Maoists/ Naxal rampage in Lalgarh

Participated in the TV-TimesNow debates on Monday, 22nd June 2009 in two programmes:
i) the first at 9pm on Centre banning the Maoists' organization specifically – in which I was pitted against Varavara Rao a human rights activist who has been a long time supporter the Naxal movement in Andhra Pradesh; and then…
ii) in the NewsHour debate of 9.30 with co-panellists ex-IB chief Ajit Doval and human rights activist Gautam Naulaka – as far as I am concerned, covering the same ground that I already did in the earlier discussion – so I was content letting Ajit Doval hold fort which he did marvellously, intimately knowledgeable as he was with the subject. Only, with the likes of Gautam Naulaka on the debate, nothing fruitful is likely to ever result as he believes in soliloquies not wanting anyone to interrupt when he speaks, but himself not following what he preaches - consequently it totally became a shouting match between Doval and Naulaka like it usually is when Naulaka is pitted against me alone. An infructuos debate...

Comments

Hari Kak : on 24 June 2009
It was a coincidence that I saw you participating in a discussion on the T.V on Monday evening.
You were forthright in assessing the situation and it's fall out. You did not spare the Human Rights Activists for their negative role
Some time earlier I had seen you on a similar programme. Though you made your points very well, I got a feeling that you were rather restrained in taking on the bleeding heart rep of H.R. Was it because you did not want to be impolite to a lady? She irritated me so much by her ceaseless talk and qualified sympathy for the innocent Victims.
Best wishes. And keep fighting.

Dacoit Ganshyam killed in encounter

Was on a debate last night on Times-Now (9.30pm) on dacoit Ganshyam @ Naan Kewat killed in encounter by UP Cops at Jamouli village in Chitrakoot.... It took three days for 400 cops to finally gun him down.... but not before four cops got killed and an IG and a DIG were injured in the encounter shootouts....

The TV channel true to its usual form (like in matters cricket) was shrill enough to wake the devil from his slumber - but its main thrust was the inadequacy and unpreparedness of the police to meet the criminal challenges that confront them every day. "What if it were a terrorist instead of dacoit Ganshyam that was holding us to ransom...?" yelled Arnab the righteous anchor at my co-panellist BP Shinghal (former DG Police of UP Cadre and later BJP MP and high profile minorities bashing politician... whom some might dub quite rabid any way!). Surprisingly for Shinghal the First World War vintage .303s and the country .12 bore shotguns and close combat arms like pistols and revolvers were more effective weapons to fight dacoits, than the sophisticated modern AK-47/56 or other modern gadgetry. Even boasted having eliminated hundreds of dacoits with such - seven of them with his own pistol, he claimed! The man needs to wake up and not bask in the era when UP police were famous for harnessing gallantry awards for eliminating so called dacoits after pumping bullets into them when tied to a tree; at least that's what every big name dacoit that surrendered to Delhi police gave us to understand in the times when I joined service (1970) "for fear of being eliminated not captured by the UP police in a fake encounter"

In times of an encounter and situations that warrant an encounter, I would not differentiate a terrorist from a dacoit - both in so far as the police are concerned are outlaws who need to be touched by the long arm of the law. Antiquated and obsolete weapons need replacement, and the earlier the governments move in the matter the better. But then all this revolves round the much cried for and touted in recent times Police Reforms that are a far cry from reality.... In encounters, capture should be the rule, and killing only exceptional...

400 cops whatever.... my congratulations to Bikram Singh and his boys of the UP cops for the successful elimination of Ganshyam... sincere condolences to the families of the cops who lost their lives, and wishes for speedy recovery to those injured in the fray...

Comments
responses came mainly on my Facebook page....

Veeresh Malik at 18:44 on 18 June
. . . and lots of bullets as well as a few weapons go adrift?

Teji Brar at 19:15 on 18 June
At least they didn't have to call in the NSG

Ayonam Ray at 23:23 on 18 June
Was it due to lack of training or lack of requisite equipment - or was it the politicians interfering, lest the skeletons of their past tumble out of Kewat's mouth?

Times Now NewsHour: What-use-is-303

http://www.timesnow.tv/Special-What-use-is-303/videoshow/4319973.cms
A single dacoit managed to hold off 400 UP policemen for 50 hours. The police were run ragged by the dacoit who completely exposed the soft underbelly of the Indian police. 400 police men armed with rifles, grenades and a bull dozer tried to bring down the dacoit's hideout.

But, yet for over 50 hours the police fought in vain. The encounter exposed the weak underbelly of the Indian police. An officer was caught on camera struggling with his 303 rifle which refused to load. And, in this process precious moments were lost. But, it's not just faulty weapons. Another police officer seemedto have ignored all safety requirements - no hemet or bullet proof jacket.

Another officer was seen gesturing, shouting instructions to his men. There was no use of walkie-talkies> Basic communications systems were not in place.

And the most embarrassing of all, the dacoit managed to escape from the rooftop of the house.

And if that wasn't enough, the police then began to engage in a chase that seemed to lack basic co-ordination.

TIMES NOW's Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami debates the issue as to why 400 policemen seemed helpless against one dacoit with Maxwell Pereira, Former Joint Commissionner of Delhi Police and B P Singhal, Former DGP, UP.

Milind, Panaji, Goa, on Times Now website says:20 Jun 2009
The Dacoit was armed only with a bolt action rifle and did not have any special training or AKs AND Explosives like terrorists of 26/11 ,Yet he managed to hold them for over 50 Hours,cause casualties and nearely escape. Hypothetically if, only these illequipped and ill trained police been used for the 26/11 attack the clearing of the TAJ would have taken THREE MONTHS INSTEAD OF THE THREE DAYS THAT THE ARMY TOOK.It is high time the Police force is overhauled and equipped and trained to handel such incidences professionally.An EXCUSE FOR A POLICE FORCE THAT WE HAVE NOW IS AN INVITATION FOR TERRORIST TO CARRY OUT ATTACKS AT WILL.

Cops fudge to 'check' crime

Google News Alert for: Maxwell Pereira
Cops fudge to 'check' crime
Times of India - New Delhi,India
... while the victim loses confidence in the police". Former joint commissioner of police Maxwell Pereira agrees, saying "such practices need to be exposed".

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Delhi/Cops-fudge-to-check-crime/articleshow/4668550.cm

Times of India: Delhi
Cops fudge to 'check' crime
18 Jun 2009, Rahul Tripathi , TNN

NEW DELHI: For 25-year-old city executive Abhishek Rana, a journey to Meerut on the night of May 23 turned into a nightmare. Overpowered in his own car and robbed of his belongings at Sarai Kale Khan, Rana was taken aback when he went to the cops. Instead of lodging a complaint, the police allegedly insisted that he provide a written statement saying his belongings were stolen while he was relieving himself by the roadside.

Speaking to Times City, Rana said, "The cops at Sarai Kale Khan asked me to write a complaint saying that I had stopped the car. But that was not the case.'' And Rana is not alone. It appears that Delhi Police, in an attempt to keep the spiralling robbery figures under control, at least on paper, is refusing to record robbery cases, or showing them as thefts and snatchings. The practice is quite old.
In April, when a 25-year-old teacher was robbed of her belongings by armed assailants in Timarpur and she lodged a complaint at Dwarka, the cops registered a case of snatching. The IPC sections for snatchings and theft do not fall in the "heinous'' category.

In the latest incident at Mehrauli on Tuesday night, a collection agent was robbed by two bike-borne robbers. Victim Ravinder Kumar was carrying Rs 4 lakh in cash and was robbed at gunpoint. Though clearly a case of robbery, the Mehrauli police registered a case of theft.

Similarly, when a truck was looted in Mehrauli on June 11, the police registered a case of theft. They asked the truck driver to lodge a complaint stating he was relieving himself when four persons drove away his truck. The men had actually forced the driver to stop and overpowered him. They later dumped him at an isolated place.

Another instance was the arrest of Ravi Kapoor and his gang members, who were held for the Jigeesha Ghosh and Soumya Vishwanathan murders in March this year. Kapoor and his men were reportedly involved in another case at Delhi Cantonment where they had robbed a man who was going to the airport during the wee hours of March 9. But the police had registered a case of theft and claimed to have solved it with the arrest of Kapoor and four others.

Commissioner Y S Dadwal told TOI that "if something like this comes to our knowledge, we will take corrective measures. We have been able to so far solve 89 per cent of cases...a few such instances did come to light but we immediately took corrective measures.''

Former Delhi Police chief Ajai Raj Sharma believes "the best way to control crime is to register it'' because otherwise it helps the criminal while the victim loses confidence in the police''. Former joint commissioner of police Maxwell Pereira agrees, saying "such practices need to be exposed''.

A Forensic tale with an exquisite twist....

Ritambra Prakash, my former personal assistant, came across this interesting story and sent it to me. I am reproducing it.

At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS President Dr. Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a bizarre death.

Here is the story:
On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten-storey building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to the effect indicating his despondency.

As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window, which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the deceased was aware that a safety net had been installed just below the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned.

“Ordinarily,” Dr Mills continued, “A person who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide.” That Mr. Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands.

The room on the ninth floor, where the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking Mr. Opus.

When one intends to kill subject “A” but kills subject “B” in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject “B.” When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant and both said that they thought the shotgun was unloaded. The old man said it was a long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, if the gun had been accidentally loaded.

The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple’s son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son’s financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother.

Since the loader of the gun was aware of this, he was guilty of the murder even though he didn’t actually pull the trigger. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.

Now comes the exquisite twist.
Further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother’s murder. This led him to jump off the ten-storey building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth storey window. The son had actually murdered himself so the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.

Note:....a Google search told me that the story is only partially true… Mr Mills did tell the story .. but the story itself is not true…though it is fascinating indeed. It has been circling around since 1994..

More info on this is available at…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Opus
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/opus.asp

After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? - TIME

That application of 'third degree' in our own police forces remains an unfortunate fact. What is even more unfortunate is the belief propounded by even senior officers that it is necessary and cannot be done away. Perhaps this article may help change this all prevalent faith in such methods.

From the Time Magazine...

29 May 2009 ... With the US scrapping harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding, interviews with former interrogators reveal why a soft touch can ...

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901491,00.html

By Bobby Ghosh/Washington Monday, Jun. 08, 2009

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

AP
The most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or "walling" and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.

Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda's structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden's chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured.

Abu Jandal's guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel's Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn't touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: "He was a diabetic and couldn't eat anything with sugar in it." At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal's angry demeanor. "We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him," Soufan recalls. "So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures."

It took more questioning, and some interrogators' sleight of hand, before the Yemeni gave up a wealth of information about al-Qaeda — including the identities of seven of the 9/11 bombers — but the cookies were the turning point. "After that, he could no longer think of us as evil Americans," Soufan says. "Now he was thinking of us as human beings."

Soufan, now an international-security consultant, has emerged as a powerful critic of the George W. Bush — era interrogation techniques; he has testified against them in congressional hearings and is an expert witness in cases against detainees. He has described the techniques as "borderline torture" and "un-American." His larger argument is that methods like waterboarding are wholly unnecessary — traditional interrogation methods, a combination of guile and graft, are the best way to break down even the most stubborn subjects. He told a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was these methods, not the harsh techniques, that prompted al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah to give up the identities of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. Bush Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, had previously claimed that Abu Zubaydah supplied that information only after he was waterboarded. But Soufan says once the rough treatment began — administered by CIA-hired private contractors with no interrogation experience — Abu Zubaydah actually stopped cooperating.

The debate over the CIA's interrogation techniques and their effectiveness has intensified since President Barack Obama's decision to release Bush Administration memos authorizing the use of waterboarding and other harsh methods. Defenders of the Bush program, most notably Cheney, say the use of waterboarding produced actionable intelligence that helped the U.S. disrupt terrorist plots. But the experiences of officials like Soufan suggest that the utility of torture is limited at best and counterproductive at worst. Put simply, there's no definitive evidence that torture works.

The crucial question going forward is, What does? How does an interrogator break down a hardened terrorist without using violence? TIME spoke with several interrogators who have worked for the U.S. military as well as others who have recently retired from the intelligence services (the CIA and FBI turned down requests for interviews with current staffers). All agreed with Soufan: the best way to get intelligence from even the most recalcitrant subject is to apply the subtle arts of interrogation rather than the blunt instruments of torture. "There is nothing intelligent about torture," says Eric Maddox, an Army staff sergeant whose book Mission: Black List #1 chronicles his interrogations in Iraq that ultimately led to the capture of Saddam Hussein. "If you have to inflict pain, then you've lost control of the situation, the subject and yourself."