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?
Thursday, 18 June 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
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''.
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''.
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
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
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
Monday, 8 June 2009
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
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.
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."
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Bloody noise, kill it…!
By Maxwell Pereira
mfjpkamath@gmail.com
Mumbai observed a 'No Honking Day' on April 07 (World Health Day) this year, focusing on noise pollution that impacts citizens’ health. A host of NGOs, automobile associations, as well as schools and colleges participated, to sensitize motorists on the campaign. The local FM radio stations pitched in too to appeal to motorists to abstain from honking for a day. An NGO – Earth Saviours Foundation in Delhi wants to emulate this on Dec 13.
Not many are conversant with noise pollution laws. Basically noise levels above 80dB (decibels) are considered detrimental and harmful to healthy hearing. And for normal tension free conversation one requires a background noise level of <55dB.
However, Government itself is the first violator of these norms – since noise standards prescribed in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules–1989 (CMVR) for most categories of vehicles are above 80dB. Except for petrol-driven two-wheelers for which the limit is 80 dB(A), for passenger cars and other petrol-driven vehicles it is 82 dB(A). For passenger or LCVs including three-wheeled vehicles with diesel engines upto 4000 Kgs. – 85 dB(A); for passenger or commercial vehicles above 4000 and upto 12000 Kgs - 89 dB(A); and above 12000 Kgs. - 91 dB(A).
The acceptable noise levels prescribed in USA are – for parks and open spaces, the exterior limits to be not above 60 dB(A), for residential areas within the buildings - 55 dB(A) and outside the buildings - 70 dB(A) and for other developed areas 75 dB(A).
Noise has been defined variously. Physically, ‘…as a complex sound with little or no periodicity’. Acoustically, ‘….as a signal that bears no information and whose intensity varies randomly and in time’. Psychologically, ‘…as any sound which is unpleasant or unwanted’. Commonly, it is the last definition that affects and touches every soul.
Increasing urbanization has led to mounting volumes of noise, intruding upon the quality of life and privacy of urban dwellers. The annoyance and discomfort caused by noise at times assume serious proportion meriting urgent attention. Noise in cities is a result of activities and factors like – road traffic, aircraft, railways and industrial and constructional works. Widespread prevalence of high intensity levels of sound from all these is termed as noise pollution.
The generation of noise from automobile machinery as well as the widespread use of horns is a major contributor to the level of ambient noise in Indian cities today.
Detrimental effects of traffic noise are under 3 major groups – subjective, behavioural, and physiological. Subjective effects include annoyance, disturbance, dissatisfaction, bother and noisiness – difficult to measure precisely, because of variation in describing levels of discomfort. Behavioural effects cover – interference with sleep, speech or any general task. Noise wakens people, or impairs quality of sleep and its duration. Noise can cause interference in speech and in the enjoyment of audio and visual programmes; also cause disturbance in studies and intellectual pursuits. It can upset balance between stress and recuperation and thus cause chronic fatigue, reduced efficiency and increase incidence of ailments.
Physiological effects are those that startle or cause fright phenomenon that can result in harmful effects on various parts of the body. Exposure to noise can raise blood pressure; accelerate heart rate, contract blood vessels; increase muscular tension and at extremely high levels and long periods of exposure, may produce deafness.
Noise caused by road traffic can be – that from various parts of the vehicle; that contributed by interaction between vehicle and road surface; and noise dependant on speed, and flow or density of traffic. Contributing elements from the vehicle itself being – engine (power unit, especially during acceleration); the inlet and exhaust; propulsion and transmission including gears and brakes; the horn; the chassis and body structure; the load factor in the vehicle and also ‘door slamming’. In effect, the horn is just one of the contributors!
Two-wheelers are generally noisier than cars. Commercial trucks worse, because of the larger horse power of the diesel engine and the heavy loads they carry. As vehicles grow older and their mechanical conditions deteriorate, their noise condition becomes more. In tyre/road-surface interaction, smooth surfaces generally produce less noise than rough ones. Grooved cement concrete pavements and wet surfaces too being a source of annoying noise to the neighbourhood.
Control of traffic noise can be through – changes in vehicle design; changes in tyres or road surfaces; elimination of noisier vehicles; modification in traffic operations and designing streets, buildings and areas that produce less noise. Changes in tyre-tread design and composition can reduce noise. Smoother surfaces result in less noisier roads – but this has simultaneously to be balanced against the required skid resistance factor of the tyres too. And legislative measures can prevent old vehicles from being used on roads.
Measures possible in traffic operations are – re-routing of heavier vehicles to the extent possible; by providing synchronized traffic signals to reduce the ‘stop and go’ traffic flow and consequently eliminating acceleration noise; and prohibiting the blowing of horns by proper signage and enforcement strategies. In addition to standard silent zones, the Delhi Traffic Police in 2002 banned honking at all signalized junctions too.
The CMVR require a motor vehicle to be fitted with an electric horn for purposes of warning only. Use of any multi-toned horn or other sound producing device with harsh, shrill or alarming noise is prohibited. Use of sirens only for ambulances, fire engines, salvage and police vehicles. Silencer to reduce to the extent practicable the noise that would otherwise escape from exhaust gases is mandatory. The Rules of the Road Regulations – 1989 further prohibit a driver from sounding the horn needlessly or continuously or violate the silence zone regulations; or drive a vehicle that creates noise when in motion; and against driving a vehicle with a defective muffler causing alarming sounds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Maxwell Pereira, Dec 10, 2008: 3725 Sector-23,Gurgaon-122017:
email
mfjpkamath@gmail.com
Mumbai observed a 'No Honking Day' on April 07 (World Health Day) this year, focusing on noise pollution that impacts citizens’ health. A host of NGOs, automobile associations, as well as schools and colleges participated, to sensitize motorists on the campaign. The local FM radio stations pitched in too to appeal to motorists to abstain from honking for a day. An NGO – Earth Saviours Foundation in Delhi wants to emulate this on Dec 13.
Not many are conversant with noise pollution laws. Basically noise levels above 80dB (decibels) are considered detrimental and harmful to healthy hearing. And for normal tension free conversation one requires a background noise level of <55dB.
However, Government itself is the first violator of these norms – since noise standards prescribed in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules–1989 (CMVR) for most categories of vehicles are above 80dB. Except for petrol-driven two-wheelers for which the limit is 80 dB(A), for passenger cars and other petrol-driven vehicles it is 82 dB(A). For passenger or LCVs including three-wheeled vehicles with diesel engines upto 4000 Kgs. – 85 dB(A); for passenger or commercial vehicles above 4000 and upto 12000 Kgs - 89 dB(A); and above 12000 Kgs. - 91 dB(A).
The acceptable noise levels prescribed in USA are – for parks and open spaces, the exterior limits to be not above 60 dB(A), for residential areas within the buildings - 55 dB(A) and outside the buildings - 70 dB(A) and for other developed areas 75 dB(A).
Noise has been defined variously. Physically, ‘…as a complex sound with little or no periodicity’. Acoustically, ‘….as a signal that bears no information and whose intensity varies randomly and in time’. Psychologically, ‘…as any sound which is unpleasant or unwanted’. Commonly, it is the last definition that affects and touches every soul.
Increasing urbanization has led to mounting volumes of noise, intruding upon the quality of life and privacy of urban dwellers. The annoyance and discomfort caused by noise at times assume serious proportion meriting urgent attention. Noise in cities is a result of activities and factors like – road traffic, aircraft, railways and industrial and constructional works. Widespread prevalence of high intensity levels of sound from all these is termed as noise pollution.
The generation of noise from automobile machinery as well as the widespread use of horns is a major contributor to the level of ambient noise in Indian cities today.
Detrimental effects of traffic noise are under 3 major groups – subjective, behavioural, and physiological. Subjective effects include annoyance, disturbance, dissatisfaction, bother and noisiness – difficult to measure precisely, because of variation in describing levels of discomfort. Behavioural effects cover – interference with sleep, speech or any general task. Noise wakens people, or impairs quality of sleep and its duration. Noise can cause interference in speech and in the enjoyment of audio and visual programmes; also cause disturbance in studies and intellectual pursuits. It can upset balance between stress and recuperation and thus cause chronic fatigue, reduced efficiency and increase incidence of ailments.
Physiological effects are those that startle or cause fright phenomenon that can result in harmful effects on various parts of the body. Exposure to noise can raise blood pressure; accelerate heart rate, contract blood vessels; increase muscular tension and at extremely high levels and long periods of exposure, may produce deafness.
Noise caused by road traffic can be – that from various parts of the vehicle; that contributed by interaction between vehicle and road surface; and noise dependant on speed, and flow or density of traffic. Contributing elements from the vehicle itself being – engine (power unit, especially during acceleration); the inlet and exhaust; propulsion and transmission including gears and brakes; the horn; the chassis and body structure; the load factor in the vehicle and also ‘door slamming’. In effect, the horn is just one of the contributors!
Two-wheelers are generally noisier than cars. Commercial trucks worse, because of the larger horse power of the diesel engine and the heavy loads they carry. As vehicles grow older and their mechanical conditions deteriorate, their noise condition becomes more. In tyre/road-surface interaction, smooth surfaces generally produce less noise than rough ones. Grooved cement concrete pavements and wet surfaces too being a source of annoying noise to the neighbourhood.
Control of traffic noise can be through – changes in vehicle design; changes in tyres or road surfaces; elimination of noisier vehicles; modification in traffic operations and designing streets, buildings and areas that produce less noise. Changes in tyre-tread design and composition can reduce noise. Smoother surfaces result in less noisier roads – but this has simultaneously to be balanced against the required skid resistance factor of the tyres too. And legislative measures can prevent old vehicles from being used on roads.
Measures possible in traffic operations are – re-routing of heavier vehicles to the extent possible; by providing synchronized traffic signals to reduce the ‘stop and go’ traffic flow and consequently eliminating acceleration noise; and prohibiting the blowing of horns by proper signage and enforcement strategies. In addition to standard silent zones, the Delhi Traffic Police in 2002 banned honking at all signalized junctions too.
The CMVR require a motor vehicle to be fitted with an electric horn for purposes of warning only. Use of any multi-toned horn or other sound producing device with harsh, shrill or alarming noise is prohibited. Use of sirens only for ambulances, fire engines, salvage and police vehicles. Silencer to reduce to the extent practicable the noise that would otherwise escape from exhaust gases is mandatory. The Rules of the Road Regulations – 1989 further prohibit a driver from sounding the horn needlessly or continuously or violate the silence zone regulations; or drive a vehicle that creates noise when in motion; and against driving a vehicle with a defective muffler causing alarming sounds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Maxwell Pereira, Dec 10, 2008: 3725 Sector-23,Gurgaon-122017:
Monday, 19 May 2008
Noida incidents: Collusion, Connivance or callous Incompetence? :11 Apr 2008
NOIDA incidents:
Collusion, Connivance, or callous Incompetence?
By Maxwell Pereira
mfjpkamath@gmail.com
It was a bit queasy to read in a national newspaper today about the NOIDA police “pressurising into surrendering in court” a notorious criminal suspected to be behind last Tuesday’s horrendous crimes of killing an ex-airhostess and shooting a former army Lt. General! In the policing I knew, we did not pressurise or persuade criminals to surrender in court – we just went and arrested them, or at least endeavoured sincerely to arrest.
What more, it is learnt the criminal – Jatinder Yadav @ Lachchu, who was also wanted for previous crimes, actually did surrender and was remanded by the court to judicial custody – from where the police intend to get him on remand, to question him for his involvement in the latest crimes of April 8 in NOIDA.
The blatant shooting spree at point blank range in which Lt. Genl. TJS Gill was shot and air-hostess Sheeba Thomas was killed has effectively spread terror and sent the sense of security around plummeting, as also shocked the collective conscience of the people; as did similar incidents that occurred in Delhi’s Kalkaji, Masjid Moth and Ashok Vihar areas just a day before. It now turns out the reported two NOIDA incidents were preceded by three other similar earlier the same night – which were not acted upon promptly by the police dispensation there, despite knowledge – resulting in the more serious shootings that followed. Such callousness does not help improve the already low police image, nor does it help the ‘police cause’ while defending the service they otherwise render.
In police parlance persuading, pressurising or letting a criminal surrender in court was always viewed with suspicion; and considered as conniving or colluding with the criminal, by affording him an opportunity to escape being ‘properly’ interrogated by the police. In fact the practice has always been the other way around – with police parties lying in wait outside court premises to nab a criminal when he makes the attempt, whenever there is the slightest hint of a possible surrender.
Also, more often than not notorious wanted men have been known to surrender before courts in districts not their own, or of neighbouring states. Till Delhi Police gained its reputation for ‘encounters’ most wanted UP gangsters were known to surrender in Delhi for fear of being eliminated by trigger-happy, medal-seeking UP cops back home. This would more often than not be achieved through a known Delhi police contact who could then claim credit for the arrest. To facilitate local jurisdiction, would at best be foisted on the criminal a minor offence like under the arms act – with full cooperation from the criminal of course! The surrendered daku could then cool his heels in a Delhi jail in relative safety away from his tormentors till heat wears off, or is convenient perhaps for him to secure bail and re-emerge on the scene when his political mentors are back in the saddle.
Not only UP-gangsters, but other criminals and wanted suspects did it too: Sushil Sharma of the infamous Tandoor murder case of the mid-nineties tried similarly to surrender in a court in Chennai, and ultimately did succeed in surrendering before a suburban court in Bangalore Rural District – in an attempt to be incarcerated in a Karnataka jail just so he could escape the clutches of Delhi Police which had launched a nation-wide hunt for him. More recently, the now convicted IPS officer RK Sharma had surrendered before a court in Ambala, when Delhi Police were gunning for him in the Shivani Bhatnagar murder case.
The incidents of Delhi and NOIDA catapulting to the fore negative aspects of police laxity, perceived incompetence and/or collusion, has come at a time when the police leadership in the country is battling to highlight the grossly discriminatory treatment that’s been meted out to the police services in the recently publicised recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. Police in the country are a demoralised lot today, with each successive pay commission downgrading their pay-structure and increasing the existing disparities vis-à-vis corresponding levels in other services. Relegating the police in whose hands the internal security of the country and its people is entrusted, to a pedantry plebian status, does not augur well for the nation or its people. Neglecting any further the just demands of the police services will only be to the detriment of the already dying criminal justice system in the country.
Back to the NOIDA incidents, the Mayavati government it appears has acted – albeit superficially and to save face – axing the concerned station house officer and the control room in-charge, by placing them under suspension for laxity in the performance of their duties. Finding scapegoats to put the blame on post the incident is all very well. But does this really hold water? What about addressing the maladies that perennially plague police functioning? What about changing the collusive police mind set and non-responsive attitudes? More importantly, what about some dignity of a decent pay to possibly lift them out of the morass of corruption? And lastly, what about providing the basic policing infrastructure of manpower and equipment needed?
11.04.2008: Copyright © Maxwell Pereira
Collusion, Connivance, or callous Incompetence?
By Maxwell Pereira
mfjpkamath@gmail.com
It was a bit queasy to read in a national newspaper today about the NOIDA police “pressurising into surrendering in court” a notorious criminal suspected to be behind last Tuesday’s horrendous crimes of killing an ex-airhostess and shooting a former army Lt. General! In the policing I knew, we did not pressurise or persuade criminals to surrender in court – we just went and arrested them, or at least endeavoured sincerely to arrest.
What more, it is learnt the criminal – Jatinder Yadav @ Lachchu, who was also wanted for previous crimes, actually did surrender and was remanded by the court to judicial custody – from where the police intend to get him on remand, to question him for his involvement in the latest crimes of April 8 in NOIDA.
The blatant shooting spree at point blank range in which Lt. Genl. TJS Gill was shot and air-hostess Sheeba Thomas was killed has effectively spread terror and sent the sense of security around plummeting, as also shocked the collective conscience of the people; as did similar incidents that occurred in Delhi’s Kalkaji, Masjid Moth and Ashok Vihar areas just a day before. It now turns out the reported two NOIDA incidents were preceded by three other similar earlier the same night – which were not acted upon promptly by the police dispensation there, despite knowledge – resulting in the more serious shootings that followed. Such callousness does not help improve the already low police image, nor does it help the ‘police cause’ while defending the service they otherwise render.
In police parlance persuading, pressurising or letting a criminal surrender in court was always viewed with suspicion; and considered as conniving or colluding with the criminal, by affording him an opportunity to escape being ‘properly’ interrogated by the police. In fact the practice has always been the other way around – with police parties lying in wait outside court premises to nab a criminal when he makes the attempt, whenever there is the slightest hint of a possible surrender.
Also, more often than not notorious wanted men have been known to surrender before courts in districts not their own, or of neighbouring states. Till Delhi Police gained its reputation for ‘encounters’ most wanted UP gangsters were known to surrender in Delhi for fear of being eliminated by trigger-happy, medal-seeking UP cops back home. This would more often than not be achieved through a known Delhi police contact who could then claim credit for the arrest. To facilitate local jurisdiction, would at best be foisted on the criminal a minor offence like under the arms act – with full cooperation from the criminal of course! The surrendered daku could then cool his heels in a Delhi jail in relative safety away from his tormentors till heat wears off, or is convenient perhaps for him to secure bail and re-emerge on the scene when his political mentors are back in the saddle.
Not only UP-gangsters, but other criminals and wanted suspects did it too: Sushil Sharma of the infamous Tandoor murder case of the mid-nineties tried similarly to surrender in a court in Chennai, and ultimately did succeed in surrendering before a suburban court in Bangalore Rural District – in an attempt to be incarcerated in a Karnataka jail just so he could escape the clutches of Delhi Police which had launched a nation-wide hunt for him. More recently, the now convicted IPS officer RK Sharma had surrendered before a court in Ambala, when Delhi Police were gunning for him in the Shivani Bhatnagar murder case.
The incidents of Delhi and NOIDA catapulting to the fore negative aspects of police laxity, perceived incompetence and/or collusion, has come at a time when the police leadership in the country is battling to highlight the grossly discriminatory treatment that’s been meted out to the police services in the recently publicised recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. Police in the country are a demoralised lot today, with each successive pay commission downgrading their pay-structure and increasing the existing disparities vis-à-vis corresponding levels in other services. Relegating the police in whose hands the internal security of the country and its people is entrusted, to a pedantry plebian status, does not augur well for the nation or its people. Neglecting any further the just demands of the police services will only be to the detriment of the already dying criminal justice system in the country.
Back to the NOIDA incidents, the Mayavati government it appears has acted – albeit superficially and to save face – axing the concerned station house officer and the control room in-charge, by placing them under suspension for laxity in the performance of their duties. Finding scapegoats to put the blame on post the incident is all very well. But does this really hold water? What about addressing the maladies that perennially plague police functioning? What about changing the collusive police mind set and non-responsive attitudes? More importantly, what about some dignity of a decent pay to possibly lift them out of the morass of corruption? And lastly, what about providing the basic policing infrastructure of manpower and equipment needed?
11.04.2008: Copyright © Maxwell Pereira
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
