, the new organiza-tion was to function under thePrime Minister’s Office (PMO)known as the Research & Analy-sis Wing of the Cabinet Secre-tariat, RAW. It was establishedon 21 September 1968.

The National TechnicalResearch Organisation (NTRO),

AccountingSpies

by Vivek Pathak

H

GOVERNANCE


earlier known as the National Technical FacilitiesOrganization (NTFO), is a highly specialized tech-nical intelligence gathering agency, which wascreated in 2004. Like the RAW, it functions underthe PMO. The GoM on National Security had rec-ommended the constitution of the NTFO as astate-of-the-art technical wing of intelligence gath-ering in 2001. As in the case of IB and RAW, de-tails of its recommendations were not made publicwhen the GoM Report was formally released on23 May 2001. The NTRO carries out hi-tech sur-veillance functions, including satellite monitoring,terrestrial monitoring and internet monitoring. Italso develops technology capabilities in aviationand remote sensing, data gathering and process-ing, cyber security, cryptology systems, strategichardware, software development and strategicmonitoring.

However these intelligence agencies are notbeing audited by the Comptroller Auditor General(CAG) even though the Secret Service Funds (SSF)running into hundreds of crores are being fundedout of the consolidated fund of India and Section14 of the CAG Act mandates that the organizationbeing funded out of consolidated fund of Indiamust be audited by the CAG. But there were noquestions asked, no audit reports required. Asstated earlier the three agencies (IB, RAW andNTRO) were created by executive order, withoutthe mandate of parliament. As such, their legalstatus and position in the nation’s polity remainsvague and ambiguous. Apart from lack of clarityin the legal status, they also suffer from severalother lacunae, such as lack of parliamentary over-sight, operational and financial accountability,which in turn breed high levels of nepotism,malfeasance and corruption.

Corruption and Misuse of powerEverything around seems infected by the cor-

ruption curse, just turn the carpet and you willfind the floor smitten with dust. The primary taskof intelligence agencies is to collect intelligence ofthreats to the nation’s security, from external aswell as internal sources. However, these agencieshave often been used for carrying out illegal actsby politicians and bureaucrats. This includes of-fering bribes to members of political parties to in-duce them change their loyalty, rigging andpurchasing votes during elections, topplingelected governments, monitoring the activitiesand telephones of political opponents, and so on.Since their operations are shrouded in secrecy,these illegal acts seldom come to light, exceptwhen exposed by whistle blowers who haveserved in these intelligence agencies. Some exam-ples of misuse of intelligence agencies and corrup-tion have come out in books written by those who

have worked in these agencies.

To quote from The Kaoboys of R&AW, by B.Raman, p.56-57:

"When the Morarji Desai-led Governmentcame to power, it had all the records of the R&AWscrutinized ….. it came across a curious case in thefiles of the Ministry of Finance and the ReserveBank of India, which it thought it could use to fixthe R&AW. This related to Nair being sent toGeneva during the Emergency to deposit a chequefor US Dollars six million in a numbered accountof a bank in Geneva……

…enquiries revealed that the account actuallybelonged to one Rashidiyan, an Iranian middle-man, who was good friend of Ashraf Pehlawi, thesister of the Shah of Iran. On the recommendationof the Hindujas, the well-known business family,the Ministry of Finance of the Government ofIndia had used the services of this man to per-suade the Shah to grant two soft loans to India –one for the implementation of the Kundremukhiron ore project and the other to pay the importbill of India. In view of the action taken by the USGovernment against India after the Pokhran I nu-clear test in 1974, the Government of India wasfacing serious financial difficulties and had re-quested the Shah of Iran for a soft loan of US Dol-


GOVERNANCElars 250 million. At the urging of Ashraf Pehlawi,the Shah agreed to help India out. The FinanceMinistry accepted a recommendation of the Hin-dujas that a commission of US Dollars six millionshould be paid to Rashidiyan for getting the loanthrough the sister of the Shah of Iran. The ReserveBank of India sent a telex to a bank in Geneva, ask-ing it to hand over this draft to Nair. The FinanceMinistry had requested Kao to depute Nair toGeneva to collect the draft anddeposit it in the numbered ac-count of Rashidiyan. Kaoobliged...” This incident has been corroboratedby K. Sankaran Nair. To quote fromhis book ‘Inside IB and RAW’, pp171-72:

“….. Actually, a payment ofthis sum into a Swiss Bank hadbeen made from the funds of theMinistry of External Affairs, onbehalf of the Finance Ministry,after clearance of the Prime Min-ister, Mrs. Gandhi. I was involvedin this transaction purely as acourier. The MEA would not trusttheir own mission in Geneva tohandle this apparently sensitivepayment and had requested Kaoto help out. R&AW was not takeninto confidence about the reasonsfor the payment, which had astrong kick-back smell.….”

“……….. The six million dol-lar pay out in Geneva was a kick-back to Rashidiyan and hisassociates for having procuredthe loan. This had been sanc-tioned by the Government ofIndia. My eyes popped out inamazement when Narsimhantold me these startling facts……..”

The former officer of IB,Maloy Krishna Dhar has writtenin his book ‘Open Secrets- India’sIntelligence Unveiled’ as how theIB has been used by various gov-ernments to serve their politicalinterests. To quote from his bookOpen Secrets – India’s Intelli-gence Unveiled p. 18

“It happens very often whenweak Prime Ministers and totter-ing Home Ministers have to eatout of the hands of the DirectorIB. They use the IB and otheragencies to supplement their po-

litical apparatuses. The IB is tasked to carry outelection prospects study, verify credentials andsuitability of the ruling party candidates and tometiculously study the weaknesses of the opposi-tion candidates. The IB is used to monitor all com-munication arteries of the opposition leaders andother individuals considered inimical to the lead-ership. The political breed has of late started usingthe R&AW also to carry out such exercises.”

Several instances of corrup-tion malfeasance, indiscipline,misconduct and wrongdoing inRAW have been mentioned inthe book titled India’s ExternalIntelligence – Secrets of the Re-search & Analysis Wing (RAW)by Major General V.K. Singh,who served in the organisationas a Joint Secretary in 2000-04.

To quote from India’s ExternalIntelligence – Secrets of the Re-search & Analysis Wing(RAW) pp. 81-93:-

“Sometime during the lastweek of July 2002, a file of theProcurement Cell landed onmy table. It contained an orderplaced on Rohde and SchwarzGmbh for the supply of 27VHF/UHF log periodic direc-tional antennae (LPDAs), cov-ering frequencies from 30 to3000 MHZ. The total value ofthe order was over Rs. fourcrores, with the cost of each an-tennae being about 15.5 lacs.

………Along with this file,there was another file of theProcurement Cell, which dealtwith upgrading of certain mon-itoring stations. This containedapproval of the Secretary forpurchase of several items ofequipment, including a dozenodd VHF/UHF antennae of ex-actly the same type that hadbeen ordered from Rohde andSchwarz. However, there was asubstantial difference in theprice, which had been men-tioned as Rs. 2.5 lacs per an-tenna against Rs. 15.5 lacsbeing paid to Rohde andSchwarz.

…… After browsing thesites of several antennae manu-facturers, I found that no one

GOVERNANCE


made antennae covering both the VHF and UHFbands completely. The common band covered bymost was 30 to 1300 MHz, which was the bandcommonly being used for communications. If ad-ditional coverage was required, a combination oftwo antennae had to be used. I found that theorder placed on Rohde and Schwarz also specifiedtwo antennae, which were to be used in combina-tion…..On the Internet, the price of the antennaecovering up to 1300 MHz was around 300 US $,which worked out to less than Rs. 15,000. In otherwords, we were paying Rohde and Schwarz al-most hundred times what it was costing in the in-ternational market.

…….Once I had collected the above facts, I de-cided to bring it to the notice of my superiors. ….Ialso sent a note to Director (R), in reply to his com-munication under which a copy of the orderplaced on Rohde and Schwarz had been sent tothe Procurement Cell. The anomalies in the entireprocurement process, including the PNC-TACwere pointed out, and a request was made to can-cel the order. As expected, I received a reply thatthe order could not be cancelled since all proce-dures had been correctly followed. Moreover, can-celing the order would have legal implications. “

On 3rd May 2010, an article ‘We, The Eaves-dropped’ by Saikat Datta was published in ‘Out-look’ on misuse of NTRO. As per the article, inFebruary 2007, the NTRO tapped the cell phone ofone of the General Secretaries of a political party.In a similar incident, the mobile phone of the pres-ent Chief Minister of Bihar was tapped during anofficial visit to Delhi in October 2007. In July 2008,the cell phones of opposition leaders including thepresent General Secretary CPI (M) were tapped toascertain their plans regarding the Indo-US nu-clear deal and the consequent no-confidence mo-tion in Parliament at the time. In April 2010, cellphone conversations between the then Union agri-culture Minister and the then Indian PremierLeague Commissioner were tapped in the wake ofthe scandal in the cricket league.

Later on in the case of NTRO, serious cases ofcorruption in procurement of equipment and re-cruitment have come out in a special audit doneby the CAG. The CAG in a reply under the RTI on29.02.2012 has given information as to what kindof irregularities they have found in their auditingof NTRO and they are as follows:

“We have noticed cases of appointment of in-eligible candidates and lack of transparency in re-cruitment of employees in NTRO.”

“We have noticed lack of transparency in ap-pointment of contractual employees.”

“We have noticed lack of transparency andnon-compliance of rules and procedures in pro-curement of systems/stores/equipments and de-ficient procurement management resulting in

cases of excess payment/wasteful expenditure/loss to exchequer.”

“We have noticed instances of misuse of offi-cial position.”

Reforming Intelligence Agencies

To be sure, agencies which have the mandateto gather intelligence are on a dicey wicket. Theamount of frivolous work they do – for instanceprotecting VIPs from headline grabbers wantingto get into news by slapping or throwing shoes atVIPs and ministers – leaves them with little timefor serious collation of facts and the ability to fore-see potentially dangerous situations. The politi-cian with his myopic vision on the vote bankcould not care less.

Yet, in a strange way and despite the odds, theNovember 11, 2008 attacks in Mumbai havechanged things. Acknowledgment of it has comein a recent Institute for Defence Studies andAnalyses (IDSA) task force report, sponsored bythe Ministry of Defence (MoD) which admits thatthe unprecedented 26/11 attack on Mumbai fo-cused attention on the complex security chal-lenges facing India, which have the potential toderail its economic and social progress. In the af-termath of that incident, the functioning of India'ssecurity and intelligence set-up and its ability tomeet the new emerging challenges prompted anacross-the-board intelligence revamp and parlia-mentary accountability extensively discussed invarious circles. Even earlier, after the Kargil intru-sions in 1999, the issue of intelligence lapses hadbeen examined in depth and several recommen-dations made by the Task Force set up by theGroup of Ministers were implemented. "Severalefforts have been made in the past to bring aboutreforms in the intelligence sector. Our contentionin this report is that these efforts have been piece-meal and ad hoc. New organisations were createdbut no thought was given to prevent overlaps ofjurisdiction or turf wars on the creation or sharingof expensive new technical assets or know how,''says the recent three-member Institute for De-fence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) task force re-port.

Calling for introducing greater transparencyand professionalism, the Task Force suggests thatdespite the sensitivities involved, greater account-ability and parliamentary oversight is the need ofthe day. "We are mindful of reservations withinthe intelligence community, especially among po-lice officers in the profession, that excessive harp-ing on accountability could damage operationalefficiency and jeopardise secrecy. Yet, it has beenfelt, on balance, that there can be no getting awayfrom introducing some sort of external supervi-sion and control, including legislative oversight to


GOVERNANCE

improve efficiency and to build in self-correctingmechanisms."

But the report admits that ushering in reformsis tough because even the smallest of reforms canbecome hostage to divisions, rancour or the mon-umental shortsightedness prevailing within theintelligence community.

Most experts and analysts, however, believethat the time has come for not just a total intelli-gence revamp but also bringing it under appropri-ate scrutiny, whether an oversight committee likethe various parliamentary panels or a special com-mittee formed with the Defence Minister, ForeignMinister, Home Minister and Finance Ministerunder the chairmanship of Prime Minister. Ofcourse, all this needs to be done under the oath ofsecrecy so that sensitivity is not compromised.

A critical part of this revamp is the inclusion ofmanpower with varied experience and exposure.Pointing to this lacunae of not having the benefitof specialists from streams like financial services,people with understanding of business issues andthe media, Rana Banerji, former Special SecretaryRAW, says experts from different fields need to beroped in so that perspective and planning at theagency is enriched by multiple inputs. "We shouldappreciate the importance of people from the fi-nancial world when identifying support to terror-ist organisations, drug cartels and hawaladealers,'' he points out.

Intelligence Services and Power and Regula-tion Bill

Manish Tewari, Minister of Information &Broadcasting, under his capacity of Congress MPfrom Ludhiana introduced a private member’s billcalled Intelligence Services and Power and Regula-tion Bill in 2011 aimed at regulating the functioningof the intelligence agencies. If passed, it would liftthe veil of secrecy behind which these agencies op-erate, allowing a parliamentary scrutiny of theirworking. The first objective of the bill is to set theseintelligence organisations on a proper legal basis be-cause any organisation which has the capacity todeal with the issues of life and liberty (of citizens)should do so within the parameters of the constitu-tion. The second aspect is that these organisationsneed to have a very clearly defined mandate as towhat is and what is not expected of them. Thirdly,there is a semblance of oversight which is very es-sential. Just because intelligence operations requiresecrecy it does not mean that intelligence per sayshould become a taboo.

The bill says that the director of the IB or the sec-retary of the R&AW or the chairman of the NTROcannot be pressed to disclose some information thatthe prime minister says should not be disclosed orthe information is sensitive according to the agency

head, which mainly contradicts the aim of the bill.But Tewari goes on justifying it in an interviewgiven to Governance Now saying the fear expressedby people who have headed or worked in these or-ganisations is that if you have an oversight mecha-nism, it may start asking questions which mayjeopardise their operational efficiency. So a need wasfelt for a stipulation to preserve their operationalsanctity. By putting this firewall it allows the PrimeMinister to exercise his discretion about what wouldor may jeopardise the operation aspects of anagency’s functioning.

There is feeling that if this bill is passed manyskeletons would come out of the cupboard. The billis yet to be presented by the government in Parlia-ment. But the intention should not be to embarrassor to disempower the intelligence structure.Whereas the attempt should be made to empower itfurther by giving it a clearly defined legislative man-date. But at the same time India needs to graduatefrom that Victorian syndrome. Unfortunately, therewas a British convention which we inherited that inthe field of intelligence even parliament must com-pletely cede its discretion to the executive. Thatcovenant may have been true in the early part of the20th century. But even those countries which coinedthese covenants have given them a decent burial bymaking their executives and intelligence agenciesmore accountable with the changing time. Intelli-gence agencies such as Mossad, CIA and MI6 havereformed their structures to include operation andfinancial audits which have improved their effi-ciency. These agencies, prior to reforms, had a his-tory of personal and political abuse. Institutions arebased on trust, but there is no incompatibility be-tween trust and verification. The taxpayer needs toknow from a competent authority that his rupee isnot being misused on ballerinas, champagne andsettling personal scores. n

([email protected])

JUDICIARY


he execution of Afzal Guru has generated ahuge debate. Some celebrated it and somecriticised it for several reasons. One of the

responses I came across on social mediaplatform, Facebook reads that:

“This spectacular and also impercep-tible shift from staged encounters (extra-judicial killings) to simply judicialkillings is alarming. Now, even incourts, even in the case of capital pun-ishment, you cannot avail due processif you are a Muslim or Kashmiri. Afzalis both.”

An implicit attribution of communalismto judiciary in this comment compelled me thinkabout it carefully for several days. The more youthink about this comment, the more you get dis-tressed as it’s not only mischievous but also ex-tremely irresponsible. It is not only ill-conceivedbut also a serious allegation and the problem isin its reliance on such a prejudiced selection ofsample. It is not even a sample. To cast asper-sions on judiciary in this manner is simply cyn-ical.

Whether award of death sentence and subse-quent execution was right or wrong, sound inlaw or not, whether his conviction on circum-stantial evidence was justified or not, whatevermay be the problem with the way Afzal Guruwas executed, it does not give occasion to im-pute such a slander on a credible institution likejudiciary. An institution which stands as a guardagainst state’s power and acts as our final refugedoes not deserve such treatment.

This imputation of communalism on judiciaryonly reflects the well known syndrome of selec-tive amnesia. Let us turn some pages of news-

pa-p e r s

in thelast six

months whichis gathering dust if not sold to rag pickers.

An article published in The Times of India onAugust 6, 2012 reads: In a setback to Delhi Po-lice, the Delhi high court has upheld acquittal ofseven alleged terrorists on the ground they werenabbed after a "fake encounter" in 2005 and werefalsely implicated.”

Another piece in the same newspaper on No-vember 22, 2012 reads: “The Delhi High Courton 22 November in a 16-year-old important caseof terrorism acquitted two convicts who wereearlier sentenced to death. The court said its ver-dict was forced by the Delhi Police’s “shoddy in-vestigation” in the case. The judgment by abench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and G P Mittalwas pronounced after hearing the appeals filedby the convicts, Mohammad Naushad, Moham-mad Ali Bhatt, Mirza Nisar Husain and JavedAhmed Khan, all from Kashmir.”

On January 5, 2013 an article in Indian Ex-press reads: Eight years after being awarded thedeath penalty by a sessions court for his alleged

A Random Reflection ofa Human Rights Lawyer

Is it right to call Judiciary communal?

T

by Anant Asthana


JUDICIARY

involvement in a 1997 bomb blast which killedfour persons in a Delhi Transport Corporationbus, a Pakistani national was on Friday acquit-ted by another sessions court, which conducteda fresh trial in the case.

Kashmiri man acquitted in terror case, readsan article published in The Hindu on February10, 2013: A Sessions court here has acquitted aman, accused of being a member of terror outfitAl-Badr who had allegedly sent a large consign-ment of communication equipment from SaudiArabia to India, after Delhi Police obtained afaulty sanction to prosecute him under the Un-lawful Activities Prevention Act…AcquittingSrinagar resident Sajjad Hussain Sheikh, Addi-tional Sessions Judge P. K. Jain said: “Prosecu-tion has failed to bring home the guilt of theaccused for the offence punishable under Sec-tion 40 of UAPA beyond the shadow of all rea-sonable doubts. Thus I hereby acquit him.”

These are just few results of acquittals an-nounced by various courts in Delhi in past sixmonths in terrorism related cases involvingMuslims as well as Kashmiris which came upduring these two minutes of recapitulation ofnewspapers reports. So where does the allega-tion of Judiciary being communal stand?

Standing up and working towards promotionand protection of human rights, Rule of Law,Due Process and civil liberties is an act of re-sponsibility and it should be incumbent on peo-ple like us to be informed, fair and responsiblein our criticism. It is true that judicial system isnot flawless and yes there is a need to keep onimproving it but at the same time it is very im-portant for habitual critics like us to invest inkeeping ourselves well- informed in order to befair in our criticism and action. Imputing com-munalism to Judiciary, in such a general, blandand sweeping fashion, is the last thing any re-sponsible human rights activist in India shoulddo because it does not seem to be the case at all.

There have been lot of vitriolic stuff on inter-net about judiciary and a lot of it was just “vent-ing out”. More surprisingly such contents arecoming from human rights related websites andblogs by those claiming to be speaking forhuman rights. Who are these self-proclaimedhuman rights saviours? The question here is,whether all these was coming from people whoare seriously concerned about human rights sit-uation in our country or just that they are angryon something and using human rights’ languageas an easy tool to camouflage their anger or re-action? Today if general opinion about “HumanRights Activists” is getting dismal; it is so, to agreat extent, because of these kinds of cynicalcriticism being put forth so randomly in the

name of human rights. Being a human right activist, I am fully aware

that speaking for respecting human rights, call-ing for adherence to rule of law , criticising orbeing vocal or standing or acting against thosein authority and power or challenging popularperceptions within society with uncomfortablequestions, more so on sensitive issues like ter-rorism, state repression, freedom of speech, na-tionalism etc. Speaking on these issues ofteninvites allegations of being “anti-national”, “un-patriotic”, “traitor”, “bleeding heart liberals”,“Foreign agents” and many activists are in factvictimised due to these stereotypes which is amatter of great concern but at the same time alot of these stereotypes are resulting from irre-sponsibility shown by some of us , human rightsactivists. Today those who are using AfzalGuru’s execution for maligning judiciary, theyshould do some homework and should knowthat this very judiciary just last year set aside

JUDICIARY


death sentence and convictiongiven to some Pakistani nation-als accused of 1997 Delhi bombblast only because it found thataccused persons were notproperly represented by legalaid provided to them. Thejudgment lambasted lower ju-diciary for taking legal aid ca-sually. Why should we, humanrights activists, not look atthese judgments when we passour “judgments” over judici-ary? Are these Judgments com-ing from Mars?

The effort here is not to putup a defence of judiciary but tobreak this culture of selectiveselection and irresponsible crit-icism and to highlight the needof exercising self-constraint onour overzealous criticismswhich do not do any good to usexcept marginalising and dele-gitimizing our voicesfurther.The dignified spacewhich is accorded to dissentand criticism in democracyneeds to be zealously protectedand preserved and that’s whywe need to guard ourselvesand our movement against ir-responsible behaviour and ac-tion. This was one of thelessons which I had learnt wayback from Noted Humanrights Scholar Prof Iqbal AliAnsari with whom I used towork as a research assistantduring my university days. Iremember his insistence onmaintaining highest standardsof fairness in criticism. Hisscholarly work on variousfacets of human rights is a tes-timony to this. His aversion toselective selection and insis-tence on speaking uniformlyagainst any kind of discrimina-tion or bias used to make those,who would want to make hisselective use, feel uncomfort-able and would decided to iso-late him but he did notcompromise on this core prin-ciple. I don’t see that kind of in-tegrity now a day in our circle.People just tend to suffer fromcompulsive criticism disorder.

Coming back to the issue,there is no denying fact thatcourts do go wrong and that iswhy in Law we have remediesto deal with fallibility of courts.We have instances where evenSupreme Court has correcteditself. True that Afzal’s caseand “Collective conscience”doctrine need to be attended,debated and responded, but ina responsible, fair and propermanner. Vilification of judici-ary, for this reason is neitherthe answer nor it is fair. Irecord my protest against this

culture of irresponsibilityslowly creeping into our movement.

Let us not loose sight of his-torical role our judiciary hasplayed in advancing humanrights law in our country. Letus be thankful to our Judges forupholding rule of law and pro-tecting civil liberties. Let usalso understand that we will becausing more harm than goodif we rush to impute such base-less allegations on judiciary.We look up to judiciary in thetime of crisis and I don’t thinkthere is any case for being dis-illusioned from it. If there areinstances where criticism is re-quired, our democratic setup isspacious enough for that. Spaceof criticism needs to be utilisedresponsibly though and itworks. We all remember Jus-tice Katju’s magnanimous con-

quer over infallibility whendemocratic and dignifiedmeans were utilized to conveydistress caused by his com-ment. Where is the occasionfor resorting to cynicism, whenwe see fair criticism being at-tended properly?

Deviations from set princi-ples of law and instances of ob-stinacy, often seen in thefunctioning of lower judiciaryare routine and the same areaddressed by the HigherCourts in due process but to at-tribute an exclusive communalreading to such occasional de-viations on the part of lower ju-diciary and to interpret errorsand omissions which go on injudicial system in a selectivefashion will not be fair andproper. This is somethingwhich happens routinely in thejustice delivery system and thatis why our judicial system hasinbuilt supervisory and correc-tive processes in place. Fallibil-ity of judges and courts issomething which is acknowl-edged in law and that is whywe should take it as that only.

Having said this, I am notdisputing the class character oflaw and given to that, our judi-cial system is also not immunefrom this but this is somethingwhich we need to address col-lectively in a wider process ofsocial change. Judicial System,like any other system is alsomade up of human beings, vul-nerable to all human weak-nesses. It is not a machine orcomputer which could func-tion on binary codes or set pro-grammes. Law acknowledgesthis and so should we. n

Imputing communalismto Judiciary, in such ageneral, bland andsweeping fashion, is thelast thing any responsi-ble human rights activistin India should do be-cause it does not seem tobe the case at all.

(Author is a Human RightsLawyer in Delhi High Court,was requested by “All rights Bu-reau” to share his views on thissubject and he shared this note,which is based on his personalreflections. He can be contactedat [email protected])

arnataka has done it. Last week it an-nounced the setting up of a ‘Farmers In-come Commission.’ The terms and

conditions have yet to be formulated. If imple-mented properly, and followed up in Punjab, itcan be the game changer for Indian agriculturewhich is reeling under a terrible agrarian dis-tress.

Noted agricultural scientist Dr M S Swami-nathan sees merit in this. Thanking me for per-suading the Karnataka government to establishan income commission, he wrote in a personalcommunication: “The National Policy for Farm-ers calls for a paradigm shift from measuringagricultural progress in terms of production tomeasuring progress by the real rate in thegrowth of the farmers’ income….This is theneed of the hour.”

Six years after I first demanded the need toprovide farmers with an assured monthly in-come, the nation is gradually waking up to thedesperate need for such a body to address the

fundamental issue of income security amongcountry's exasperated farming community.Credit goes to former Karnataka Chief MinisterB S Yeddurappa who very patiently listened tome, discussed its pros and cons and agreed toset up such a body. Present Chief Minister Ja-gadish Shettar finally announced it as part ofthe agricultural budget presented in Feb 2013.

By providing income in the hands of farmers,(the mainstay of the economy) we are actuallyproviding the real stimulus to kick-start the

AGRICULTURE


Farmers IncomeCommission is nowa reality in India

In the 10-year period, between

1997 and 2008, the National

Crime Record Bureau tells us

that approximately 2.40 lakh

farmers had committed suicide

primarily to escape the humilia-

tion that comes along with grow-

ing indebtedness. Another 42 per

cent want to quit agriculture if

given an alternative.

K

by Devinder Sharma


economy. In my opinion, modern

farming leads to two kinds ofagriculture. First, is the highlysubsidised agriculture in thewestern countries. And sec-ond, it results in subsistenceagriculture, as is being wit-nessed in the developingworld. The only way to bailout subsistence farmers is to

provide them with direct in-come support, as is being donein the rich and industrialisedcountries.

Let us make a comparison.In the 10-year period, between1997 and 2008, the NationalCrime Record Bureau tells usthat approximately 2.40 lakhfarmers had committed suicideprimarily to escape the humil-

iation that comes along withgrowing indebtedness. An-other 42 per cent want to quitagriculture if given an alterna-tive. On the other hand, in theUS between 1995 and 2009,farmers have been paid Rs12.50 lakh crore as farm subsi-dies, including direct incomesupport. In other words, whileour farmers were reeling


AGRICULTURE

under mounting debt, US farmers got a fatcheque sitting at their homes.

In Europe, the economic handouts are morelucrative. Farmers receive a per hectare subsidyin the form of direct income support of Rs 4,000.In the case of cereals alone, if you multiply Rs4,000 with 2.2 lakh hectares area sown in 27countries of European Union, it comes to a stag-gering Rs 90.40 lakh crore.

At a time when all out efforts are to launchthe 2nd Green Revolution, buoyed with geneti-cally modified crops, and stricter IPR laws thatwill shift the control over seed into the hands ofprivate agribusiness companies, the marketstructure being laid out -- contract farming,food retail, commodity exchanges, and futuretrading -- all aim at making farmers economi-cally viable, will ac-tually allow thecompanies to walkaway with moreprofits and leavefarmers with emptypockets.

If all this wasworkable, and wasbringing income tofarmers, there is noreason why the USand EU govern-ments for instancewould be providinghuge subsidies,much of it in theform of direct in-come support or in-come transfer inone form or theother, to their miniscule population of farmers.

For 45 years, the dominant breed of bureau-crats and technocrats, have been telling farmersthat the more they produce the more will betheir income. By saying so they were actuallynot helping farmers, but in the name of farmerspromoting the commercial interests of fertiliser,pesticides, seed and mechanical equipmentcompanies. No wonder, the average monthlyincome of a farming family in 2003-04, which in-cludes five members of a family plus two cattle,had been worked out by NSSO at a paltry Rs2115. The NSSO has since stopped measuringfarm income.

Under the 6th Pay Commission, a peon ora chaprasi in government service gets a mini-mum monthly salary of Rs 15,000. A farmingfamily earns less than Rs 2115 (in terms ofprevalent prices, it would be around Rs 2,400 amonth). Can’t we as a nation even think of pro-viding farmers with an income that equals what

a chaprasi gets? If Rs 2115 is the monthly income of a farming

family (in Punjab, it hovers around Rs 3,200)shouldn't we as a nation hang our head inshame? If agriculture was indeed profitable, Isee no reason why rural despair would increas-ingly drive farmers to take their own lives. Evenin the frontline agricultural state of Punjab, twofarmers commit suicide every day. As per a re-cent house-to-house survey, 19 people succumbto cancer ever day in Punjab ostensibly from theexcessive use and abuse of chemicals in agricul-ture.

Farmers were made to believe that puttingmore inputs would bring them more profits.They are now being told that free markets --commodity exchange, future trading and food

retail – will makefarming profitableand economicallyviable. What is notbeing told is that itdidn't work in theUS and the Euro-pean Union. And itwill therefore notwork in India.

Look at the waysuch a flawed ap-proach is being ag-g r e s s i v e l ypromoted in India.The beneficiaries offuture trading andcommodity ex-change are not thefarmers but specula-tors, the consul-

tancy firms and rating agencies, and thebusiness. And again, this is being done in thename of farmers. On the other hand, farmerunions have been only asking for a higher min-imum support price (MSP). None of them havevisualised that there are barely 35 to 40 per centfarmers in the country who ultimately get thebenefit of procurement prices since they havesome surplus to sell in the mandis.

The rest of the farming community, which isin a majority, also produces food. Even if theyhardly have anything to sell, they at least pro-duce food. If they were not to produce food forthemselves, the country would be importingthat quantity of food. In other words, they pro-duce economic wealth. Therefore they too needto be adequately compensated for the economicwealth they produce for the country. n

(Author is distinguished agriculture and food policy analyst. He can be contacted at [email protected] )

Please fill the form in capital lettersName:……………………………………………………………….............................................Address: ………………………………………………………………………………................City/State:……………………………………………………. PIN: Telephone/EmailMobile:……………………….......... Office:……………………………………..............Residence:………………………..... Email:…………………………………....................Payment Details:Please find enclosed Cheque/DD No: Dated:Drawn on (Specific Bank)…………………………………………………………......................Favouring ‘All Rights Media PVT LTD for Rs………………………………………(Please add Rs 10 for Non Delhi cheques)Credit Card: Visa Master Card

Card No. Expiry Date: Card issuing bank: CVV No. :

Signature Date

Period No. of issues Cover Price You Pay You Save

1 Year 12 360 199 161

2 Years 24 720 399 321

YYMM

YYMM DD


n Furman v. Georgia (1972), where the U.S.Supreme Court struck down the deathpenalty, Justice Marshall said that if citizens

were fully informed about how people are sen-tenced to death, they would find capital pun-ishment shocking, unjust and unacceptable.However, research on the death penalty andpublic awareness of the exact nature of thedeath penalty have been the most neglected

areas in the abolition campaign in India. Thelast three challenges to the constitutionality ofthe death penalty in India were rejected by theSupreme Court, inter alia, on the grounds thatthere is no empirical data to support the aboli-tionists’ claims. Unfortunately, the situation hasnot changed at all, and even now there ishardly any research on this subject. Therefore,the highest priority in any abolition campaignis to produce empirical research on the deathpenalty. That, and doing our utmost to stopeach proposed execution and, failing that, to

Capital Punishment An Agenda for Abolition

Capital Punishment An Agenda for Abolition

I

by Yug Mohit Chaudhry

OPINION

OPINION


make it as difficult as possible for the state tocarry out an execution, adopting all legal, po-litical and social means at our disposal.

The death penalty will not be and never hasbeen abolished in one fell swoop. Progress isgoing to be slow and incremental, and will de-pend on how successful we are in convincingthe government, the courts, parliament and thepeople that the death penalty serves no pur-pose, but in fact degrades us all.

Today, there are various reasons for oppos-ing death penalty. People may feel it is morallywrong to kill, people may feel it is hypocriticalto punish a murderer by imitating him, peoplemay feel that there is no evidence that deathpenalty deters crime any more than life impris-onment does. Another reason to oppose deathpenalty is that it is irreversible. And there aresituations where judgments have proven to beerroneous – they cannot be reversed, nothingthat can be done, it is final.

Let us discuss death penalty in the contextof three social institutions to make an argumentfor its abolition. These three institutions are thePolice, which are the evidence gathering ma-chinery; the Courts, which adjudicate guilt andpass sentence and determine appropriate sen-tence; and the Executive, which deals withmercy petitions.

One does not need to stress the point that inIndia we have a notoriously corrupt, dishonest,and criminalized police force. The evidencethat is presented in the court is the evidencethat is collected by this police. We are going toadjudicate whether somebody is guilty or notor whether somebody should be sentenced todeath or not, on the basis of such evidence,which is collected by the Police force; which it-self raises a huge question mark, on whether itis safe actually to have people sentenced todeath on the basis of evidence collected by thepolice force we know to be corrupt. Let me giveyou a few examples about this.

Some years ago in Bombay, a man was con-victed and sentenced for the rape and murderof a child. The appeal was pending in the HighCourt, and while that appeal was pending, thepolice officer investigating the case committedsuicide, leaving behind a suicide note saying hehad falsely implicated this man. Now, the evi-dence on record did not merit an acquittal, theevidence was very strong. But for the suicidenote, which was not even part of the evidence,this man would have gone to the gallows. TheBombay High Court, very unorthodox, tookcognizance of the suicide note that was not onrecord, and acquitted this man. What wouldhave happened if this officer’s conscience hadnot pricked him in this manner?

I will give you some other examples, casesthat Shahid was handling which now I amlooking into: the 2006 Malegaon bomb blasts.Bombs go off on a holy night, Badi Raat or Shabe Bara’at, outside the mosque in Malegaon,which is a predominantly Muslim town. Nineboys are arrested, and charged with having ex-ecuted these bomb blasts. Nine confessions arerecorded. Police claims that they seized RDX,explosive material, from their homes. Policealso claims that one of these nine boys hasagreed, because his conscience is troubling himso much, to become an approver, and to giveevidence on behalf of the state, against his col-leagues. Charge sheets are filed; sanctions aregiven. Because of the hue and cry raised inMumbai, the case is transferred to the CBI. TheCBI filed a supplementary charge sheet verify-ing the investigation done by the Mumbai Po-lice. And then the NIA (National InvestigationAgency) which is investigating the SamjhautaExpress blasts, arrests Swami Aseemanand,who confesses to having carried out these blastsin Malegaon as well. He says that it was hisRight wing Hindu terror group that did theseMalegaon blasts. So then what happens to allthat evidence, the confessional evidence, theRDX? Where did the RDX come from?

Now, put yourself in the position of a judge,adjudicating a case, and the Police produceRDX in Court, saying it was seized from thehouse of the accused. The defence lawyer saysthat evidence has been fabricated. The Judgeasks: “Where did the Police get it from?” Howdo you answer that question? You are at a lossfor an answer. The judge is going to believe thatevidence, that the RDX was actually seized, be-cause where do people get RDX from other-wise? Normal people don’t have RDX. But forSwami Aseemanand’s confession coming tolight, these nine boys would be facing the gal-lows. All of them. This is not a stray case.

There were seven train blasts that took placewithin a space of half an hour in 2006, in Mum-bai, on the 11th of July. The Police arrested thir-teen boys, members of SIMI (Student IslamicMovement of India), saying they executedthese blasts. Their mobile phones were seizedat the time of the arrests. In the remand appli-cation that the Police filed before the magis-trates, in writing, the Police said that thesemobile phones have been sent for forensic ex-amination, and the call records have been ob-tained from the mobile service providers. Thecall records show, claimed the police that thesethirteen boys were in touch with each other,hatching the conspiracy. Further, that theywere in touch with Lashkar-e-Toiba in Pak-istan; that they were sending young boys to


OPINION

Pakistan for terrorist training. And they saidthis not once, in the remand applications filedby the Police officers before the magistrate, butumpteen times, week after week – to justify theremand for custody. Hundred and eighty ninepeople have died in those train blasts, no mag-istrate or judge will ever give bail, especiallynot in the case of such statements being madeby the police that they have got such forensicevidence. This is pretty strong evidence thatyou are in touch with LeT and sending peoplethere for terrorist training. However, some timelater, another branch of the Mumbai Police an-other set of people, who confessed to havingcarried out the same bomb blasts in the trains.They had confessions recorded. The govern-ment accorded sanction for the prosecution ofthose persons arrested in the other case of thesame crime. Confessions were recorded, chargesheets were filed, and sanction was given bythe Police commissioner and by the Govern-ment, for the same crime, to different people.When the charge sheet was filed in the SIMIcase, the boys asked for copies of the mobilerecords because the Police had not filed thosewith the charge sheet. This was very surprising,given the fact that the Police had claimed thatthe records show that these boys had been intouch with the LeT. Why would they not filethose records in the charge sheet? But they didnot.

The boys had always held that these records,if produced before the court, would prove theirinnocence; the fact that they were somewhereelse at the time of the blasts. The tower locationwould clearly establish that they were not atChurch Gate Station, as the Police had claimedbut elsewhere. One of them was in Bihar, out-side Bombay. Some were in North Bombay, atthe other end of Church Gate station where thebombs went off. So the boys pleaded that thesephone records were crucial for their defence.Six applications were made over a period of sixyears, by the defence lawyers asking for thecopies of these phone records which the Policehad in their custody. But the Police consistentlyrefused to give these phone records on the pleathat they had not relied on them in the chargesheet so they were not bound to provide themto the accused. But as often happens in terror-ism trials – because there is so much at stakeand because such hype surrounds these cases,the judge often just rubberstamps everythingthe prosecution says – the judge rejected the sixapplications for those phone records for oversix years. The Police persistently refused to pro-vide the records, but said nothing beyond this.Finally we moved the High Court and asked itto give us these records. The High Court found

these records to be relevant and directed thePolice to give us the records. And then six yearslater and three months after the last time theysaid they would not give them, in the HighCourt for the first time, the Police said theyhave destroyed the records! Given the fact thatthe Police claim that some of the accused werestill to be apprehended, could they have possi-bly destroyed these records? Unless of coursethey showed that the boys that were actuallyapprehended were innocent, as these boysclaimed.

In normal crimes, confessional evidence isconsidered unworthy of belief, because howcan you believe everything a Police officer says.That is the judicial principle on the basis ofwhich confessions are excluded from evidence.But, in serious crimes, confessions are admittedin evidence. This is quite strange. If confessionsare not admissible for normal crimes, whyshould they be admissible for serious crimeswhere the burden of proof should be that muchhigher? But they are, under our law, admissiblefor terrorists, who are tried under these speciallegislations. So in Malegaon 2006, for example,all the police were ever going to produce as ev-idence in Court was the nine confessions.Along with of course fabricated RDX explosivediscovery reports. No real hard evidence. Itdoesn’t take much to fabricate a confessionwhen the confession is verified by the Police of-ficers themselves.

In the Indira Gandhi’s assassination case,Balwant Singh, one of the officers attached toher security had been arrested immediately, il-legally, after the assassination. He was howevernot shown arrested but illegally detained by thePolice at the end of Yamuna Velodrome formany days; brutally tortured for that period,before being released. A day or two after hewas released, he was shown arrested whilealighting from a bus at ISBT, and the policeclaimed they found a full confession in hispocket which he was carrying around with him– a full confession in letter form, in expandednotation. He was claimed to be carrying aroundthe confession with him. This is Indira Gandhi’sassassination case! The trial court believed it,sentenced Balwant Singh to death. The Highcourt believed it and sentenced Balwant Singhto death.

I therefore come back to the question: Is itsafe to accept such evidence and sentence peo-ple to death, and foreclose the possibility of dis-covery of error or manipulation at a later datein time?

The second important institution involvedin the death penalty is the Judiciary. The judi-ciary is as fallible, as error prone, as any other

OPINION


institution in India. It comprises the same kindof people that make up other institutions in so-ciety. Error is bound to people. And also be-cause the pretext for death penalty, i.e. ‘rarestof rare’, is inherently so subjective, that thereare bound to be varying opinions on the sameissue. The Supreme Court has been engaged insoul-searching and they have been admittingagain and again, that their own death penaltyjurisprudence is arbitrary, and not at all consis-tent; that the right to equality before the law hasbeen consistently violated. In Bachan Singh(1982) Justice Bhagwati, a former Chief Justiceof India, said that the Supreme Court has beenawarding death penalties “arbitrarily andfreakishly”. Was he wrong?

In Furman v. Georgia, Justice Stewart heldthat death sentences and being struck by light-ning were cruel and unusual in the same way.One does not know whom it will strike, it can-not be anticipated or guarded against, and ifone is struck by it, bad luck. Harbans Singh’scase (1982) vividly illustrates this. Three per-sons with identical roles were sentenced todeath for murder, and three different SupremeCourt benches pronounced three dramaticallydifferent verdicts. Kashmira’s death sentencewas commuted to life imprisonment, Jeeta’s ap-peal was dismissed and he was hanged, andHarbans was recommended for Presidentialclemency though the court had initially dis-missed his appeal and review petition.

Examples abound of “a pattern of confusion,contradiction and aberrations” in death-penaltyjudgements. Identical cases have been treateddifferently so often as to become a cause of realconcern. In these cases, there is little to differ-entiate those where death is given from thosewhere it is substituted with life imprisonment,except the composition of the bench. While Jus-tices Balakrishnan and Sinha commuted alldeath sentences for child rape and murder,There can be little doubt that Justice Bhagwatiwas right when he said “whether a person shalllive or die depends very much upon the com-position of the Bench which tries his case andthis renders the imposition of death penalty ar-bitrary and capricious.” This becomes self-evi-dently true on comparing Justice Krishna Iyer’scomments on the sacredness of life, the ever-present possibility of redemption in the worsttype of criminal, and the barbarity of the deathsentence with the regret expressed by somejudges after the Bachan Singh judgment “un-fortunately” prevented them from passingmore death sentences.

The law of death penalty was laid down inIndia by Bacchan Singh, and subsequent judg-ments are expected to be consistent with Bac-

chan Singh. Bacchan Singh held that the judgeswould have to look at both, the circumstancespertaining to the crime, as well as at the circum-stances pertaining to the criminal. However, incases of heinous crimes as well as cases of ter-rorism, this judicial caution takes a bit of abackseat and is overwhelmed by the sense ofrevulsion caused by the crime. A man calledRavji, murdered his family, because he sus-pected that his wife was unfaithful to him andhis children were illegitimate. Now, In thiscase, if they were to look merely at the circum-stances pertaining to the crime, of course theycould hang him. But if they were to considerthe circumstances pertaining to the individual,or the criminal, then they would have seen ahuman being with a mental problem, in whichcase perhaps they would have had leaned to-wards clemency and commuted the death sen-tence. But the crime was so gruesome andshocking – they wouldn’t allow themselves todo that. So they laid down a law that said thatin heinous cases, we need not look at the cir-cumstances pertaining to the criminal, but onlythe circumstances pertaining to the crime; andthey sent Ravji to the gallows.

This new principle of law which ran directlyfrom the principle laid down in Bacchan Singh,was then invoked again within a few months,to send Surja Ram to the gallows. And thenover the next ten years, it was invoked to sendanother twelve people to the gallows. A total ofabout fifteen people were sentenced to death onthe basis of this erroneous principle. In 2009,the Supreme Court detected this error and de-clared Ravji’s case, and the 7 other cases thatfollowed as being rendered per incuriam liter-ally in error of, or in ignorance of law). There-after, two other benches reiterated thesefindings. However, by then it was too late forRavji and another prisoner wrongly sentencedto death for they had already been executed.One of the prisoners was subsequently de-clared a juvenile, and the death sentences offour others were commuted by the govern-ment. Seven prisoners remain on death row de-spite the Supreme Court having admitted infour different cases that their death sentencejudgements were rendered in ignorance.

A campaign was launched pursuant towhich fourteen judges of the High Court andthe Supreme Court wrote to the President ask-ing him to commute these death sentences.Amongst these was the case of Saibanna. At theadvice of the Home Minister, the President hasrecently rejected Saibanna’s mercy petition.Saibanna is now in danger of imminent execu-tion. The decision is still pending on the mercypetitions of the six other prisoners.


OPINIONTake the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case

now. Twenty-six persons were tried for the as-sassination of Rajiv Gandhi by the trial court.All 26 sentenced to death, all 26 found guilty.They were convicted under TADA, where therewas no appeal to the High Court, because itwas conceived as a fast track justice. So the mat-ter goes to the Supreme Court. In SupremeCourt, 19 of 26 people sentenced to death wereacquitted. Look at the huge difference betweenthe earlier death sentences and subsequent ac-quittals. There is something drastically wrongwith a judiciary system, which can convict andsentence 26 persons to death and then acquit 19of them after the first appeal. Out of the remain-ing seven, four are sentenced to death by theSupreme Court. One of them was a boy whoseonly role as per the Supreme Court judgmentis that he procured the 14-volt battery for thepeople who actually planted the bomb inDhanu.

I mentioned earlier that under normal law,confessions are not admissible, but that underthe special enactment of TADA confessions areadmissible as evidence against the accused. Inthe Rajeev Gandhi assassination case the con-fession was recorded against these 7 people butwhat happened was that the Supreme Court ac-cepted the argument that TADA offence didnot apply. So the Supreme Court acquittedthem of TADA. Now, if TADA is inapplicable,the confession should have been invalidated aswell, but Supreme Court said ‘No’. TheSupreme Court said that because they werecharged with TADA and TADA allowed theconfession in establishing guilt, it would not bethrown out. So tomorrow, what do you do ifyou want to get a thief convicted, if he cannototherwise get convicted, charge him underTADA as well as theft. Let him get acquittedunder the terrorist offense but be charged andconvicted under theft anyway. This is the logicof the judges.

In addition to being arbitrary, the deathpenalty is also discriminatory. Justice Krishnaobserved in Rajendra Prasad that the death sen-tence has a class bias and a colour bar. Of thefourteen prisoners wrongly sentenced to death,12 were represented on legal aid. Usually, therecords in death-penalty cases are voluminousand trials last for 6-9 months. In most placeslegal-aid lawyers are paid Rs.500-2000 for adeath-sentence trial, about the same for HighCourt proceedings, and Rs. 4000 for a SupremeCourt appeal. These fees, stagnant for decades,would not cover conveyance and miscella-neous expenses. Legal-aid rules require seniorlawyers be appointed for all possible death-sen-tence cases, but this is rarely done. Raw inex-

perienced juniors are roped in for cases thatwould make seniors baulk. Not surprisingly,appellate courts often remand such cases backto trial courts because the prisoner was not de-fended in any meaningful way. But more suchcases fall through the cracks. It is hardly sur-prising therefore that most cases of miscarriageof justice, wrongful convictions and executionshave been defended at some stage on legal aid.Death-sentence prisoners handicapped bypoverty are doomed ab initio by a system thatpays legal-aid lawyers a pittance for their work.

The Constitution has promised citizensequality before the law and protection from ar-bitrariness, which means that their cases will betreated like other cases before theirs, regardlessof their financial capacity. Courts are requiredto uphold this promise for it is the bedrock ofjudicial legitimacy. Since the death penalty can-not be awarded with consistency and fairnessit must be abolished, for without these prereq-uisites, judicially sanctioned killings are notmeaningfully different from vengeful murder.

And now we come to the third part .Themanner in which the people are executed. Thepower of mercy is usually historically given tothe sovereign. There is a very good reason toretaining this power. It is a way to correct theerror in the judicial administration. It is meantto temper justice with mercy. Justice is em-ployed in the widest sense of the term, to ac-count for those things which law cannot takeinto account. Therefore it is very necessary toretain this power: to correct judicial error, totemper justice with compassion, and to do jus-tice in the widest sense of the term. This is whyall countries have a mercy power. But if youlook at the way the mercy power has been usedrecently it has now become a tool for the gov-ernment to distract the attention from otherpressing issues. You look at the timing of theKasab execution. Look at the timing of this ex-ecution. In 2001, the Parliament was attacked;in 2005 the Supreme Court delivered its judg-ment; in 2013, Afzal is hanged. Eight yearslater, suddenly today (9th February). He hasnot been hanged due to his role in the Parlia-ment attack, I can tell you that. For eight yearsthey kept his mercy petition pending andtoday, suddenly, when the BJP has put the Con-gress government on the back foot on variousissues, including national security, crime etc,they execute him. The Parliament session isgoing to begin now just as it was going to beginwhen Kasab was hanged. One must questionthe manner of this execution. Article 21 of theConstitution is inalienable and applies to everyhuman being, not only a citizen of India. Article21 says that No person shall be deprived of his

OPINION


life or personal liberty except according to pro-cedure established by law. And that procedureas per Supreme Court has to be fair, just andreasonable. If you are going to take away some-body’s life, you have to do it according to thelegal procedure. What does the procedure sayin the law? The rules of the government on thisissue says that when a mercy petition is made,and that this mercy petition is rejected, who-ever makes the mercy petition for the prisonerhas to be informed about the rejection of themercy petition. The prisoner and his familyhave to be informed about the rejection andtold in advance about the date of the execution.

In the Kasab case, the day after the mercy pe-tition was rejected by the President, a journalistfiled an RTI application and he was informed inwriting the day after the rejection that the Kasabmercy petition is still pending. What is the needto tell these lies? A government cannot tell lies.What was the need to violate the procedurewhich was laid down by the government itself?The government was armed with the judicialwarrant authorizing the execution of Kasab.What was the need to do it in that manner,away in the darkness like a thief without in-forming his family? They had his family ad-dress. A large number of people wrote mercypetitions for Kasab. They were not informedthat his mercy petition had been rejected. Therule says the person must be informed that themercy petition has been rejected. Why do therules say that? Because, again, the right to judi-cial remedy in here in the person till his lastbreath and if there has been considerable delayin the rejection of the mercy petition, theSupreme Court says the person has the right togo to the Supreme Court and ask for the com-mutation of the death sentence. There are rightsavailable which have to be acted upon, whichonly can be acted upon by moving to the court.Therefor there is always a small window of timebetween the rejection of the mercy petition andexecution day to enable the convict to resort tothe judicial remedy. But neither Kasab nor AfzalGuru were given this opportunity. After Kasabwas executed, the Home Minister of the countryand the Chief Minister of Maharashtra actuallysaid on record, we did it silently and secretly be-cause we did not want people to move to court.The Home Minister reiterated this after Afzal’sexecution. This is a startling statement in ademocracy: the brazen disregard for the rule oflaw by the country’s Home Minister. Are wenot becoming a police state? Afzal Guru had awife, a family not too far away from Delhi: ameeting which was granted to the prisoner bythe statute was now denied. That is how nowwe execute people. They did it with Kasab ear-

lier and did it again with the Afzal Guru.Recently, to show how much he cares for

women’s rights and how tough he is on crime,the present Home Minister, a former sub-in-spector of police, has proudly announced thathe would never permit the commutation of thedeath sentence for a rapist. This, apparently,will make the streets safer for women, just as ex-ecuting Kasab has insulted India from terroristattacks, and executing Saibanna and Das willprevent people from committing repeat mur-ders. Executions and support for the deathpenalty are props for politicians to claim thatthey are tough on crime. Instead of persistingwith the more difficult, drawn-out and complexwork that is needed to properly protect againstfuture attacks and addresses the causes ofcrime, this simplistic gesture of the deathpenalty pursued at great human cost is resortedto as an easy and cheap way of mollifying thepublic urge that something be done. In fact thedeath penalty is a distraction, a red herring, di-verting attention from government inaction inthe areas that matter most. It exploits the publicthirst for blood, feeding the belief that executionwill secure closure. But as we know, executinga human being does not secure closure or fix theunderlying, persisting problems – it rather con-ceals them. A state-sanctioned execution hasnothing to recommend it except a very baseblood lust that we encourage at our peril. Feed-ing this blood lust by executions and introduc-ing new types of state sanctioned violence likecastration can only make us a more violent so-ciety, not less. If we have to become a more hu-mane and compassionate society, and leave abetter, less blood-thirsty world behind for ourchildren, we have to curb our instinct for bloodyretribution.

Judicial errors, fabricated evidence or this kindof executive chicanery. It is a combination of thesethree that result in the death sentence which isthen actually executed. Death sentences, passed industy courtrooms after arcane legal arguments in-scrutable to laypeople, are executed in utmost se-crecy behind high prison walls at the crack ofdawn. Though the right of the state to punish bykilling is intensely debated, the process whichtakes prisoners from the dock to the scaffold re-mains shrouded. Since executions are done in ournames, we need to know more about them andmake informed choices. n

(This is slightly edited text of the secondShahid Azmi Memorial Lecture, delivered at

the Indian Law Institute on 9 February 2013 byadvocate Yug Mohit Chaudhary.)


BEYOND BOUNDARIES

ince the 2007 food price crisis foreign ac-quisition of land has shot through the roof.Experts believe that agricultural commodi-

tization, climate change, and cropland being di-verted to biofuels has been largely to blame forthe 2007 food crisis and recent volatility andprice increases. As a result, foreign govern-

ments, private agro-enterprises and private eq-uity funds have purchased large swaths of lush,arable land in developing countries, especiallyAfrica. In 2009 alone foreign investors acquired60 million hectares (ha) of land, the equivalentto the size of France.

With nearly 75 percent of the deals takingplace in sub-Saharan Africa, some of the mostfood insecure and ecologically sensitive areas

The Ethiopian Land Grab Crisis

S

by Nickolas Johnson

BEYOND BOUNDARIES


are being bought up, bulldozed and trans-formed to large scale, chemical, mechanizedfarms. A greater example of this could not befound better than with Ethiopia. In Ethiopia,these areas are home to thousands of small salefarms and pastoralists who have already had todeal with decades of neglect by their govern-ment.

Land Deals Through backdoor deals these companies

are able to acquire land at rock-bottom priceswith renewable multi-decade lease terms. Ad-ditionally, most of these large-scale land dealsare negotiated without the Free Prior and In-formed Consent of the indigenous populationsliving on the land. In the worst but all to com-mon cases, people are forcibly evicted fromtheir land with little or no compensation. To topit all off, these deals are being done in the nameof progress, food security and developmentunder Ethiopia's villagization program.

VillagizationIn Ethiopia's villagization program more

than 1.5 million residents of Ethiopia havebegun or will begin relocating away from theirancestral lands in a program called villagiza-tion. Ethiopia has a long and controversial his-tory with resettlement, as it was a majorelement of the Derg’s socialist agricultural poli-cies. By 1989, Derg’s villagization program hadresettled more than 13 million people; interna-tional disapproval, degrading security anddwindling of resources caused the program toslow down.

Today, the government has resumed theprogram, stating that it is voluntary and justi-fying it by claiming that it’s necessary to cen-tralize infrastructure by having the villagesclose to roads and available water supplies.Though this appears like a valiant attempt tosupply access to services quickly, research andtestimonies from locals say otherwise.

Despite promises of development, the gov-ernment’s land lease scheme has led to forcedresettlement and human rights violations of theMursi, Suri, and Bodi agro-pastoralist tribes atthe hands of the Ethiopian Defense Forces(EDF). There are also serious concerns about theimpact of this “rapid development” on the en-vironment and the livelihoods of the 500,000 in-digenous people that rely on the waters of theOmo River and the adjacent lands, as well asLake Turkana

The Oakland Institute’s field research showsthat a vast majority of people in the targeted re-gions do not want to relocate, but have been

threatened by local police. As reported byHuman Rights Watch (HRW), the forced relo-cation of residents of Gambella has caused greathardship to tens of thousands — including rape,other violent acts, coercion and intimidation.Furthermore, despite the governments claims,reality shows that the regions targeted for villa-gization are also those where the government istrying to bring in investors for large-scale com-mercial plantations.

A clear example of this being more thanpurely coincidental, the Indian company Karu-turi, one of the largest foreign landholders inEthiopia has stated publicly that the GambellaRegional government offered to move the vil-lage of Ilea for them. Luckily, Karuturi chosenot to pursue this venture. However, anothercompany, Saudi Star, is now clearing forests

that had been used by former residents whowere forced to relocate to Pokedi as part of thevillagization program.

India's Investments Throughout Ethiopia, most investment deals

are taking place within five administrative re-gions –Afar and Amhara in the North, Oromiain Central Ethiopia, and Gambella and theSouthern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Re-gions in the South. Indian enterprises are mostthe prominent investors in Ethiopia with a ma-jority of their farms in Gambella and Afar. OneIndian investor, Karuturi Global plans to farmpalm oil, cereals, and pulses on 300,000 ha of


BEYOND BOUNDARIES

land in the region. In the case with Karuturi andother Indian corporations, investments gener-ally take place in regions where the governmentoffers generous tax incentives. Incidentally,these are the very same regions that are targetedby the villagization program.

Within the Lower Omo region, few direct In-dian investments have been identified as the re-gion is primarily developed by state-ownedcompanies for the production of sugar. Regard-less, India is playing a key role in this regionthrough the Export- Import (EXIM) bank ofIndia who has has opened a $640 million line ofcredit to the Ethiopian government to expandthe country’s sugar sector. This line of creditcommits Ethiopia to import 75 percent of thegoods and services, such as consultancy serv-ices, from India.

Food SecuritySuffering from endemic poverty and food in-

security, these land deals have created vast con-flict across Ethiopia. According to IFPRI’s 2012Global Hunger Index, Ethiopia is the fifth “hun-griest” nation in the world even though 80 per-cent of the population is engaged in agriculture.This reality has created a country where 10 to15 million people are depend on food aid fortheir survival.

It is these facts that the Ethiopian govern-ment argues that foreign investment in agricul-ture will bring economic development andeventually reduce hunger and poverty. Thegovernment claims that these investments arenecessary to modernize agriculture, bring newtechnologies, and create employment.

However, investigations by the Oakland In-stitute and other NGOs show that large-scaleplantations create little employment and bringlimited benefits for the local populations. In thecase of Saudi company Saudi Star, a 10,000hectare farm in the Gambella region, has beenembroiled in dispute, conflict, and unfortu-nately, violence. Marred in human rights abusesin the aftermath of an unfortunate shooting thatleft five Saudi Star employees dead this June,the Ethiopian government has retaliated witharbitrary arrests, beatings, and rape. While it isstill unknown who perpetrated the killings, oneman who claimed to be part of the attack statedthat it was in “retaliation for the land leasing bySaudi Star and other foreign investors in Gam-bella region.”

It is through the failures of the Ethiopiangovernment to live up to their promises of jobs,and infrastructure, coupled with the loss ofland, livelihood and the numerous humanrights abuses, that have lead locals to speak outand fight for their land rights.

Human Rights AbusesIn the case of the Gambella regions indige-

nous Anuak, community members and promi-nent human rights defenders, Obang Methoand Nyikaw Ochalla confirm reports by OI andHRW of forced removals, demolition of houses,and the destruction of crops and ancestral burialgrounds.

"When [the government] comes to take theirland, it is without their knowledge, and in fact[the government] says that they no longer be-longed to this land, [even though] the Anuakhave owned it for generations. . . . [In one in-stance] the government told the Anuak peopleto load their cattle, goats, and chickens ontotrucks so that they could be moved to outsidevillages." -Nyikaw Ochalla

Ethiopian police and soldiers beat and arrestthose who do not comply with this “voluntaryprogram,” and individuals are only released onthe condition that they support the program.Those who try to return, according to Metho,found “their homes were destroyed and theland was completely changed.”

Furthermore, once relocated, these commu-nities of Anuak farmers are left to fend forthemselves with substandard land to be culti-vated statically, a way with which they have noexperience. The Anuak’s cultivation practicesrely on shifting cultivation on one plot of landfor several years before moving on to another.Seven to ten years later, they return to begin theprocess all over. From self-sufficient and sus-taining to becoming dependent on aid, Ochallaexplains that the Anuak’s way of life is beingdestroyed: “The government is depriving theAnuak people of their memories, homeland,and traditional farming system. And the Anuakare leaving behind homes [they have lived in]for generations. . . . The Anuak are nowmov[ed] to a land that cannot be inhabited, withno water, and no access to education. This hascreated so much impact on their livelihoods.”For Metho, these realities are equally disturb-ing. “For the indigenous people, [their land,]their one identity and existence as a people fortheir survival has been taken away by the verygovernment that is supposed to protect them.”

According to the US Department of State’s2011 human rights report, Ethiopia's regime isresponsible for massive human rights viola-tions. With the government’s actions aroundvillagization, forced displacement, and land ac-quisition and their failure to secure Free Priorand Informed Consent from displaced indige-nous communities, the Ethiopian governmentis in violation of no less than seven internationalhuman rights treaties.

BEYOND BOUNDARIES


Explained in a new OI report UnheardVoices, prepared by the International HumanRights Clinic at New York University School ofLaw, treaties including Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights; the International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Con-vention on the Rights of the Child; and the Con-vention Against Torture and Other Cruel,Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punish-ment have all been violated. These treaties arecoupled with regional treaties such as theAfrican Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights,among others. Signing these treaties is not asymbolic act and these treaties obligate theEthiopian government to strive to not only meetthese minimum standards, but also to surpassthem. As pointed out in the report, these treatiesalso cover government policies that maythreaten human rights.

Investors Responsibilities & Grass RootsEfforts

As many NGOs and local movements lookfor a change in the policies and priorities of theEthiopian government, support has recentlyemerged for the “Protect, Respect, Remedy”framework, which requires corporations toavoid infringing on human rights and addressthe negative human rights impacts of their op-erations. While these proposals take shape,many people are dealing with the Ethiopiangovernments refusal to acknowledge the reali-ties of their land investment policies and in-vestors such as Karuturi rejecting anyresponsibility in regards to the villagizationprogram. Whether it be through the Ethiopiangovernments villagization program or investorsimplicit acceptance and exploitation of thesesame policies (that would not be accepted in theinvestors’ home country), both parties haveroused the hearts and minds of locals, NGOs, aswell as Ethiopian and Indian activists. Thesegroups are pushing for the adoption of suchguidelines as the UN endorsed “Guiding Prin-ciples for Business and Human Rights” whichwould protect against human rights abuses bythird parties, including business enterprises.Most importantly these groups believe thatonce the stories of those effected by these landgrabs are heard and citizens speak out agentsthe predatory dealings of their countries’ com-panies, both the Ethiopian government and theforeign investors will no longer be able to hidein the shadows. n

Indian PerspectiveIndian companies which invested in controversialdeals involving hundreds of thousands of acres ofland in Ethiopia have found themselves out of theirdepth in a fast-growing African economy that isstill in the process of building critical transportand irrigation networks.

Documents related to one such transaction re-veal how Emami Biotech, a subsidiary of theRs.2,200-crore Emami Group, pulled out of a Rs.400-crore, 40,000-hectare, bio-fuel plantationonly a year after the project was announced.

Indian companies are the second largest in-vestors in the Ethiopian economy with approvedinvestments worth nearly $5 billion.

While a majority of the businesses are smallmanufacturing and trading enterprises run by busi-ness families long settled in East Africa, the bigmoney has come with the recent entry of large In-dian investors.

A number of Indian companies have signedagreements to lease more than 4,40,000 hectaresof land across Ethiopia, 1,00,000 hectares ofwhich has been granted to a single Bangalore-based company, Karuturi Global Ltd. International.Rights organisations and NGOs have characterisedthe deals as instances of land grab and have ac-cused the government of forcibly resettling pas-toral communities.

The Ethiopian government has denied theseallegations, insisting that large-scale commercialagriculture is a vital part of an ambitious projectto transform the national economy. Yet, the failureof Emami Biotech’s plantation and the glacialprogress of Karuturi’s 1,00,000-hectare project inGambella have led some to question the ability ofthese companies to manage such large plots ofland.

The controversy regarding growing “land grab”in some African countries, especially Ethiopia bymultinational corporations are being closelywatched globally by Indian government and Indiangovernment agriculture experts and researchers.

The UPA led Indian government says the In-dian companies have taken land on lease as perrules of the country concerned. The governmentsays companies operating in Ethiopia and otherparts of Africa have been asked to remain sensitiveto the concerns of host countries.

(All Rights Bureau)

(Nickolas Johnson is the Policy Analyst at theOakland Institute, California, USA. He can becontacted at [email protected] )

he Democratic People’s Republic of Koreaor the North Korea’s decision to conduct athird nuclear test, despite warnings from

international community and in defiance tobans imposed on it, on February 12, has at-tracted widespread condemnation. Under itsnew young leader Kim-Jong-un, Pyongyanghas successfully tested or rather demonstratedits nuclear capability. But it was most expectedone by the international community as North

Korea remained consistent with this record fol-lowing 2006, 2009 tests and now in 2013 thoughwith increased (from last two) yield of about 5kilotons . Combine this with the fact that NorthKorea has developed long range missiles inname of its space program, the worries of inter-national community and especially America,are not entirely unfounded. The realists insightsto behave in the realm of international politicsoften termed as doctrine of Raison d’état or rea-son of state might has triggered North Korea forsuch actions and no doubt guided by its ration-ality North Korea has their own pre-supposi-


Implicationsof NorthKorea’s Nuclear Explosion

Implicationsof NorthKorea’s Nuclear Explosion

by Sonali Singh

T

tions regarding hard power.But, the world community hasregarded this as a clear threatto world peace and security, “ahighly provocative act”, “aclear and grave violation of therelevant Security Council reso-lution” and so the next.

Unravelling Evolution Trajectory

The history of the KoreanPeninsula is like the history of

any small country wedged be-tween two powerful neigh-bours. For a thousand yearsKorea was ruled by two dynas-ties (Goreyo Dynasty andJoseon Dynasty) separated bya brief Mongol conquest. It suf-fered Japanese and Manchu in-cursions in the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries but sur-vived until the end of the nine-teenth, by which time it hadbecome a pawn in Sino—Japanese—Russian conflicts.Japan with the victorious sideruled over the Korean penin-sula till its surrender in theSecond World War. After thesurrender of Japan partly tothe Russians and party to theAmericans in the SecondWorld War, Korea was di-vided into two parts along the38th parallel demarcation line.The attempt to equip a singlegovernment was failed due topresence of Russians as well asAmerican troops. In 1947,United States took the problemto the United Nations whichappointed a commission (UNTemporary Commission onKorea—UNTCOK) to effectunity in the peninsula throughelections. The election in 1948was supposed to be for the cre-ation of a government forwhole of the Korea but thecommission was failed to oper-ate in the north of the 38th par-allel and North Korea did notaccept the authority of thehead of the elected govern-ment, Syngman Rhee. Newelections in South Korea andpropaganda in North Koreafor the re-unifications of Koreaeither by elections or merger ofthe two parliaments occupiedthe early 1950. But all these at-tempts were failed to prop asolution and rather military ofNorth Korea invaded theSouth on June 25, 1950 leadingto a full scale civil war. The38th parallel inspired a polar-ized reaction from sides, thesponsors, Chinese military al-lied of north and the United

States allied of south inter-vened and confronted on be-half of their allies and shiftedthe balance of the war whichended on July 27, 1953, that leftfive million people dead, in-jured or missing. The end ofwar restored the originalboundaries between the Northand South Korea with an“Armistice Agreement”. TheKorean War left North andSouth deeply hostile to eachother and condemned todecades of misrule. Indiaplayed an active role in Koreanpeninsula. In the build-up tothe war, facilitating intra-warcommunication and helpingimplement the armistice, NewDelhi was intensely involvedin the Korean peninsula. But,Indian role appears to haveforgotten not just in north-eastbut also in New Delhi. Here itis important to note that Ko-rean War was first militaryconfrontation of the cold-warperiod which set the standardsof several other conflicts andcreated the idea of proxy-wars.Further, the relative peace be-tween North and South Koreawas interrupted by violenceand several assassinations at-tempts and this had spoiled,their relations with polarisedideology, as South becameanti-communist and anti-North Korean sentimentsbrewed there. North Korea re-mained closely aligned withSoviet Union and China. Withthe disintegration of SovietUnion in the December1991and emergence of a new worldorder, the power equation haschanged in the world politics.In the post-cold war era, Northand South Korea signed theJune 15th North-South JointDeclaration in 2000, in whichthey promised to seek peacefulreunification. On October 4,2007, the leaders of North andSouth Korea pledged to holdsummit talks to officially de-clare the war over and reaf-firmed the principle of mutual

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION


non-aggression. But North Ko-rean “prompt and powerfulphysical attack” against SouthKorea in 2010 has againdoubted the intensions of theformer. In the present contextof North Korea’s nuclear test,here it is notable that NorthKorea has signed nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985and later withdrew from theInternational Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA), a UN agencybased in Vienna to inspect nu-clear programs of the memberstates in 1993. However, NorthKorea’s intensions are highlyambiguous on this. If we ascer-tain various reasons propellingNorth Korea’s nuclear weaponprogram, the first one would

be an attempt (of North Korea)to achieve parity with SouthKorea and dominate over theKorean peninsula. Secondly, asdriven by communist senti-ments, North Korea has Anti-American feelings based onhistorical and realist notions.Also, the ‘fear psychoses’ ofNorth Korea in wake of Amer-ican playing the role of hege-mony in the post-Soviet eraposes a threat perception bothto North Korea and to Chinawhich is still trying to comefrom behind. Thirdly, nuclearweapons are well thought-outas currency of power. Further,North Korea probably dis-trusts China’s ability to pro-vide protective umbrella to it

and opted to possess nuclearweapon. Also, feasibility to getnuclear technology throughsmugglings from countriessuch as Pakistan gave a greateredge to North Korea to get nu-clear capability. And lastly, asa part of clandestine axis be-tween recalcitrant states NorthKorea wishes to overrule inter-national norms of peace andcoexistence.

Implications and Ramifica-tions of North Korea’s Nu-clear Test on theInternational Community

In the age of digital revolu-tion and increased means oftransport the world hasshrunken dramatically. Globalcommunication as well asglobal politics has changed in-credibly. With the proliferationof 24/7 news channels andWorld Wide Web, we can as-sume that the saying ‘breach ofpeace anywhere is breach ofpeace everywhere’, is true. So-cial media tools have also in-creased the impact andramifications of any actionagainst global peace and secu-rity. In this backdrop, here it isimportant to analyse variousimplications of recent NorthKorea’s nuclear test.

Effect on Balance of Powerin Asia and RegionalRepercussions

In the anarchy of the inter-national system, the most reli-able brake on the power of onestate is the power of otherstate. The latest nuclear test ofNorth Korea may not have al-tered the balance of power inAsia but it affects the threatperception at the neighbour-hood i.e. South Korea andJapan, and has the potential toaffect the whole world. Al-ready the tension in the neigh-bouring countries hasescalated to new heights. Twodays after the test, South Koreatest fired its ballistic missiles

44¥æòÜ ÚUæ§ÅU÷â U×æ¿ü 2013ALL RIGHTS




and warned that it has the power to attackNorth Korean leadership and will do so if theneed arises. Japan, which is bound by its pacifistconstitution against developing weapons capa-ble of attacking North Korea, said it has theright to develop such weapons against this newbackdrop of events. This test offers an oppor-tunity for Japan and South Korea to find com-mon cause, and push the conservativegovernments in Tokyo and Seoul back towardsthe security-first mindset where they should beideological soul mates away from their differ-ences over history and disputed islands. Thiscould involve their initiative to revitalize effortsat three-way security coordination with theUnited States, which last surfaced after theNorth Korean provocations of 2010. Unhesitant,moves to strengthen U.S.-Japan, U.S.-SouthKorea or even Japan-South Korea security co-operation could facilitate in sending that signal.They may fuel Chinese allegations of contain-ment, but this would be a natural reaction toJapanese and South Korean anxieties about theNorth’s movement towards a deployable nu-clear weapon. If China brings real pressure tobear on Pyongyang, then its claim that Asiadoes not need America’s pivot will becomesomewhat more credible. But, China’s intentionis still unclear in this context. On one hand,China has sternly criticised North Korea for thenuclear test and on the other hand, it has not

taken any measures, like sanctions againstNorth Korea, to prevent its nuclear programfrom further expansion and trade between themcontinues reaching new heights. The debateabout whether to pressurize or unconditionallytolerate North Korea’s outrages is likely to bereopened in China’s ambit. Now is the time forthe United States and other countries to helpand influence that debate, by reminding Chinathat a North Korea with a credible nuclear ca-pability is harmful for China’s interests as well.

Challenge to Collective Security SystemThe principle of collective security system

says that ‘everybody is his brother’s keeper’ or‘one for all and all for one’. It is the propositionthat the aggressive and unlawful use of force byany nation against any nation will be met by thecollective force by all nations. One of its objec-tive requirements that entail preponderance ofpower and certainty of defeat of the aggressorwould be endangered if the aggressor possesses‘nuclear weapon’ posing a threat perception inthe world community. The Aggressor state withnuclear weapon would definitely use it in thesituation of its imminent defeat turning collec-tive security action into a nuclear war leadingthe colossal destruction of lives and property.Thus, recent nuclear test by North Korea haswider implications as far international peaceand security is concerned. Also, this nuclear test

At stake : US President Barak Obama, UN Gen Sec Ban-ki-Moon, N Korean leader Kim-Jong-Un



has the potential to start a new arms race.

Demonstration EffectNorth Korea’s third nuclear test has another

ramification that through ‘demonstration ef-fect’, it might prompt other countries to followsuit in rethinking their positions either in favourof nuclear weapons or actively developing de-fences against them. This nuclear test has thepotential to start a new arms race. In the back-drop of this nuclear test, America plans to de-ploy missile defence systems in South Korea,Japan and Philippines to shield it against NorthKorean attack. Russia and China has protestedto this saying this will send them on backfootagainst America and they will be forced to de-velop better weapons to overcome this situa-tion. Thus a new arms race can start in theworld. It enhances the possibility to make sim-ilar explosion by the other threshold powerslike Israel and Iran. Through these tests, NorthKorea has pretty much advertised to the world,its power to sell its nuclear weapon in the illegalmarket. No wonder the Indian test in 1998 hadevoked Pakistan and it responded back withina fortnight. Similarly, there is much possibilitythat recent Korean test may provoke other po-tential states to comply such actions.

Challenge to International Resolution to-wards Disarmament.

At the pinnacle of the Cold War, in 1968, thetreaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation wasopened for signature. Its objective was to ‘con-trol the spread of nuclear materials and expert-ise’. It was probably built on superpower’scommon fears of China and other potential newnuclear states. Among the signatories, there areUnited States, Russia, the United Kingdom,France and China, in order of acquisition andfour non-signatories to the Treaty have, or arebelieved to have, nuclear weapons: NorthKorea, India and Pakistan. They have openlytested and claimed ownership of nuclearweapons, whilst Israel is widely believed toown them. Several treaties in the 1970’s havelocked in the superpower’s basic parity in nu-clear capabilities under Mutually Assured De-struction (MAD). After that, apart from bilateraltreaties like ABM Treaty or SALT, a Compre-hensive Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1996. Butstates like North Korea, Pakistan and Israelhave their own rationality for weaponization.The reason for possessing nuclear weapons isalmost always to deter another state from a nu-clear or conventional attack by threatening ru-inous retaliation. The credible nucleardeterrence work only if other state believes that

a state’s threat to use nuclear weapon is credi-ble. Probably this has triggered North Korea todemonstrate its nuclear competence, threaten-ing all laws of non- proliferation and further-more a grave threat to international peace andsecurity.

Direct threat to India’s SecurityThe nuclear developments in the Korean

peninsula, in particular the nuclear and missilecooperation between Pakistan and North Korea,have had a direct bearing on India's security.The border conflicts of India and Pakistan hasalready distressed their relations with an ongo-ing low level mini- crisis and need not to men-tion the list of wars fought between them. Thecurrent issue has created severe intimidation to-wards India’s territorial security and foreignpolicy concerns. Certainly, it is bad for theglobal non-proliferation and already troubledNorth Asia but at the same time it stringentIndia’s relationship vis-a-vis Pakistan and vir-tually North Korea, apparently Pakistan-NorthKorea illegal nuclear cooperation is ballooninglarge these days. North Korea's transfer ofmedium range missiles has brought most In-dian cities within the reach of Pakistan's nucleararsenal. Therefore, India’s stake in durable Ko-rean peace is immense.

ConclusionNorth Korea is probably pursuing its nuclear

programs as fervently as it can. Although fab-rication of a nuclear explosive device is wellwithin North Korea’s technical competence, therate of expansion of its fissile material stocksand its ability to produce a warhead light anddurable enough to ride a missile to a target aremore open questions. No doubt, North Koreahas acquired far more bargaining power tocompete in global nuclear age. Despite all inter-national efforts to check nuclear proliferation,North Korea continues to pose a proliferationrisk globally. Since, North Korea has good rela-tions with China and if America takes up anyinitiative against North Korea then China couldbe displeased and future confrontation wouldbe brewing. The country most affected, ofcourse, is South Korea but this nuclear test hasagain triggered the ideological war of Capitalistvs. Communist. Nuclear weapon possessed bya communist country irritates America. How-ever, what counter-actions America and theother superpowers are going to take up is stillto be seen. n(Author is research scholar at Department of Polit-ical Science, Banaras Hindu University. She can becontacted at [email protected].)

WAR ON TERROR


tweet by ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ on January 16,“To find a man in hiding, you need an eye inthe sky”, which was later deleted has

sparked off a controversy whether the movie en-dorses use of torture to access information to zeroin on Osama bin Laden by United States in the af-termath of 9/11.

The movie, which was nominated for Oscar asbest motion picture has thrown a hectic debateabout the modus operandi adopted by the US inits fight against terrorism. There’s no doubt thatAmerica has been successful in preventing an-other 9/11 on its soil, but the question is whetherits anti-terrorism steps are inhumane, undemoc-ratic or unethical?

The killing of bin Laden by the US Navy sealsis just another example of the US-sponsored inter-national manhunt that rake up uncomfortablequestions over its decade long fight against terror-ism. What about undermining of civil libertieshere at home? The rights of suspects? The secretsurveillance of American citizens? The swollen ex-

ecutive powers first claimed by George W. Bushand now by Barack Obama?

Soon after he succeeded Bush, PresidentObama announced he would not permit tortureand would close down the detention camp atGuantanamo Bay. He also said, “The orders that Isign today should send an unmistakable signalthat our actions in defense of liberty will be just asour cause. And that we the people will uphold ourfundamental values as vigilantly as we protect oursecurity. Once again, America’s moral examplemust be the bedrock and the beacon of our globalleadership”

Four years later, Guantanamo remains open. Infact, just a few days ago, the State Department an-nounced it was eliminating the office assigned toclose the prison and move its detainees.

Meanwhile, President Obama has stepped upthe use of unmanned drones against suspectedterrorists abroad, not only in Afghanistan but incountries where US is not at war, including Pak-istan, Yemen and Somalia.

Since Obama took office, the aerial assaultsalso have killed three U.S. citizens, raising addi-tional arguments as to whether the president

The Ugly

Drones

by Yogesh Pandey

A


WAR ON TERRORhas the right to order the death of Americans sus-pected of terrorism without due process of law. Oneof those controversial drone attacks involved thekilling of Anwar al-Awalki, an American citizen andradical Muslim cleric who had moved to Yemen withhis family. He was said to be the brains behind re-peated attempts to attack the U.S., including theChristmas day underwear bomber plot in 2009. Alsodead was American citizen Samir Khan, editor of“Inspire,” al Qaeda ‘s online propaganda magazine,and two weeks later, in a separate drone attack, al-Awalki’s 16-year-old son, born in Denver.

A key player in America’s current drone programis John Brennan, who during the Bush presidencywas a senior official at the Central IntelligenceAgency and head of the National CounterterrorismCenter. Reportedly, Barack Obama considered offer-ing him the top job at the CIA in 2008, but public op-position — in reaction to the charges that the BushWhite House had approved torture — caused Bren-nan to withdraw his name from consideration.Nonetheless, Obama kept him on as an adviser, andnow, despite Brennan’s past notoriety, Obama offi-cially has chosen him to head the CIA. This time,there’s been little criticism of the decision.

Drone and DemocracyWith use of drones to fighting terrorism, there’s

a raging debate whether its use has underminedrights of American people to decide on declaringwar. In democracy like America, citizens have par-ticipated historically to decide on taking military ac-tions, extending their support to the State by sharingeconomic costs. U.S. government raised $185 billionduring World War II after 85 million Americans pur-chased war bonds. Not only this they have in the pastendured the human loss.

Today, the United States military has more than7,000 unmanned aerial systems, popularly calleddrones. There are 12,000 more on the ground. Lastyear, they carried out hundreds of strikes — bothcovert and overt — in six countries, transforming theway American democracy deliberates and engagesin what they used to think of as war.

Now with drones at the forefront of war, Con-gress’s role to take a call on declaring military actionsstands diluted. Last time Congress gave its approvalto declare war was in 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungaryand Romania. The US -sponsored drone war in Pak-istan is not-so-covert but still even after seven yearsit began, Congress hasn’t yet debated drone opera-tions. The drone technology removes the last politicalobstacles to war. The strongest appeal of unmannedsystems is that US doesn’t have to send someone’sson or daughter in the battlefield.

THE change is not limited to covert action. Lastspring, America launched airstrikes on Libya as partof a NATO operation to prevent Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government from massacring civilians. In

late March, the White House announced that theAmerican military was handing over combat opera-tions to its European partners and would thereafterplay only a supporting role.

The distinction was crucial. The operation’s goalsquickly evolved from a limited humanitarian inter-vention into an air war supporting local insurgents’efforts at regime change. But it had limited publicsupport and no Congressional approval.

When the administration was asked to explainwhy continuing military action would not be a vio-lation of the War Powers Resolution — a Vietnam-era law that requires notifying Congress of militaryoperations within 48 hours and getting its authoriza-tion after 60 days — the White House argued thatAmerican operations did not “involve the presenceof U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a seriousthreat thereof.” But they did involve somethingAmericans used to think of as war: blowing up stuff,lots of it.

These events reflect how a new technology isshort-circuiting the decision-making process forwhat used to be the most important choice a democ-racy could make. Something that would have previ-ously been viewed as a war is simply not beingtreated like a war.

Starting on April 23, American unmanned sys-tems were deployed over Libya. For the next sixmonths, they carried out at least 146 strikes on theirown. They also identified and pinpointed the targetsfor most of NATO’s manned strike jets. This un-manned operation lasted well past the 60-day dead-line of the War Powers Resolution, extending to thevery last airstrike that hit Colonel Qaddafi’s convoy

WAR ON TERROR


on Oct. 20 and led to his death. Choosing to make the operation unmanned

proved critical to initiating it without Congressionalauthorization and continuing it with minimal publicsupport. On June 21, when NATO’s air war was lag-ging, an American Navy helicopter was shot downby pro-Qaddafi forces. This previously would havebeen a disaster, with the risk of an American aircrewbeing captured or even killed. But the downed heli-copter was an unmanned Fire Scout, and the storydidn’t even make the newspapers the next day.

We must now accept that technologies that re-move humans from the battlefield, from unmannedsystems like the Predator to cyberweapons like theStuxnet computer worm, are becoming the new nor-mal in war. And like it or not, the new standard hasbeen established for them is that presidents need toseek approval only for operations that send peopleinto harm’s way — not for those that involve wagingwar by other means.

Without any actual political debate, an enormousprecedent is being set, blurring the civilian and mil-itary roles in war and circumventing the Constitu-tion’s mandate for authorizing it. Freeing theexecutive branch to act as it chooses may be appeal-ing to some now, but many future scenarios will beless clear-cut. And each political party will verylikely have a different view, depending on who is inthe White House.

C.I.A. drone strikes outside of declared war zonesare setting a troubling precedent that we might notwant to see followed by the close to 50 other nationsthat now possess the same unmanned technology —including China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran.

America’s founding fathers may not have beenable to imagine robotic drones, but they did providean answer. The Constitution did not leave war, nomatter how it is waged, to the executive branchalone. In a democracy, it is an issue for all of us.

Is Drone war unethical?Increasingly, the United States has come to rely

on the use of drones to counter the threat posed byterrorists. Drones have arguably enjoyed significantsuccesses in denying terrorists safe haven while lim-iting civilian casualties and protecting U.S. soldiers,but their use has raised ethical concerns. Whiledrones are technically capable of improving adher-ence to principles of discrimination and proportion-ality, concerns regarding transparency and thepotentially indiscriminate nature of drone strikes, es-pecially those conducted by the Central IntelligenceAgency (CIA), as opposed to the military, may un-dermine the probability of success in combating ter-rorism. Military and intelligence personnel, roboticsexperts, and some academicians have argued dronesremove the risk to U.S. personnel. Moreover, theirability to undertake limited, pinprick, covert strikessignificantly reduces civilian casualties compared toother weapons platforms, as well as the costs andrisks of waging a larger war to curtail the terroristthreat, thus leading to what the Obama administra-tion sees as a more humane type of war. Journalistsand human rights organizations have brought tolight concerns about the efficacy of CIA-drones inavoiding civilian casualties and the impact pur-ported civilian deaths have on fueling terrorist recruitment.

Even though the threat posed by Al Qaeda mustbe recognized, as must the truth that U.S. leaders andofficials face difficult dilemmas when thinking aboutwhether to employ drones (or any use of force), im-portant concerns remain regarding the standards de-scribed by Brennan. Notwithstanding possibleobjections that drones are, in fact, legal and wise, thefocus here is on the ethical and procedural justifica-tions outlined by Brennan, and raise two key ques-tions: Are lethal drone strikes a last resort, that is tosay, have all feasible alternatives really been ex-hausted? Can the use of drones lead to a lasting andjust peace?

Drones are not simply a moral issue. Like debat-ing the legitimacy of air strikes, ground invasion orcruise missile strikes, deliberating on the use ofdrones is a use of force question. To the extent thattheir use is supposed to follow the moral standardsof war, the first question is under what conditions istheir lethal use legitimate? To gain purchase on theethical dilemmas posed by drones, one needs, first,to know the moral and historical context duringwhich the use the drones emerged as the weapon ofchoice of President Obama. This is linked to a partialtransition away from the Bush Doctrine.


WAR ON TERROR

Early in his presidential campaign in 2008,Obama stated he wanted to repudiate the "mind-setthat got us into [the Iraq] war in the first place." Thatmind-set included Bush's willingness to snub allies,such as France and Germany, and undertake a pre-emptive war, or what is sometimes now distin-guished as preventive war, against Iraq in the nameof self-defence. Obama's rhetoric thus sounded amore cautious tone that emphasized the importanceof last resort and multilateralism.

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in2009, Obama referenced the importance of the justwar tradition in guiding the use of force: "And overtime, as codes of law sought to control violencewithin groups, so did philosophers and clerics andstatesmen seek to regulate the destructive power ofwar. The concept of a 'just war' emerged, suggestingthat war is justified only when certain conditionswere met: if it is waged as a last resort and in self-de-fense; if the force used is proportional; and if, when-ever possible, civilians are spared from violence."The 2010 National Security Strategy - the documentthat outlines the foreign policy threats facing the U.S.and how the administration plans to deal with them- echoes this cautious war philosophy. The languageof pre-emptive war that predominated Bush's na-tional Security Strategy of 2002 and 2006 was re-moved, and a more cautious language that echoedthe notion of last resort was employed: "While theuse of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaustother options before war whenever we can, and care-fully weigh the costs and risks of inaction." The doc-ument goes on to emphasize the importance of usingforce in ways that "reflects our values and strength-ens our legitimacy" and stresses the need for "broadinternational support." The notion of last resort is im-portant here because it suggests that Obama sees theuse of force as something that ought to be avoided,if possible. This means that force should not be usedunless a threat is imminent, and even in cases inwhich it is all reasonable means of forestalling thethreat should be tried first. In some respects, Obamahas towed the line. The Libya campaign was a mul-tilateral effort aimed, at least initially, at protectingcivilians from imminent threat of slaughter. Whendealing with the looming threat of Iran, Obama hasemphasized diplomatic measures designed to isolatethe regime. Finally, he has shown restraint by notrushing to war to stop the bloodshed in Syria be-cause of a lack of international support. When itcomes to large-scale force, Obama has, it seems,turned the page from the Bush Doctrine.

But this does not mean he has completely rejectedthe idea that the U.S. could 'go it alone' and act pre-emptively. As the National Security Strategy un-equivocally exclaims: "The United States mustreserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to de-fend our nation and our interests, yet we will alsoseek to adhere to the standards that govern the use

of force." This leads us to the dilemmas posed bydrones. In using drones, Obama continues to act onthe Memorandum of Notification, signed in theweeks following 9/11 by President Bush that gavethe CIA the right to kill members of Al-Qaeda in an-ticipatory self-defense virtually anywhere in theworld. While the administration claims importantsuccesses in decimating Al-Qaeda, skeptics point tothe link between purported civilian casualties andterrorist recruitment, as well as the growing presenceof potentially affiliated branches in Africa andYemen, to suggest that the war against extremismis far from being won by drones. The cause of thiscriticism is the impression that the Obama adminis-tration is not living up to its own values.

The Anticipatory Drone Strike DoctrineThe Obama administration may have departed

from the highly controversial anticipatory war doc-trine of the Bush era; however, it has replaced thisdoctrine with an equally problematic, albeit lesscostly and less destructive, anticipatory drone strikedoctrine. Namely that low levels of force, such asdrone strikes, bypass the bureaucratic hurdles, mak-ing them very easy, perhaps too easy, to justify. Thisbuilds from the assumption that because we are wag-ing a just war against Al-Qaeda, it must be just to ex-pand the war in any direction we see fit. But the waragainst Al-Qaeda is not a conventional war in whichboth sides will fight, kill, and then come together inthe end to make some sort of peace. It is a struggleto defeat an ideology, meaning every action - espe-cially including drone strikes - which could poten-tially fuel this ideology, needs to be carefullyconsidered.

In the case of drones, Obama has over-empha-sized the ability of drones to better satisfy the prin-ciples of proportionality and distinction, to the pointof overlooking the essential question: is it just to usethem in ever-expanding ways against Al Qaeda cellsin Pakistan and against affiliate organizations inother countries without official consent of the localgovernments? What is missing is for the Obama ad-ministration to recognize that drones, as they are currently used in anticipatory attacks against Al-Qaeda and similar organizations, run counter to thejust war standards privileging the notion of last re-sort embraced in Obama's rhetoric and in officialdocuments.

All this suggests that when it comes to fightingAl-Qaeda and other like-minded organizations, thethreshold of last resort has long ago been crossed,and that some application of force is seen as neces-sary to quell the threat. But whatdoes necessity mean in relation to a drone strike?What constitutes an imminent threat? Are all activeterrorists, assuming we can correctly identify them,a sufficient threat legitimizing lethal drone strikes?

WAR ON TERROR


Could other non-lethal tactics, such as arresting ter-rorists, freezing assets, and working with foreignpartners to isolate and diminish their influence, beemployed instead?

Peace Impossible Through Drone WarfareNo matter how good drone strikes are at limiting

civilian deaths, inevitably some civilians will die.While all life is sacred, it takes only one civilian deathto fuel negative perceptions of the U.S. in some partsof the world and all but guarantee a steady flow ofterrorist recruits. Minimizing the chances of such ascenario unfolding is why the notion of last resort isso important when contemplating drone strikes.

The current drone strategy does not provide aclear picture of the post-war-against-Al-Qaeda era,described in the 2010 National Security Strategy as a"just and sustainable international order." Drones,which were the worst kept secret at the time, are noteven mentioned. And Brennan's speech does little toclarify the ultimate goal, except to imply that dronesare part of the process to help end the war againstAl-Qaeda as quickly as possible. With drones as thedefault tactic, Obama may succeed at eliminating ex-perienced terrorist leaders and keeping other mem-bers on the run, but it seems unlikely that this willeradicate Al-Qaeda altogether or marginalize the in-fluence of their ideology. Is it enough to keep themon the run? What happens if Pakistan or Yemen wereto take a more forceful, or even military, stanceagainst U.S. drones? What will happen when the U.S.pulls out of Afghanistan, where bases used to launchdrones into Pakistan are located?

In short, there is no clear end game of the dronecampaign against Al-Qaeda, but rather, an endlesscycle of perceived threat, drone strikes, inevitablecollateral damage, and mutual animosity. By theirvery nature, drones remove the human element be-cause they are operated from far away and all buteliminate any positive contact with local populations.This may greatly diminish the risk to U.S. personnel,but it also makes making peace almost impossible. Ifdrones are to be effective, they need to be part of aclearly defined strategy where non-lethal measuresare the priority, and drone strikes are a last resort.Just because they are easy to use and very effectiveat killing does not mean they should be used in lieuof other options.

The Way Forward If these are the risks, what can be done instead?

The 2011 National Strategy for Counter-Terrorism,in which drones, not surprisingly, do not feature,points to several options: stepping up intelligencegathering activities, freezing terrorists assets, creat-ing strategic partnerships with the governments ofother countries, pursuing terrorists with local author-ities to arrest them and gain valuable intelligence,

isolating terrorists to remote areas where their move-ments can be more easily tracked, and marginalizingAl Qaeda's ideology to the point of irrelevance. Thedocument also states that the U.S. "must pursue theultimate defeat of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates withoutacting in a way that undermines our ability to dis-credit its ideology." Unfortunately, the currentdrone-first strategy does not accomplish this goal.

Brennan admits as much when saying that cap-ture is exceedingly rare because terrorists have be-come so isolated that capture missions are toorisky. Yet, one should not paint a picture of thewar against Al-Qaeda as based on a capture/killdichotomy. This is a short-term vision that ignoresthe long-term costs when drones inevitably killcivilians, downplaying the potential efficacy onthe non-violent methods described above.

Limiting drone strikes to instances of imminentthreat will lessen their frequency, giving time foralternative mechanism to work. The alternative isthat each unnecessary drone strike will potentiallyundermine the effectiveness of non-violent mech-anisms. n

([email protected])


INTERVIEW

Noam Chomsky is Institute Pro-fessor & Professor of Linguistics(Emeritus) in Massachusetts In-

stitute of Technology

oes the United States stillhave the same level of con-trol over the energy re-

sources of the Middle East as itonce had?

The major energy-producingcountries are still firmly under thecontrol of the Western-backed dic-tatorships. So, actually, theprogress made by the Arab Springis limited, but it’s not insignificant.The Western-controlled dictatorialsystem is eroding. In fact, it’s beeneroding for some time. So, for ex-ample, if you go back 50 years, theenergy resources -- the main con-cern of U.S. planners -- have beenmostly nationalized. There areconstantly attempts to reversethat, but they have not succeeded.

Take the U.S. invasion of Iraq,

for example. To everyone except adedicated ideologue, it was prettyobvious that we invaded Iraq notbecause of our love of democracybut because it’s maybe the second-or third-largest source of oil in theworld, and is right in the middle ofthe major energy-producing region. You’re not supposed to saythis. It’s considered a conspiracytheory.

The United States was seri-ously defeated in Iraq by Iraqi na-tionalism -- mostly by nonviolentresistance. The United States couldkill the insurgents, but they could-n’t deal with half a million peopledemonstrating in the streets. Stepby step, Iraq was able to dismantlethe controls put in place by the oc-cupying forces. By November2007, it was becoming pretty clearthat it was going to be very hard toreach U.S. goals. And at that point,interestingly, those goals were ex-plicitly stated. So in November2007 the Bush II administrationcame out with an official declara-tion about what any futurearrangement with Iraq wouldhave to be. It had two major re-quirements: one, that the UnitedStates must be free to carry outcombat operations from its mili-tary bases, which it will retain; andtwo, “encouraging the flow of for-eign investments to Iraq, espe-cially American investments.” InJanuary 2008, Bush made this clearin one of his signing statements. Acouple of months later, in the face

of Iraqi resistance, the UnitedStates had to give that up. Controlof Iraq is now disappearing beforetheir eyes.

Iraq was an attempt to reinsti-tute by force something like theold system of control, but it wasbeaten back. In general, I think,U.S. policies remain constant,going back to the Second WorldWar. But the capacity to imple-ment them is declining.Declining because of eco-nomic weakness?

Partly because the world is justbecoming more diverse. It hasmore diverse power centers. Atthe end of the Second World War,the United States was absolutely atthe peak of its power. It had halfthe world’s wealth and every oneof its competitors was seriouslydamaged or destroyed. It had aposition of unimaginable securityand developed plans to essentiallyrun the world -- not unrealisticallyat the time.This was called “Grand Area”planning?

Yes. Right after the SecondWorld War, George Kennan, headof the U.S. State Department pol-icy planning staff, and otherssketched out the details, and thenthey were implemented. What’shappening now in the Middle Eastand North Africa, to an extent, andin South America substantiallygoes all the way back to the late1940s. The first major successful

The Paranoia ofthe Superrich andSuperpowerful

This piece is adopted from“Uprisings,” a chapter

in Power Systems: Conversa-tions on Global Democratic

Uprisings and the New Chal-lenges to U.S. Empire, Noam

Chomsky’s new interviewbook with David Barsamian(with thanks to the publisher,

Metropolitan Books). Thequestions are Barsamian’s,

the answers Chomsky’s.

D

INTERVIEW


resistance to U.S. hegemony was in 1949. That’s whenan event took place, which, interestingly, is called“the loss of China.” It’s a very interesting phrase,never challenged. There was a lot of discussion aboutwho is responsible for the loss of China. It became ahuge domestic issue. But it’s a very interestingphrase. You can only lose something if you own it. Itwas just taken for granted: we possess China -- and ifthey move toward independence, we’ve lost China.Later came concerns about “the loss of Latin Amer-ica,” “the loss of the Middle East,” “the loss of” cer-tain countries, all based on the premise that we ownthe world and anything that weakens our control is aloss to us and we wonder how to recover it.

Today, if you read, say, foreign policy journals or,in a farcical form, listen to the Republican debates,they’re asking, “How do we prevent further losses?”

On the other hand, the capacity to preserve con-trol has sharply declined. By 1970, the world was al-ready what was called tripolar economically, with aU.S.-based North American industrial center, a Ger-man-based European center, roughly comparable insize, and a Japan-based East Asian center, which wasthen the most dynamic growth region in the world.Since then, the global economic order has becomemuch more diverse. So it’s harder to carry out ourpolicies, but the underlying principles have notchanged much.

Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton doctrinewas that the United States is entitled to resort to uni-lateral force to ensure “uninhibited access to key mar-kets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.” Thatgoes beyond anything that George W. Bush said. Butit was quiet and it wasn’t arrogant and abrasive, so itdidn’t cause much of an uproar. The belief in that en-titlement continues right to the present. It’s also partof the intellectual culture.

Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden,amid all the cheers and applause, there were a fewcritical comments questioning the legality of the act.Centuries ago, there used to be something called pre-sumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect,he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should bebrought to trial. It’s a core part of American law. Youcan trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a cou-ple of voices saying maybe we shouldn’t throw outthe whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led toa lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but themost interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberalend of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-knownand highly respected left liberal commentator, wrotean article in which he ridiculed these views. He saidthey’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressedthe reason. He said that “one of the main functions ofthe international institutional order is precisely to le-gitimate the use of deadly military force by westernpowers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. Hemeant the United States. So the principle on whichthe international system is based is that the United

States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about theUnited States violating international law or some-thing like that is amazingly naive, completely silly.Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, andI’m happy to confess my guilt. I do think that MagnaCarta and international law are worth paying someattention to.

I merely mention that to illustrate that in the in-tellectual culture, even at what’s called the left liberalend of the political spectrum, the core principleshaven’t changed very much. But the capacity to im-plement them has been sharply reduced. That’s whyyou get all this talk about American decline. Take alook at the year-end issue of Foreign Affairs, the mainestablishment journal. Its big front-page cover asks,in bold face, “Is America Over?” It’s a standard com-plaint of those who believe they should have every-thing. If you believe you should have everything andanything gets away from you, it’s a tragedy, theworld is collapsing. So is America over? A long timeago we “lost” China, we’ve lost Southeast Asia, we’velost South America. Maybe we’ll lose the Middle Eastand North African countries. Is America over? It’s akind of paranoia, but it’s the paranoia of the superrichand the superpowerful. If you don’t have everything,it’s a disaster.The New York Times describes the “definingpolicy quandary of the Arab Spring: how tosquare contradictory American impulses thatinclude support for democratic change, a desirefor stability, and wariness of Islamists whohave become a potent political force.”The Times identifies three U.S. goals. What doyou make of them?

Two of them are accurate. The United States is infavor of stability. But you have to remember what sta-bility means. Stability means conformity to U.S. or-ders. So, for example, one of the charges against Iran,the big foreign policy threat, is that it is destabilizingIraq and Afghanistan. How? By trying to expand itsinfluence into neighboring countries. On the otherhand, we “stabilize” countries when we invade themand destroy them.

I’ve occasionally quoted one of my favorite illus-trations of this, which is from a well-known, verygood liberal foreign policy analyst, James Chace, aformer editor ofForeign Affairs. Writing about theoverthrow of the Salvador Allende regime and theimposition of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in1973, he said that we had to “destabilize” Chile in theinterests of “stability.” That’s not perceived to be acontradiction -- and it isn’t. We had to destroy theparliamentary system in order to gain stability, mean-ing that they do what we say. So yes, we are in favorof stability in this technical sense.

Concern about political Islam is just like concernabout any independent development. Anythingthat’s independent you have to have concern about


INTERVIEWbecause it might undermine you. In fact, it’s a littleironic, because traditionally the United States andBritain have by and large strongly supported radicalIslamic fundamentalism, not political Islam, as a forceto block secular nationalism, the real concern. So, forexample, Saudi Arabia is the most extreme funda-mentalist state in the world, a radical Islamic state. Ithas a missionary zeal, is spreading radical Islam toPakistan, funding terror. But it’s the bastion of U.S.and British policy. They’ve consistently supported itagainst the threat of secular nationalism from GamalAbdel Nasser’s Egypt and Abd al-Karim Qasim’sIraq, among many others. But they don’t like political

Islam because it might become independent.The first of the three points, our yearning for

democracy, that’s about on the level of Joseph Stalintalking about the Russian commitment to freedom,democracy, and liberty for the world. It’s the kind ofstatement you laugh about when you hear it fromcommissars or Iranian clerics, but you nod politelyand maybe even with awe when you hear it fromtheir Western counterparts.

If you look at the record, the yearning for democ-racy is a bad joke. That’s even recognized by leadingscholars, though they don’t put it this way. One of themajor scholars on so-called democracy promotion isThomas Carothers, who is pretty conservative andhighly regarded -- a neo-Reaganite, not a flaming lib-eral. He worked in Reagan’s State Department andhas several books reviewing the course of democracypromotion, which he takes very seriously. He says,yes, this is a deep-seated American ideal, but it has afunny history. The history is that every U.S. adminis-tration is “schizophrenic.” They support democracyonly if it conforms to certain strategic and economicinterests. He describes this as a strange pathology, as

if the United States needed psychiatric treatment orsomething. Of course, there’s another interpretation,but one that can’t come to mind if you’re a well-edu-cated, properly behaved intellectual.Within several months of the toppling of [Pres-ident Hosni] Mubarak in Egypt, he was in thedock facing criminal charges and prosecution.It’s inconceivable that U.S. leaders will ever beheld to account for their crimes in Iraq or be-yond. Is that going to change anytime soon?

That’s basically the Yglesias principle: the veryfoundation of the international order is that theUnited States has the right to use violence at will. Sohow can you charge anybody?And no one else has that right.

Of course not. Well, maybe our clients do. If Israelinvades Lebanon and kills a thousand people and de-stroys half the country, okay, that’s all right. It’s in-teresting. Barack Obama was a senator before he waspresident. He didn’t do much as a senator, but he dida couple of things, including one he was particularlyproud of. In fact, if you looked at his website beforethe primaries, he highlighted the fact that, during theIsraeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, he cosponsoreda Senate resolution demanding that the United Statesdo nothing to impede Israel’s military actions untilthey had achieved their objectives and censuring Iranand Syria because they were supporting resistance toIsrael’s destruction of southern Lebanon, incidentally,for the fifth time in 25 years. So they inherit the right.Other clients do, too.

But the rights really reside in Washington. That’swhat it means to own the world. It’s like the air youbreathe. You can’t question it. The main founder ofcontemporary IR [international relations] theory,Hans Morgenthau, was really quite a decent person,one of the very few political scientists and interna-tional affairs specialists to criticize the Vietnam Waron moral, not tactical, grounds. Very rare. He wrotea book called The Purpose of American Politics. Youalready know what’s coming. Other countries don’thave purposes. The purpose of America, on the otherhand, is “transcendent”: to bring freedom and justiceto the rest of the world. But he’s a good scholar, likeCarothers. So he went through the record. He said,when you study the record, it looks as if the UnitedStates hasn’t lived up to its transcendent purpose.But then he says, to criticize our transcendent pur-pose “is to fall into the error of atheism, which deniesthe validity of religion on similar grounds” -- whichis a good comparison. It’s a deeply entrenched reli-gious belief. It’s so deep that it’s going to be hard todisentangle it. And if anyone questions that, it leadsto near hysteria and often to charges of anti-Ameri-canism or “hating America” -- interesting conceptsthat don’t exist in democratic societies, only in total-itarian societies and here, where they’re just takenfor granted. n

BOOK REVIEW


ver since the pediatrician,public health and humanrights activist, Dr. Binayak

Sen was first arrested (leading toLife term imprisonment for al-legedly waging war against theCountry with the help of a Maoist)in a fabricated case in May 2007,much has been written about hislife, work and the case againsthim—both positive and negative.

The book under review, au-thored by Mumbai based writer,Dilip D’Souza is the fourth positivework in the form of a book, capti-vatingly titled, “The Curious Caseof Binayak Sen”. However, the au-thor in the very beginning, firstchapter, makes it clear that, “this isreally not a book about (Binayak)Sen, this one man. It is insteadabout his way of thinking about

the world.”Unlike previous works,this book, notably, covers what Bi-nayak has been doing after he wasreleased on bail granted by theSupreme Court of India’s directionin April last year. The author notes,“Since his release on bail, Sen hasspoken often about another kind ofconnection: between malnutritionand secession” and “there’s an ar-ticulation of the same concern withhuman rights—indeed, with thehuman condition—that Sen speaksabout.” Binayak believes andrightly so, that his case is no differ-ent from those of thousands of oth-ers who are suffering. He says,“Whatever has happened to me isthe result of the suffering of thou-sands of people. Any personal im-print would by ghoulish.” But, theauthor tells us that through thisSen has “a broader point to make.The communities that face (this)structural violence are facing anni-hilation—strong word, but Senclearly saw it as possible—becauseof famine and an inability to sur-vive”.In an earlier occasion, the au-thors quotes Sen while explainingwhat he really means by structuralviolence. In Sen’s words, “By struc-tural violence I refer to the fact thathalf our children and our adults inthis country suffer from malnutri-tion. Malnutrition casts a darkshadow over other diseases likemalaria and tuberculosis.” Citingdata produced by government’sown institution, the National Nu-trition Monitoring Bureau and theWorld Health Organisation’snorms, Sen concludes, we are liv-ing in condition of famine. And “athird of our live births have lowbirth weights, this is what I meanwhen I talk of structural vio-lence.” Elaborating the flimsy andfabricated case against Binayak,digging in to charge sheets andreading out from the judgment ofthe trial court, which convictedhim with life imprisonment, theauthor raises certain pertinentquestions not only about theChhattisgarh government and itsPolice, on whose behest Binayak isconvicted for no crime but alsoabout the state of the judicial sys-

tem in our country, especially inthe state of Chhattisgarh. The au-thor ably exposes the holes in thecharge sheets, selectivity of theprosecution and the executivementality of the judiciary.

Commenting about two emails,which were produced as major ‘ev-idence’ against Sen, totally out ofcontext and selectively, the authorobserves: “It is hard for me to be-lieve that any reasonable prosecu-tion would actually seek to make acase like this.” He is referring tothe fact that, for the prosecution,how the mere mention of the ISI(here, meaning the Indian SocialInstitute, New Delhi and not thePakistani Intelligence agency ISIwhich is the “chimpanzee in theWhite House”), prove that Binayakand his wife Ilina are part of an In-ternational terror network! In thisregard, he further observes, “It isharder still for me to believe thatany reasonable judge would listento this and take it seriously.” To-wards the end of the book, the au-thor does not forget to ask verysimple yet important questions,while commenting on the state ofIndian democracy. “The one majorattempt to shut down Indiandemocracy happened in 1975 andwas called the Emergency. Luckily,it lasted less than two years…Butwe can still ask: is democracy aswe have known it in India reallydemocracy? What constitutesdemocracy, after all? Elections?Freedoms? Rights?”

The book is an important addi-tion in the available literature onBinayak Sen case, the issues ofpublic health and state of democ-racy in India and its institutions.However, one strongly feels thatthe language and presentationcould have been much simplerthan one adopted in this book.Nevertheless, it deserves to bewidely read. n

The CuriousCase of

Binayak Sen

by Dilip D’Souza,Harper CollinsPublishers India,2012;pp187,RS 250.

by Mahtab Alam

E

(Author is a Delhi based CivilRights Activist and IndependentJournalist. He can be conacted at

[email protected]. Thereview was first published on

pratirodh.com.)


BOOK REVIEW

ahul Pandita’s book Our Moon Has BloodClots must be looked at both as a personalaccount of suffering as well as a political

project that implicitly and explicitly makes useof that suffering towards a particular end. Theundertaking is a legitimate one on both counts.What the book manages to achieve on each, war-rants a fair and dispassionate assessment.

His narration of events experienced by thePandits is a welcome exposition of subjectivityaround a range of traumatic events, humilia-tions, killings and betrayals undergone prior toand after the outbreak of mass political rebellionin Kashmir in 1989. The events thus narrated, es-pecially the account of the personal experiencesof trauma do make one strongly identify with thesuffering of the families involved and agree withthe wide swathes of subjective anger and hurtshared by the community. The chilling accountsof individual and mass killings and the circum-stances that made them possible, call for collec-tive self-reflection, remorse and atonement. Thisaccount also calls for serious reflection on thefragility of human associations and trust in ex-ceptional circumstances that we normally takefor granted.

The book as well as the promotional inter-views around the book push the claim that notonly certain militants but also many ordinarypeople, including those personally known to thevictims, were responsible for the exodus throughtheir acts of omission and commission. Thisclaim is substantiated through a range of indict-ments based on personal encounters with indi-viduals, shared nuggets of information, as wellas the interpretation of the larger political sym-bolism and slogans which were seen as a delib-erate attempt to intimidate Pandits, and Panditsalone. While it is difficult to deny that a numberof individuals took advantage of those anarchictimes to gratify personal hate and lust for loot, itmakes for an overstatement to underplay theequally frequent narrative of mutual support be-tween individuals that one gets to hear duringconversations between the members of the twocommunities privately. Such underplay does vi-olence to those aspects of shared memory.

The arrangement of harrowing experiencesfrom the beginning of time, through July 1931 tothe present as though there is a seamless, teleo-logical continuity between events separated bytime and space makes the narrative monolithicand monologic and effectively unconvincing,though one can understand how deeply felt hurtand anger can lead to such simultaneous cathexisand amnesia in the mind of the subject.

Our memoriescome in the way ofour histories

Our Moon Has Blood Clots by Rahul Pandita, Vintage Book/Random House, 2013; pp272, RS 499.

R

by Gowhar Fazili

BOOK REVIEW


Kashmiri Muslims overlookthe impact of the use of overtreligious symbolism in their re-bellion against the state, uponthe minorities who were thusothered by default. But that itwas intended purely to scarethem off is again an overstate-ment given that any mass cul-tural or political rally inKashmir even prior to 1989 ar-ticulated itself through reli-gious symbols, and there arehistorical reasons for this. Be-sides this over the years the sec-ular symbolism and politicallanguage that did exist in Kash-mir was largely appropriatedby the occupation and de-ployed to further the status-quo. For this and many otherreasons resistance to the status-quo took on a religious tone.Also the struggle drew inspira-tion from various movementsactive at the moment across theMuslim world where Islamisedresistance was pitched againstsecular neo-colonial regimes ormilitary occupations like that ofKashmir. This does not absolvethose who led the rebellion inKashmir of their failure to in-vent symbols that would havebeen more inclusive. Besidesthis the groups like Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) did ride the wave ofdissent and use the erosion ofthe state to further its brand ofpolitical Islam and pan-Is-lamism and found ready sub-scribers. JI was one of thelargest non-co-opted groupswith the ideological resourcesas well as the organisationalbase to do so besides being ac-tively patronised by Pakistanfor its own ends. This appropri-ation of the national liberationstruggle for exclusivist commu-nal ends requires much intro-spection and revision on part ofthose who subscribe to themovement for Azadi.

On the other hand the bookpresents Pandits as politicallybenign throughout history,while the period post the ar-rival of Muslims on the scene isspoken of as ‘Islamisation’, im-

plicitly as though Islam weresomething essentially vile. Itdoes violence to the commu-nity, its intellect and will to pre-sume that they were mostlyconverted forcibly by the in-vaders. The ascendance ofIslam in Kashmir is at least asmuch to do with its civilisa-tional appeal, its novelty as aspiritual experience, its relativeegalitarianism and the realign-ment of hierarchies that resultwith any major socio-politicalchange; as to the superior mili-tary and administrativeprowess of the kings andqueens who took over fromPandit or Buddhist Kings. Suchexclusivist reading of history inKashmir makes for Hindutva-like historiography. Communalhistorical narratives do persistin the privacy of our homes butany scholarship worth its saltshould seek to challenge suchnaïve accounts of self.

While looking at Pandits aspolitically benign, Muslims areeffectively stereotyped as per-petrators of systematic violencewith the exception of few inci-dental individuals thinly sprin-kled across the narrative. It alsoseamlessly combines the politi-cally loaded stereotype of the‘brutish tribal invaders’ of 1947with that of the local militantsand protestors of 1989, missingout on the respective contextsof the Dogra state-sponsoredJammu genocide of 1947 thattriggered the tribal raid as a re-sponse, as well as the immedi-ate political context that led tomilitancy in 1989.

The book elaborates on thebigotry of Muslim regimes overmany pages but shrinks thehundred plus years of ap-palling, communal atrocities bythe Sikh and Hindu-Dograregimes that preceded 1947 intoa few token sentences. The con-tinuities with the Dogra regimethat set the tone for Indian oc-cupation are completelymissed. The book ignores thecauses of cyclic political up-heaval in Kashmir and the his-

tory of political intrigue and vi-olence that has sustained In-dian control since 1947. In theimmediate, it fails to even men-tion the Centre’s intervention toinstall Ghulam MohammadShah (Gulle Shah), followed bythe systematic rigging of 1987elections and accompanying re-pression that led to mass rebel-lion. Such systematic stateviolence and complete failureto make any political redressled to a tipping point followingwhich violence spiralled out ofhand. This is not to say thatPandits were legitimate targetbecause of their identificationsand silences, but to illustratehow perceptions of violence are selective.

The superior claims to Kash-mir based on mythologisedcommunal history does vio-lence to humans who predatedany known religion in Kashmir(like the well known stone-ageinhabitants of Burzahama). Byimplication erasing all thosenon-caste inhabitants likeAaram, Doomb, Chopaan,Haenz, Watal, Gujjur, Baker-waal – in fact the whole of peas-antry who have as much claimto Kashmir as any blue-blooded Pandit, Syed or Sufi re-gardless of the fact that theymay not have left much of awritten record to vouch forthemselves. They are there inflesh and blood for everyone tosee. The failure to find them inhistory does violence to Panditclaims of superior knowledgeand learning — the claims thatare naively repeated (subtly orexplicitly) throughout this bookand many other Pandit self-ac-counts. The connection be-tween power and knowledge issomehow completely lost onthem. The pride in being excep-tionally learned and the anxietyover losing that exclusive priv-ilege is a palpable, unresolvedundercurrent.

These claims are not unlikethe exclusivist elite Muslimclaims to history that do notconsider the contributions of


BOOK REVIEWtheir Hindu, Buddhist and non-religious ordi-nary and exceptional ancestors as their own (asthough they have all sprung out of the womb ofKa’aba and not Kashmir). History needs to beunderstood as the dialectics of power in whichall are implicated regardless of whether we seeourselves as political or numerical minorities ormajorities or neither or both at the same time.Minorities and majorities are constantly in fluxand depend on how we choose to identify our-selves as well as the result of markers and expe-riences that have shaped us and that we are forvarious reasons unwilling to let go. All this doesnot mean to say that the historical/political takesprecedence over the personal and intimate butthat the personal is irretrievably braided with thehistorical/political and any claims to naiveté andinnocence in this regard are patently false andpretentious.

The violence of the elite embedded in the sys-tem is of a different order than that of those whochallenge the system on the streets. The violenceis in their silences and in the very disproportion-ate representations at the expense of the ex-cluded and the marginalised. This holds true forboth the Pandit as well as the Muslim elite. Thefailure to forge a non-communal language ofpolitics and resistance and the resultant commu-nalised violence and communal subject positionsis a collective failure of the Kashmiri self as awhole — including those who claim superiorknowledge and access to power, or those whohave the numbers and the will to resist on thestreets. The exclusive political affinity to Pakistanor Saudi-Arabia for a Muslim is as communal asthe exclusive political affinity of a Pandit toIndia. It is the reverse affinities that are more in-teresting. These may be a result of politicalmasochism, of one being a political sell-out or anoutcome of spiritual transcendence beyond thescope of rational understanding. Being Kashmirinecessarily demands some understanding of,and affinity with the shared cultural and politicalexperience. Any attempt to distance oneselffrom it, distances one from the essence of beinga Kashmiri. This holds true for all communities.

The narrative demarcates and crystallises theself communally. The ‘other’ is a seamless mono-lith collectively responsible for the religious mi-nority’s suffering, even while sections fromamong those designated as the other wereequally vulnerable to the anarchic situation be-cause of their political and class affiliations, or tothe violence of the military unleashed by thestate on people in general. At the heart of theproblem is the failure to imagine community ex-cept in terms of religion as a pure indivisible andnon-overlapping category with no internal andexternal contradictions. This may be a failure of

imagination or deliberate political choice. Thegreater onus for this in my opinion rests withMuslims because of their superior numbers(though Pandits could have greatly helped withtheir historically inherited superior access toknowledge and power).

Further the identification with the symbols ofthe state like BSF (Border Security Force) in one’sbackyard is also noteworthy. The uniformedmen who were and are perceived as a threat andas intruders by the majority in Kashmir are seenas a source of security by the Pandit community.Similar identification and abhorrence of the sym-bols of the state are communally shaped. Panditidentification with India and alienation from re-sistance is as communally driven as Muslim dis-regard for Indian presence in Kashmir andidentification with Pakistan or the militants ofPakistani origin. Sadly we have failed to find se-curity in each other and look for it among non-Kashmiri co-religionists.

Early militancy had multiple inspirations,only one of them was Islamism. It served the in-terests of both the Indian and Pakistani establish-ments to split Kashmir along religious lines andwe let them succeed. Further the systematic re-venge that the Indian state has been taking onthe people of Kashmir for who we are has furtherimpeded emotional recovery and possibility ofserious effort towards communal reconciliation.To look at Pandits as active political actorswould also mean to understand their complicitythrough silence over the systematic state vio-lence that has prevailed in Kashmir pre- andpost-Pandit departure. Their identifications andinfluence with the Indian state makes it ethicallyimperative upon them to take a moral standagainst the policies of the state they identify withand press for a just political solution in Kashmir.Otherwise it will be safe to assume that the sta-tus-quo suites them politically and that theyleverage their influence and suffering in favourof the exclusionary right-wing politics in India.

It is important to emphasise that India has notonly been fighting militancy in Kashmir but thepopulation itself as a whole along with its polit-ical claims. Leveraging tribal raids, Islamism andviolence against minorities in Kashmir to under-mine or drown out those political claims is ethi-cally as well as logically unsustainable. This mayfind emotional resonance with the Hindurightwing in India and sadly that may be exactlywhat is sought.n

(Author is a PhD scholar at the Department of Sociology in Delhi School of Economics. The review

was first published on kafila.org )

BUDGET


rushing aside speculations regarding spendingcuts in the union budget amid high fiscal deficit,Union Finance minister P Chidambaram on

February 28 unveiled a budget for fiscal year 2013-14levying high tax on super rich but sparing middleclass and poor.The federal budget gives a hint that the governmentcannot afford to alienate middle class which is alreadyfacing heat of inflation. Eyeing on upcoming generalelections the Union Government proposes to pumpmore funds in UPA flagship programmes like MN-REGA, JNNURM while claiming that the UPA is com-mitted to bring Food Security bill in the Parliament.

Some of the vital announcements made in thebudget :

n Nirbhaya Fund of Rs 1,000 crore -- women andgirl child related schemes

n Rs 150 crore proposed for health scheme for old.Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy to be main-streamed

n Education to get Rs 65,867 crore, 17 per cent morethan last year's RE. Aligarh, Varanasi universitiesget Rs 100 crore.

n Mid-day meal scheme will get Rs 13,215crore; Child development scheme to get Rs 17,700crore

n MNREGS to get about Rs 33,000 croren Rural Development Schemes to get Rs 80,194

croren Agriculture sector to get Rs 24,049 croren Mobile phones priced over Rs 2,000 to attract 6

per cent dutyn Defence allocation increased to Rs 2,03,672 croren Tax free bonds in 2013-14 up to Rs 50,000 croren Income limit for tax-savings under Rajiv Gandhi

Equity Savings Scheme has been raised to Rs 12lakh from Rs 10 lakh

n PSU banks will have ATMs in all their branchesby 2014. India's first public sector bank forwomen proposed with Rs 1,000 crore as initialcapital

n Private FM channels to reach 294 new cities, 839new channels to be auctioned in 2013-14. All citieswith over one lakh population will be covered byprivate channels.

n Service tax on all A/C restaurants with over 2,000sq ft proposed

n Royalty tax hiked from 10% to 25%.n Import duty on set-top boxes increased to 10%

from 5%n Import duty on raw silk increased to 15% from 5%n Taxing the rich further: Duty on imported goods

like motor vehicles, yatchs and motor cycles in-creased

n Equalise duty on grades of coal. 2% Customs andCVD duty on coal

n Duty free limit on gold increased to Rs 50,000 formale passengers and Rs 1 lakh to female passen-gers

n Cigarattes hit with an 18% rise in excise duty. Soalso cigars and cheerots.

n Excise duties on personal SUVs increased, Exciseduty on SUVs hiked to 30 per cent from 27 percent. No duty on those used as taxi.

n No CVD on imported parts -- for shipbuildingn All silver to attract excise of 4 per centn Surcharge of 10% on people with taxable income

of Rs 1 crore or more. Only 42,800 persons withtaxable income of over Rs 1 crore. Higher sur-charge for only FY 2013.

n Tax slabs remain unchangedMain opposition party, the BJP has termed the Chi-dambaram’s eighth budget as ‘accountant’s work’saying it does not offer anything for manufacturingindustries and agriculture sector, the main drivers ofeconomic growth. Leader of opposition SushmaSwaraj said that the budget has nothing for creationof employment for youths. n

ElectionBudget

B


TOTAL RECAP

he government on February 28formed a Joint ParliamentaryCommission (JPC) to investigate

the VVIP chopper scam promising Par-liament that it will identify and punishthose who paid or accepted kickbacksin a deal to buy 12 Italian helicopters.

"I feel ashamed whenever any con-troversy comes around our ministry.Forget politics, see my track record - doI throw complaints in waste paper bas-ket?, said Defence Minister AK Antony.

The principal opposition party,theBJP and its allies walked out of Parlia-ment opposing the motion in UpperHouse to form the JPC. The BJP wantsthe Supreme Court to monitor the CBIprobe commissioned this month.

"This will hardly be a JPC. It will bea CWC (Congress Working Commit-tee)," Leader of the Opposition in theRajya Sabha Arun Jaitley said.

A JPC without FIR, without courtmonitoring is humbug,” said BJP leaderRavi Shankar Prasad.

Members of parties TMC, CPI andAGP also staged a walkout.

The helicopters that India agreed tobuy in 2010 are made by AgustaWest-land(AW), a subsidiary of Finmecca-nica.

Italian investigation said bribesworth nearly Rs. 350 crore had beenpaid to Indian officials, including for-mer Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi. WhileTyagi has denied any wrongdoing. n

nion Rail minister Pawan Kumar Bansal on Feb-ruary 26, presented the federal railway budget.The budget clearly sets the tone for austerity

keeping in view India’s looming fiscal deficit. Eight percent increase has been given in gross

budgetary support for the railways which is less thanhalf the 20 percent increase allocated in the last year’srailway budget. This shows that the government hascut spending on already ailing Indian railways.

Some of the key features of Railway budget are: t With no increase in passenger fares, government

has played it safe keeping 2014 general electionsin mind

t Though, five percent increase in freight charges in-dicates that the government tried to send a mes-sage that it continues to pursue reforms.

t Operating ratio has fallen to 88.8% from 94.9 percent in 2011-12 which is of concern.

t Pension payments have been increased to Rs 20,000crore. Dependency ratio – the ratio of retired per-sons alive to employees – is we surmise around 7.This implies that salary, wages and pensions willtake away a good portion of the revenues.

t E-ticketing through mobile phones and SMS alertsare interesting initiatives

t Indian Railways is planning to borrow more thanRs 15,000 crore from the market and it may not bean easy proposition.

t New factories announced are in Rajasthan, MadhyaPradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha – seems to berelated to Assembly elections.

t Reservation fee for Tatkal services and superfasttrains to be hiked

t Railways to introduce 67 new express trains.t 47,000 vacancies for weaker sections and physically

challenged to be filled up soon. n

PA government has rejected the RKPachauri report's recommendations onSethusamundram project which suggested

scrapping of entire project for its "unviability" oneconomical and ecological grounds.

“Government does not accept the conclusionsand recommendations of the Pachauri Committee.Given the advantages of the project, the Govern-ment of India intends to pursue the implementa-tion of the project,” reads an affidavit ofgovernment to the SC.

The Sethusamundram shipping project was

proposed to create a sea route between India andSrilanka.

The Supreme Court stayed the project on Sep-tember 1,2007 and appointed RK Pachauri headedpanel to examine the probability of an alternativeroute to the proposed Ram Sethu project.

In May 2012, Pachauri panel submitted reportto SC finding fault with the project.

The government's adamant stand on pursuingthe implementation of the project invited wrathfrom the principal opposition the BJP and Hinduorganisations.

"The important thing is that the project is notacceptable. It is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonableand extremely expensive," said Janata Party pres-ident Subramanian Swamy. n

On Track? Chopper ScamU

U

T

Sethusamundaram

TOTAL RECAP


scar Awards 2013: ‘Argo’ wins best picture,‘Life of Pie’ gets best director Following are the highlights of the top award:

t Best Picture - Argo! George Clooney, Ben Affleck,Grant Heslov and Alan Arkin accept the awardfor 'Argo'.

t Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis for 'Lincoln'.t Best Actress - Jennifer Lawrence for 'Silver Lin-

ings Playbook'.t Best Writing - Original Screenplay - Quentin

Tarantino for 'Django Unchained'.t Best Writing - Adapted Screenplay - Chris Terrio

for 'Argo'.t Best Original Song - Adele for 'Skyfall'.t Best Original Score - Mychael Danna for 'Life of

Pi'.t Best Production Design - 'Lincoln' - Rick Carter

(Production Design); Jim Erickson (Set Decora-tion).

t Best Picture award - 'Django Unchained', 'Amour'and 'Silver Linings Playbook'.

t Best Film Editing - William Goldenberg for'Argo'.

t Best Actress in a Supporting Role - Anne Hath-away for 'Les Miserables'.

t Best Sound Editing - A tie between Paul N.J. Ot-tosson for 'Zero Dark Thirty' and Per Hallbergand Karen Baker Landers for 'Skyfall.

t Best Sound Mixing - 'Les Misérables' - Andy Nel-son, Mark Paterson and Simon Hayes.

t Best Foreign Language Film - 'Amour' – Austria.t Best Documentary - Feature - 'Searching for

Sugar Man'.t Best Documentary - Short Subject - 'Inocente'.t Best Short Film - Live Action - Shawn Chris-

tensen for 'Curfew'.t Best Costume Design - Jacqueline Durran for

Anna Karenina.t Best Visual Effects - 'Life of Pi' - Bill Westenhofer,

Guillaume Rocheron, Erik-Jan De Boer and Don-ald R. Elliott. Second award.

t Best Cinematography - Claudio Miranda for 'Lifeof Pi'. 'Life of Pi' bags its first award!

t Best Animated Feature Film - 'Brave', directedby Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman.

lections results for the assembly polls in three North-easternstates Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura announced on Feb-ruary 28. The elections in these states were held on February

14 and February 23.While Manik Sarkar led CPI (M) has notched up another victory inTripura, the Nagaland Peoples Front (NPF) has stormed back topower in Nagaland trouncing the Congress. In Meghalaya, the Congress has emerged as a single largest party,winning 29 seats. It has every possibility of forming government withsupport of Independents MLAs. The newly formed PA Sangma’s Na-tional Peoples Party failed to make an impact in the elections andmanaged to bag only two seats. n

n yet another case of intelligence failure twin blasts rocked Hy-derabad, the capital of Andhra Pradesh on a fateful night ofFebruary 21. The two bombs ripped through the busy Dil-

sukhnagar area of the state capital, killing at least 16 people andleaving other 119 severely wounded. The blasts were triggered byImprovised Explosive Devices (IED) tied to two bicycles. UnionHome minister Sushil Kumar Shinde rushed to the ground zerosoon after news of blast broke. Preliminary probe suspects terroristoutfit Indian Mujaheedin (IM) hand, however no group has yettaken the responsibility for the blast. Government faced four-pronged attack for the blast. Opposition demanded Shinde’s imme-diate resignation saying the home minister has failed to do his duty.Investigative agencies are probing the case with no breakthrough sofar. n

ormer Maldives president Mo-hamed Nasheed stepped out ofIndian mission on February 23,

ending an eleven day-long stalematewhich began after he sought refuge fol-lowing an arrest warrant issued againsthim.

Claiming his life was under threat,Nasheed entered Indian High Commis-sion on February 13 after a court or-dered his arrest for not attendinghearing for allegedly ordering an illegaldetention of a senior judge judge Ab-dulla Mohamed, in January 2012, the al-legation which led to his ouster fromthe office in a military coup last year.

However, Nasheed calls the trial as"politically motivated" to disqualify himfrom September presidential elections.India played a key role in brokering thetruce between Maldivian governmentand Nasheed. MEA team led by JointSecretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla heldseries of deliberations with governmentministers and various other stakehold-ers though uncertainty still hoversaround Nasheed's freedom as hewalked out of the mission. n

And The Oscar Goes To..

Hyderabad Blasts

North-East Polls

Maldives’ Nasheed

O

FI

E

(Compiled by Yogesh Pandey.)


LETTERS

Dear Sisters (and brothers?)at Harvard

Letter from some Indian femi-nists to their siblings at Harvard

We’re a group of Indian fem-inists and we are delighted tolearn that the Harvard commu-nity – without doubt one of themost learned in the world – hasseen fit to set up a Policy TaskForce entitled ‘Beyond GenderEquality’ and that you arepreparing to offer recommenda-tions to India (and other SouthAsian countries) in the wake ofthe New Delhi gang rape andmurder. Not since the days ofKatherine Mayo have Americanwomen – and American femi-nists – felt such a concern fortheir less privileged Third Worldsisters. Mayo’s concern, at thattime, was to ensure that the In-dian State (then the colonialState) did not leave Indianwomen in the lurch, at the mercyof their men, and that it retainedpower and the rule of the just.Yours, we see, is to work to-wards ensuring that steps areput in place that can help the In-dian State in its implementationof the recommendations of theJustice Verma Committee, a re-sponsibility the Indian Statemust take up. This is clearlysomething that we, Indian femi-nists and activists who havebeen involved in the women’smovement here for severaldecades, are incapable of doing,and it was with a sense of over-whelming relief that we read ofyour intention to step into thisbreach.

You might be pleased toknow that one of us, a lawyerwho led the initiative to putpressure on the Justice VermaCommittee to have a publichearing with women’s groups,even said in relief, when sheheard of your plans, that shewould now go on holiday andtake a plane ride to see the Ever-est. Indeed, we are all relieved,for now we know that our efforts

will not have been in vain: theoral evidence provided by 82 ac-tivists and organizations to theJustice Verma Committee – andwhich we believe substantiallycontributed to the framing oftheir report – will now be in safeAmerican hands!

Perhaps you are aware thatthe Indian State has put in placean Ordinance on Sexual Assaultthat ignores many recommenda-tions of the Justice Verma Com-mittee? If not, we would bepleased to furnish you a copy ofthe Ordinance, as well as a chartprepared by us, which detailswhich recommendations havebeen accepted and which not.This may be useful in your ef-forts to advise our government.One of the greatest things aboutsisterhood is that it is so global,feminism has built such stronginternational connections – suchthat whenever our first worldsisters see that we are incapableof dealing with problems in ourcountries, they immediately stepin to help us out and provide uswith much needed guidance andsupport. We are truly gratefulfor this.

Perhaps you will allow us torepay the favour, and next timePresident Obama wants to put inplace legislation to do with abor-tion, or the Equal Rights Amend-ment, we can step in and helpand, from our small bit of expe-rience in these fields, recom-mend what the United States cando.

Vrinda Grover (Lawyer)Mary E. John, Senior Fellow,

Centre for Women’s Develop-ment Studies, New Delhi

Kavita Panjabi, Professor ofComparative Literature, Ja-davpur University, Kolkata

Shilpa Phadke, Assistant Pro-fessor, School of Media and Cul-tural Studies, Tata Institute ofSocial Sciences, Mubmai

Shweta Vachani, Senior Edi-tor, Zubaan

Urvashi Butalia, Director,Zubaan And many others. n

Lip-talk by British PM : If sin-cere, return ‘Kohinoor’

It refers to British Prime MinisterCameron expressing ‘regret’ on1919-massacre by erstwhile Britishrulers in India pre-independence erawith paying homage at JaliawalaBagh (Amritsar – India). But at sametime on specific question on return of‘Kohinoor’ diamond to India, DavidCameron stated that he did not be-lieve in ‘returnism’!

Any such regret is a lip-talk with-out doing anything practical whereBritish robbed Indians not only oftheir lives but also of wealth.Cameron very well knows that sucha lip-talk will in no way can returnlives of Indians robbed by Britishrulers. If British Prime Minister hadany sincerity in his intentions of ex-pressing regret on looting Indians’lives and wealth in pre-indepen-dence era, he must have offered re-turn of remains of big loot byerstwhile British rulers including fa-mous ‘Kohinoor’ diamond. Britishrulers are self-conscious by them-selves when Queen Elizabeth did notuse her ‘Kohinoor’ studded crownduring any of her visits to India,even though she did use it in Pak-istan during her same tour of 1960’sto twin nations.

India and other member-coun-tries of Commonwealth nations fortheir self-respect should withdrawfrom this group which is nothing buta shameful sign of colonial Britishera still giving Britain a special statuson member-countries of Common-wealth Nations. Everyone is awareof big controversy that arose duringinfamous CWG-2010 in New Delhion ‘sharing’ importance betweenPresident of India and representativeof British monarchy. India shouldalso lodge its formal demand for re-turn of Indian assets including ‘Ko-hinoor’ diamond taken by erstwhileBritish rulers before India’s inde-pendence and/or while going backfinally to Britain when India becamerepublic on 26.01.1950.

-Subhash Chandra Agrawal, RTIactivist n

Write us at : [email protected]

DCP No. F.2 (A-41) Press/ 2012

All Rights Magazine

Documents

Transcript of All Rights Magazine