25 Lakh Crore Scam in Forex derivatives

Forex derivatives a bigger scam than 2G

Nineteen banks, which violated the RBI and FEMA guidelines to sell forex derivatives to exporters in 2008, caused a monstrous loss of Rs 25 lakh crore

Bibhuti Pati Bibhuti Pati
Bhubaneswar http://www.tehelka.com/story_main52.asp?filename=Ws190312FOREX.asp

IT’S A scam with an estimated value of approximately Rs 25 lakh crore, much bigger than the 2G scam that rocked the country in 2010. Nineteen banks, which violated the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) guidelines to advise and sell forex derivatives to Indian exporters in 2008, resulting in humongous losses to them, have been penalised by the RBI negligible amounts ranging from Rs 5 lakh to Rs 15 lakh each. Several other countries have also faced major economic crises in recent times, as a result of volatility due to similar derivative contracts. Even Barack Obama has noted that unregulated derivative contracts are the main cause of recent financial crises. In the Indian context, the RBI has stated that the losses sustained by customers do not amount to gain by the banks as a result of such derivatives. The question then is — who stands to gain from derivatives during volatility in the money market?

Amidst the dying embers of the 2G scam, and the sparks flying from the anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare, however, there is one scam that has somehow got buried.

The RBI recently investigated violations of FEMA by 19 banks. The immediate victims of these violations were importers, exporters and firms selling foreign exchange derivative contracts, resulting in massive losses due mainly to fluctuations in the value of the dollar. What has recently come to light is that the RBI itself had not vetted any of the contracts that were sold, a fact it has admitted. A few of the erring banks have been penalised relatively negligible amounts of Rs 5-15 lakh. “The scam is estimated to be valued at approximately Rs 25 lakh crore, much bigger than the 2G scam,” says Orissa High Court advocate Manoj Mishra.

As per the CBI affidavit in the Orissa High Court, “The RBI has been monitoring the gross mark-to-market (end-to-end) losses incurred by the banks. As on December 2008, the gross mark-to-market gains (that correspond to losses incurred by consumers) of 22 banks that were in the business of derivatives work out to Rs 31.719 crore,” says RP Luthra, advocate, Delhi High Court.

This figure, however, is contested by Pravajan Patra, an eminent economist, in a PIL filed in the Orissa High Court. His contention is that the total value of derivative contracts sold in India and approved by the RBI is $3 trillion, based on the statement of the then finance minister P Chidambaram in the Rajya Sabha. Compare this to the total GDP of India, which is not more than $1 trillion, or its total export and import (including oil bills), that do not exceed $500 billion a year on average. The fluctuation in the value of the dollar during the period in question in 2008, however, was Rs 8.50-10. If this difference is multiplied by even the (conservative) estimate proposed by Chidambaram, that of $3 trillion, we end up with a loss in excess of Rs 25 lakh crore. Compare this to the estimated loss incurred by the exchequer in the 2G scam — Rs 1.76 lakh crore. Peanuts.

Based on the PIL, the Orissa High Court ordered a CBI investigation into these missing funds. The court directed the CBI to hold a preliminary inquiry. Instead, the CBI just sent a questionnaire to the RBI and investigated the president of a forex derivative consumer forum, mere eyewash as opposed to the inquiry that was required.

In addition to this, the 19 banks which violated RBI and FEMA guidelines have paid a negligible penalty. The RBI penalised the banks in its order of April 19, 2011 for violations of its guidelines under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, and found the banks guilty on various counts, ranging from failure to carry out due diligence with regards to suitability of products, to selling derivative products to users without risk management policies, for not verifying the adequacy of underlying and eligible limits under the past-performance clause. Then in August 2011, the RBI, in response to an rti filed by Delhi lawyer Karan Jain, admitted that the banks had flouted FEMA and RBI guidelines.

But how did 19 major banks manage to violate FEMA rules simultaneously and with impunity, without being in conjunction with a larger purpose? With the very economy of the country at stake, could this monetary crisis possibly have been generated to siphon off significant amounts of money abroad? Where this money has gone can only be a matter of speculation, and leaves one to believe that there is, indeed, a larger conspiracy.

Apart from this, a surprising admission by the RBI was that it does not vet all forex derivative products sold by banks in the country, in effect leaving the door open for a repeat of such scandals in the future. A CBI probe is definitely needed to look into how these violations took place, and how exporters, who are the main victims of the scam, can get some reprieve.

What are unregulated derivative contracts?

WHAT, THEN, is a derivative? It is a contract between two parties that specifies conditions under which payments, or payoffs, are to be made between two parties. It is often used to hedge a transaction.

DERIVATIVE DECODED. It is a contract between two parties that specifies conditions under which payments, or payoffs, are to be made between them. At any particular point in time, if the conversion rate is Rs 40 to a dollar, an exporter should get Rs 40 lakh for exporting goods worth $1 lakh

. If, by the time the transaction takes place, the value of INR appreciates to Rs 35 per dollar, the exporter, even though his goods were worth $1 lakh, would eventually end up with Rs 35 lakh as payment

Hence, to avoid such loss, exporters are encouraged by banks to enter into a derivative contract

To understand how this works, let us look at an example: We know that when an exporter sells his goods abroad, he transacts through banks authorised to deal in foreign exchange. Let us suppose that for a particular exporter in a particular transaction, the export is worth $1 lakh in the US. The exporter expects to get back an amount in Indian rupee (INR) corresponding to the conversion rate prevailing at that time.

Let us now suppose that at any particular point in time, the conversion rate is Rs 40 to a dollar. The said exporter should get Rs 40 lakh for exporting goods worth $1 lakh. If, by the time the transaction takes place, the value of rupee appreciates to Rs 35 per dollar, the exporter, even though his goods were worth $1 lakh, would eventually end up with Rs 35 lakh as payment, effectively losing Rs 5 lakh during the transaction due to volatility in the exchange rate. To avoid such loss, exporters are encouraged by banks to enter into a contract whereby the exchange rate is insured or sealed at a particular level, so that even if there is an unexpected fall in the rate, the exporter would not suffer big losses. Therefore, when the market is volatile and the rupee appreciates alarmingly against the dollar (that is, the net return in rupee against the dollar falls), the exporter sustains no loss if his product value is secured/insured by the derivative contract. On the other hand, if rupee depreciates (that is, the net return in rupee against the dollar rises), the exporter sustains a loss, as due to the same contract, he would get less amount than the actual conversion value. Thus the derivative, in this case, protects against rupee appreciation, but not against depreciation.

The Derivative Regulations of 2000 issued by RBI and FEMA regulations detail procedures for regulating such derivative transactions. As it turns out, they were clearly flouted in 2008.

It can now be understood as to why exporters and corporate houses, apprehensive of future appreciation of the rupee that would lead to huge losses, and being misinformed and misdirected by the banks, would enter into long-term derivative contracts.

This is exactly what happened. In 2008, the price of steel skyrocketed, and as a result, the construction industry was heavily affected. At this time, the value of rupee against the US dollar started appreciating alarmingly, from Rs 39-40 in January-February.

Taking advantage of the volatile situation, unscrupulous foreign exchange traders like foreign banks and some leading Indian banks tried to project in the electronic and print media that in the near future, the rupee would further appreciate, and may soon reach
Rs 30 to the dollar or less.

Exporters, including corporate houses, lured by such publicity and fearful of losses, started entering into derivative contracts with banks that had long-term tenure and exposure much beyond this limit.

As is often the case, the government never allows such appreciation to go on unchecked, beyond a point. So, in reality, the situation started improving as the Indian government started taking steps shortly after the initial scare in 2008, and the rupee started depreciating against the dollar.

But, fed by scare stories, exporters and corporate had by that time, already entered into derivative contracts with banks, and ended up incurring huge losses. Many small exporters closed down, while shareholders and investors in big corporate houses also sustained huge losses.

This loss incurred by investors/importers/exporters, based on what they thought was reliable information by the RBI, is nothing short of fraud, influenced by a conspiracy of bankers and other unknown co-conspirators.

But who gained? The banks selling derivatives say that they are only agents and get a commission in each transaction.

It is important to note here that whenever a derivative contract is executed for a particular amount, there is a back-to-back contract with another bank in India or abroad. They are called counter parties. The difference goes to counter parties as service charges, at the cost of investors/exporters in India. The RBI clearly admitted that there are large-scale violations of FEMA by banks while dealing with derivative contracts. As has been noted earlier, the RBI admits that due to such actions, the loss sustained by customers do not amount to gain by the bank. It is however not so forthright about the counter parties, the actual gainers, in this case mostly banks based abroad. Could there also have been a concerted effort between these counter parties and the 19 Indian banks to coerce Indian exporters and corporate to jump into these derivative contracts? The way events panned out, it certainly suggest so.

Moreover, what was the role of the Indian media? Were they also knowingly involved in doing so? In light of the Press Council of India report in 2010 that found a significant section of the media indulging in publishing paid stories, nothing seems impossible in the brave new India.

Did india’s banks fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities?

FIDUCIARY responsibilities are the responsibility of a bank to act in the best interests of the depositors. An association of scheduled commercial banks, public financial institutions, primary dealers and insurance companies that represents the interests of the banks allegedly sold illegal forex derivative products to small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) in dereliction of such responsibilities. The Orissa High Court passed a path-breaking judgment on this issue, in the case of Nahar Industries vs Axis Bank, stating that these cases could not be referred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) of India, and should be heard only by the local court having jurisdiction in the matter. It is also hearing the petition filed by the Fixed Income Money Market and Derivatives Association of India (FIMMDA), asking for an RBI inquiry in the case.

IRRESPONSIBLE RBI. According to the RBI and CBI’s own submissions, there have been massive violations of FEMA and RBI guidelines. Till now, no remedial action has been taken by the RBI and the government to mitigate the situation

. With the dollar falling again due to inflow of hot money into the stock markets, it is time that government initiated some policies to protect industry from the negative impact of such temporary inflows

Some larger corporates with huge working capital and separate treasury cells may find derivatives useful (even though companies like Wockhardt in India, and many others abroad have suffered unimaginable losses) but in general, are these products then really of much use in generating competitive advantage for corporates? Do they really help them to operate more efficiently? Products like these are being wrongfully sold to SMEs in particular in India, causing huge problems in industries like textile, pharma. Is it proper to allow sales of such sophisticated and high-risk instruments to SMEs with smaller working capital, jeopardising hundreds of thousands of jobs? Larger questions on the fiduciary responsibility of banks, on allowing leveraged derivatives with unlimited downside to be sold in the country, arise. There are ample examples of banks and countries going down due to ill-advised use of derivative products in the West. Is our country in general and SMEs in particular suitable for sale of such products?

Banks, the world over, are under scrutiny for their role in recklessly using various derivative products to precipitate crises and profit from it. Recent examples would be the sub-prime crisis in the US that brought the global economy to the brink of collapse, as also the Greek solvency crisis, where credit default swaps (CDSs) were used to profit from the rescue efforts to stabilise and salvage the Greek economy. Is unfettered sale and use of derivative products desirable? In the US and the EU where, incidentally, speculation is legal, lawmakers are bringing about legislations to prevent such incidents from happening in the future.’

In India, where speculation, especially in foreign exchange, is illegal, and where, according to the RBI and CBI’s own submissions, there have been massive violations of FEMA and RBI guidelines, there has been no remedial action by the RBI and the government to mitigate the situation. Is the well-being of small and medium scale corporates, and the citizens employed in such enterprises, not a matter of concern for the government? Why is it that three years since this crisis broke, a year since the interdepartmental group (IDG) of the RBI made its submissions and findings, no action has been taken to ameliorate the condition of the affected parties?

With the dollar falling again due to inflow of hot money into the stock markets, isn’t it time that government of India initiated some policy measures to protect industry from the huge negative impact of such temporary inflows? Many countries have initiated policy measures, including taxing such inflows, amongst others, to reduce the attractiveness to speculators, and to encourage long-term investment in the country. What is the Indian government doing?

J&K Education Minister Peerzada Sayeed allows proxy to write for son -caught and resigns

Senior Congress Minister of J&K Assembly Involved in Educational Fraud


Jammu and Kashmir Education Minister Peerzada Sayeed, a senior leader of the Congress party is under fire for an alleged involvement in helping his son pass the class 10 exam. A raid conducted by the Crime Branch at the State Board of School Education has unearthed documents exposing the role of board officials in the fraud. State Vigilance Department and Crime Branch are interrogating all officials involved.

“We are ready for a fresh probe. Whoever wants to do it we will fully cooperated,” said PRO of Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education, Showkat Usman. Senior Congress leaders of the state are, however, tight-lipped over the issue. Peerzada Sayeed is known to have proximity with the party high command. But State Congress President, Prof Saifuddin Soz, has referred to the charges as “mere allegation.” “If proved law will take its own course,” he said.

A Srinagar based newspaper revealed the matter, showing the reproduction of an answer sheet, done in 2 different handwritings. The allegations are that one of the handwritings belongs to an official who helped the minister’s son clear the secondary school exam in 2009. Various testimonies provided by members of the investigation team, intervention by Chief Minister’s secretariat and Raj Bhavan, all lead to the fact that it was an open secret. However, the matter was hushed up as the board officials were under severe pressure from the Ministry of Education.

The vigilance squad looking into of the Board of School Education has made a clear mention of an academic officer finding an examinee, copying, while inspection was in progress at centre number 228 of Al Ameen School. The examinee had the roll number 228211 and was the Minister’s son.

However, a vehement Peerzada said, “There is no question that I will resign over the issue. My enemies want me to resign. They wanted me to resign in 2008 also, but people are with me. Till people are with me, I will never resign. Some NGO had sent a complaint to the Governor who forwarded it to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. They in turn forwarded it to the General Administration Department and after verification, it has been found fabricated, false and incorrect.”

“I am ready for a probe in his 12th exam also,” said the Minister, whose son has appeared for his 12th std exam this year.

The opposition party of J&K assembly has raised a hue and cry over the issue, with leader of opposition Mehbooba Mufti indicting Chief Minister Omar Abdullah of inaction, even though reports state that the Education Minister was summoned by the Chief Minister. “The file submitted to the Chief Minister by the School Education Minister has been sent to the Crime Branch of J&K Police who have been told to complete inquiry within seven working days,” revealed a government spokesman.

Peerzada Sayeed has been in the eye of a storm constantly since 2004. He was indicted by the State Accountability Commission for a deep involvement in a multi-crore rural electrification scam, while he held office as Minister for Rural Development. In 2008, Peerzada was forced to resign from the post of Education Ministerfollowing allegations that he took Rs 40,000 as bribe from Shoaib Lone, Sangrama MLA for clearing his sister’s file. He also had to abdicate the post of Presidentship of Jammu and Kashmir Pradesh Congress Committee.

Short URL: http://indiawires.com/?p=7499

மும்பை குண்டு வெடிப்பு-52 பேர் கொல்லப்பட்டனர் :அஷ்ரத், ஹனீப் சயீது மற்றும் அவரது மனைவி பெமிதா மரண தண்டனை: ஐகோர்ட்

மும்பை இரட்டை குண்டு வெடிப்பு வழக்கு:மூன்று பேருக்கு மரண தண்டனை: உறுதி செய்தது ஐகோர்ட்

மும்பை:மும்பை இரட்டை குண்டு வெடிப்பு வழக்கில், மூன்று பேருக்கு “பொடா’ கோர்ட் வழங்கிய மரண தண்டனை யை, மும்பை ஐகோர்ட் நேற்று உறுதி செய்தது.
கடந்த 2003ல், மும்பையில், கேட்வே ஆப் இந்தியா, ஜாவேரி பஜார் ஆகிய இடங்களில், சக்தி வாய்ந்த குண்டுகள் வெடித்ததில், 52 பேர் கொல்லப்பட்டனர்.இது தொடர்பான வழக்கு, பயங்கரவாத தடுப்புச் சட்ட சிறப்பு கோர்ட்டில் (பொடா கோர்ட்) நடந்தது.ஹனீப், அஷ்ரத் அன்சாரி, நசீர் ஆகிய மூவரும், துபாயில் இதற்கான சதித் திட்டத்தை தீட்டியதாக விசாரணையில் தெரியவந்தது. இவர்களில் நசீர் என்பவர், போலீஸ் என்கவுன்டரில் கொல்லப்பட்டார். மும்பையின் இரண்டு இடங்களிலும், சக்திவாய்ந்த வெடிகுண்டுகளை, இரண்டு டாக்சிகளில் வைத்ததாக, அஷ்ரத், ஹனீப் சயீது மற்றும் அவரது மனைவி பெமிதா சயீது ஆகியோர் மீது குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டது. இவர்கள் லஷ்கர் அமைப்பைச் சேர்ந்தவர்கள் என்றும் போலீஸ் தரப்பில் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டது.இந்த வழக்கில், மூவருக்கும் தூக்கு தண்டனை வழங்கி, பொடா கோர்ட் தீர்ப்பளித்தது. இதை எதிர்த்து மூவரும், மும்பை ஐகோர்ட்டில் மனு தாக்கல் செய்தனர். இதை விசாரித்த மும்பை ஐகோர்ட், இந்த வழக்கு மீதான தீர்ப்பை, கடந்தாண்டு நவம்பரில் ஒத்தி வைத்தது.
இந்நிலையில், நீதிபதிகள் கான்வில்கார், பி.டி.கோட் ஆகியோரைக் கொண்ட பெஞ்ச் முன், நேற்று இந்த வழக்கு மீண்டும் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. அப்போது, பயங்கரவாத செயல்களில் ஈடுபட்டது, குற்றச் சதிசெய்தது, கொலை ஆகிய குற்றச்சாட்டுகளின் அடிப்படையில், மூவருக்கும் வழங்கப்பட்ட தூக்கு தண்டனையை உறுதி செய்து, நீதிபதிகள் உத்தரவிட்டனர்.மேலும், இவர்கள் மூன்று பேரும், இந்த தீர்ப்பை எதிர்த்து, சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டில் மேல் முறையீடு செய்வதற்கு வசதியாக, தண்டனையை எட்டு வாரங்களுக்கு நிறுத்தி வைப்பதாகவும் உத்தரவிட்டனர்.இந்த வழக்கில் குற்றம்சாட்டப்பட்ட, முகமது அன்சாரி லதுவாலா, முகமது ஹசன் பாட்டரிவாலா ஆகியோர் மீதான விசாரணை, இந்திய குற்றவியல் சட்ட நடைமுறைகளின்படி நடக்கும் என்றும், இதற்காக இவர்கள் நான்கு வாரங்களுக்குள் விசாரணை கோர்ட்டை அணுகும்படியும், நீதிபதிகள் உத்தரவு பிறப்பித்தனர்.திருமணமான தம்பதியினருக்கு, பயங்கரவாத வழக்கில் தூக்கு தண்டனை விதிக்கப்படுவது இதுவே முதல் முறை.

The Bombay High Court on Friday confirmed the death sentence of three Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives, including a couple, accused of the twin blasts in Mumbai in 2003 claiming the lives of 52 persons and injuring over 100.

File photo shows 2003 Mumbai twin blasts case convict Hanif Sayed. The Bombay High Court on Friday upheld death sentence awarded to Sayed, his wife Fehmida Sayed and Ashrat Ansari in the case.

The HinduFile photo shows 2003 Mumbai twin blasts case convict Hanif Sayed. The Bombay High Court on Friday upheld death sentence awarded to Sayed, his wife Fehmida Sayed and Ashrat Ansari in the case.

Two bombs went off at the Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar after the accused left them in the taxis to explode on August 25, 2003. It was the first time that a married couple was involved in the attack. Five accused were arrested in the case. They have been charged with two more terror attacks – a bomb blast in a bus at Ghatkopar in July 28, 2003; and an unexploded bomb at the Seepz Bus Depot planted on December 2, 2002.

On Friday, a Division Bench of Justices A.M. Khanvilkar and P.D. Kode confirmed the death penalty of Ashrat Shafiq Ansari (34), Mohammad Hanif Abdul Rahim Sayyed (46) and his wife Fahmida Sayyed (43).

But the court partially quashed the order of the lower court discharging two other accused, Hassan Batteriwala and Rizwan Ladduwala, on the basis of a report of the POTA review committee. They will have to face trial for the crimes registered against them under IPC. The two accused have been directed by the High Court to appear before the POTA court in four weeks. All the accused have been given eight weeks to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. The conviction order will be stayed till then.

On August 6, 2009, the special POTA court convicted the three accused and sentenced them to death. Ladoowala and Batterywala were discharged from the case after the apex court upheld a POTA review committee report which stated that no case could be made out.

மனித நேய மக்கள் கட்சிதலைவர் ஜே.எஸ். ரிபாயிக்குப் ஆயுள்தண்டனை

மனித நேய மக்கள் கட்சிதலைவர் ஜே.எஸ். ரிபாயிக்குப் பூந்தமல்லி சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றம் கொலை வழக்கு ஒன்றில் ஆயுள்தண்டனை விதித்துத் தீர்ப்பு கூறியுள்ளது.

மமக தலைவர் ரிபாயிக்கு ஆயுள் தண்டனை!

மிழ்நாடு முஸ்லிம் முன்னேற்ற கழகம் மற்றும் மனித நேய மக்கள் கட்சி தலைவர் ஜே.எஸ். ரிபாயிக்குப்பூந்தமல்லி சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றம் கொலை வழக்கு ஒன்றில் ஆயுள்தண்டனை விதித்துத் தீர்ப்பு கூறியுள்ளது.

02_02_2012_006_003.jpg tmmk

நாகூரைச் சேர்ந்தவர் முத்துக்கிருஷ்ணன். இந்து முன்னணி தலைவரான இவரின் வீட்டுக்குக் கடந்த 1995 ஆம் ஆண்டு தபால் மூலம் பார்சல் குண்டு ஒன்று வந்தது. அதிலுள்ள குண்டுவெடித்து முத்துக்கிருஷ்ணனின் மனைவி தங்கம்பரிதாபமாக பலியானார். இந்த வழக்கில் தமிழ்நாடு முஸ்லிம் முன்னேற்ற கழகத்தின் தற்போதைய தலைவர் ரிபாயி, குத்புதீன் உள்ளிட்ட 7 பேர் கைது செய்யப்பட்டனர்.

22311234.JPG manithaneya

இந்த வழக்கு பூந்தமல்லியிலுள்ள சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றத்தில் நடந்து வந்தது. இன்று இவ்வழக்கில் தீர்ப்பு கூறப்பட்டது. அதில், தற்போது ஜாமீனில் உள்ள ரிபாயி, குத்புதீன் மற்றும் புழல் சிறையில் அடைக்கப்பட்டுள்ள 3 பேருக்கு ஆயுள் தண்டனை விதிப்பதாக தீர்ப்பானது. சிறையில் விசாரணை கைதிகளாக இருந்த இருவர் விடுதலை செய்யப்பட்டனர்.

Priyanka’s- Robert Vadera Given Highest Previlages-Why?

After Robert Vadra got married with Priyanka Gandhi, Robert's father

committed suicide under mysterious circumstances, his brother found

dead in his Delhi residence and his sister found dead in mysterious

car accident. These reports were not published in any Indian media.

He is having stakes in Malls in premier locations of India, he is

having stakes in DLF IPL, and DLF itself. He was involved in CWG

corruption - DLF was responsible for development of Commonwealth

games, and Kalmadi gave favoritism to DLS because of Robert Vadra's

direct interest and business partnership with DLF.

Robert Vadra owns many Hilton Hotels including Hilton Gardens New Delhi.

Robert Vadra's association with Kolkata Knight Riders has never

been reported by Indian media.

He has 20% ownership in Unitech, Biggest beneficiary ownership

of 2G Scam. Because of Robert's involvement in this scam, there are

concerns that investigation would never reach decisive conclusion.

He owns prime property in India specially commercial hubs, and

taxi business but for Air Taxi. He owns few private planes as well.

He has direct link with Italian businessman Quatrochi.

The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security has created a record of

sorts by according special privilege to Robert Vadra, which

entails him to walk in and out of any Indian airports without

being subject to any security check. Only the President of India,

Vice-President and a handful of other top dignitaries were accorded

this rare distinction.  



‘Vadra Has 20% Stake In Unitech’

Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy has now charged that Union home minister P Chidambaram and son-in-law of Congress chief Sonia Gandhi, Robert Vadra, too are involved in the multi-crore 2G Spectrum scam.

Speaking to reporters in Chennai, Mr Swamy also claimed that Tamil Nadu chief minister’s wife and daughter, who were recently examined by the CBI, may also be made accused in the case, the DNA newspaper reports.

The Times of India also has a newswire story today which quotes Mr Swamy as saying:

 “I will seek the PM’s sanction to prosecute Chidambaram. I will also seek the sanction of the PM for the prosecution of Sonia Gandhi, heading the National Advisory Council, for corruption”

While the story does not cite any reasons why he seeks to prosecute Ms Gandhi, the agency story has a cryptic remark on Mr Chidambaram:

He said a cabinet committee had directed former communications minister A Raja and the then finance minister, Chidambaram, to arrive at the price at which the 2G radio waves were to be sold. Swamy alleged that after becoming the home minister, Chidambaram did not pass the information to Raja.

DNA newspaper has more details and a by-lined story by Kumar Chellappan quoted Mr Swamy as saying:

“Vadra has 20% stake in Unitech, one of the telecom operators which benefited through the allocation of second generation mobile telephony spectrum by former union minister A Raja. He is the beneficiary of illegal payments generated through the spectrum scam and Commonwealth Games contracts,” Swamy said.

“The prime minister had asked Chidambaram, then the finance minister, to sit with Raja and decide the price at which the second generation mobile telephony spectrum could be sold. The duo decided to sell spectrum at 2001 prices, causing huge loss to the government. Moreover, Chidambaram did not inform the prime minister about the decision till 2008,” Swamy said.

He said Chidambaram was informed by the then home minister Sivaraj Patil that Etisalat and Telenor, two foreign telecom players, should not be allowed to operate in India. “Etisalat had links with the Pakistani spy agency ISI and Dawood Ibrahim while Telenor had Chinese links. Chidambaram did not tell Raja about this information. Later also when he took over as the home minister, he kept the information to himself,” Swamy said.

The Janata Party president said he would approach the prime minister seeking permission to include Chidambaram as an accused in the second generation mobile telephony spectrum case after the Tamil Nadu assembly election. “It will be better for Chidambaram to resign by that time,” he said.’

Unlike the TOI story, however, the DNA story is silent on his alleged remarks on Ms Gandhi. Mr Swamy had last week claimed on Twitter that he “may file for sanction to prosecute” Mrs Sonia Gandhi “this mid-April”.

Last week, there had been reports of Mr Vadra’s association with leading real estate firm DLF, on which The Financial Express had editorialised:

….we welcome Vadra’s statement when he says, he has served a legal notice on realty firm BPTP Ltd for claiming that several of its projects were part-owned by Vadra. For the government and the Congress party, however, the problem is more serious. Given how many clearances a real estate firm needs from government, for land-usage to be changed, for FSI levels and a lot more, there will always be fingers pointed if the UPA chief’s son-in-law has business dealings with a firm getting these permissions. The onus is now on the government and the Congress party to show that the clearances it is giving are not under any form of influence.

There has been a buzz that the BJP was hesitant to make it into an issue because the son-in-law of former PM Atal Behari Vajpayee, Mr Ranjan Bhattacharya, has also been under the scanner, as his name cropped up during Radia tapes and then again in the Wikileaks cables:

[Satish] Sharma mentioned that he was also exploring the possibility of trying to get former Prime Minister Vajpayee’s son-in-law Ranjan Bhattacharya to speak to BJP representatives to try to divide the BJP ranks.

In this regard, on Twitter, Mr Swamy was asked:

@Swamy39 Atal Bihari Vajpayee ‘s son-in-law Ranjan Bhattacharya seem 2 B well connected w/ congress.What makes him so close 2 congress?

To which he replied:

@seshadri :Because he is a crook.He rose from being waiter-Oberoi- to 5 star Hotel chain owner in six years of his father in law as PM.

On Monday, March 14, the Economic Times carried a story on Mr Robert Vadra, titled
Robert Vadra ties up with DLF, makes low-key entry into Real estate business, which pointed out, inter alia:

DLF has given loans to Vadra ‘s companies

DLF has also extended loans to various companies owned by Vadra. Some of these are unsecured loans or debt without any collateral. As on March 2009, Sky Light Hospitality had received unsecured loans amounting to Rs 25 crore from DLF Ltd. As on March 2010, only Rs 10 crore remained. It ‘s unclear from the statement of accounts if the rest was paid back or written off. Sky Light Hospitality has, in turn, loaned money to other Vadraowned companies such as Blue Breeze Trading Pvt Ltd, North India IT Parks Pvt Ltd, Real Earth Estates Pvt Ltd and Sky Light Realty Pvt Ltd.

Blue Breeze Trading, a company incorporated in 2007 with Vadra and his wife Priyanka Gandhi Vadra as first directors and equal shareholders, is in the business of chartering aircraft. The company, however, seems to have done little business, apart from acquiring agricultural land. Priyanka Gandhi ceased to be a director as on July 2008. She is no longer a shareholder. Real Earth Estates Pvt Ltd also had a Rs 5 crore loan directly from DLF on its books as on March 2010.

The joint venture firm Saket Courtyard Hospitality had received Rs 3.58 crore of unsecured loans from DLF Hotel Holdings Ltd, the group company that owned 50% stake in the JV. “The business relationship of DLF Group with Robert Vadra has been in his capacity as an individual entrepreneur and on a completely transparent and armslength basis.

The story was summed up by Mr Swapan Dasgupta, a journalist known to be close to the BJP, on Twitter as:

ET’s Vadra story drives home reality of crony capitalism. DLF pays Vadra 2 buy its own properties at sharp discount & get secure equity 
Monday, March 14, 2011 10:47:38 AM
 via web

According to 1 opp leader, after Bofors “winding up charges”, IPL “sweat equity”, we R seeing emergence of “political equity” in Vadra case 
Monday, March 14, 2011 10:51:57 AM
 via web

On March 16, the TOI reported: BJP, Left to corner Cong on Vadra’s rise:

On Tuesday, leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj said, “The matter is a serious one and the party is gathering documents to aise it with the prominence it deserves.”

She said the party had “entrusted” leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley to collect facts on Vadra’s rise.

CPM leader Sitaram Yechury was on the same track. “It looks like a serious matter and our party is ascertaining facts and will come up with a structured reaction on this,” he said.

But the story began to change, as Mr Dasgupta tweeted on March 16:

Resistance in BJP on raising Vadra issue is from some a of its ex-Presidents
Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:57:47 PM via Mobile Web

which led to the following exchange:

@swapan55 is it the person who has held the maximum terms as bjp president
5:12 PM Mar 16th via Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to swapan55

@bhupendrachaube No 
6:04 PM Mar 16th
 via web in reply to bhupendrachaube

@bhupendrachaube No, wrong number
6:05 PM Mar 16th via web in reply to bhupendrachaube

@swapan55 ok, jai UP 
6:12 PM Mar 16th
 via Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to swapan55

On March 17, the TOI reported:

Differences were evident at a meeting of BJP leaders in Parliament on Wednesday with some leaders advocating caution while some others felt Congress could be asked some questions on Vadra’s activities. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Saba Sushma Swaraj felt it would not be good form to target family members of political rivals.

Whether or not the possible counter-attack on the BJP’s own son-in-law, Mr Ranjan Bhattacharya, whose name keeps cropping up in Radia tapes and in Wikileaks cables, is one of the reasons for the BJP’s hesitation, has not found a mention in any of the discussions so far.

Since then, of course, the focus has shifted to the cash for vote wikileaks expose, but Mr Dasgupta has persisted in following the story on Twitter:

Notice how many of those who helped the UPA win the confidence vote & also helped Vadra’s business secured Padma awards? Not incl. media 
about 19 hours ago
 via web

Re: WikiLeak, don’t forget role of internal saboteurs in BJP. Some of this later confirmed in Radia tapes. One trojan horse got Padma too
about 17 hours ago via web

The controversy over Sant Singh Chatwal was public enough but perhaps Mr Dasgupta was alluding to Dr. Kushal Pal Singh, the chairman and CEO of DLF, getting a Padma Bhushan for 2009 and the prominent name in this list in his last tweet?


Girls sold by Muslim Priests


சன் டிவி 700 கோடி திருட்டு சிபிஐ ஆதாரங்கள்

குற்றம் புரிந்தவர் வாழ்க்கையில் நிம்மதி…
First Published : 09 Jun 2011 03:48:54 AM IST
சென்னை, ஜூன் 8: “”என்னுடைய பெயரிலோ அல்லது 3/1 போட் கிளப் அவின்யு வீட்டிலோ 24371500 என்ற எண்ணுள்ள பி.எஸ்.என்.எல். தொலைபேசி மட்டுமே உள்ளது. 323 இணைப்புகள் உள்ளன என்று “தினமணி’ நாளிதழில் வந்த செய்தி தவறானது. உண்மையை ஏன் அவர்கள் பி.எஸ்.என்.எல். நிறுவனத்திடமிருந்து கேட்டு பெற்றிருக்கக் கூடாது ?” என்று ஜூன் மாதம் 2ம் தேதி தயாநிதி மாறன் ஏதோ தான் தவறே செய்யாதது போலவும் தம்மீது வேண்டுமென்றே வீண் பழி சுமத்துவதாகவும் அறிக்கை வெளியிட்டார்.  பி.எஸ்.என்.எல். இணைய தளத்திலேயே தயாநிதி மாறன் வீட்டில், 24371500 என்ற இணைப்பு தலைமைப் பொது மேலாளர் பெயரிலும், 24371515 என்ற இணைப்பு தயாநிதி மாறன் பெயரிலும் உள்ளது என்று தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. பி.எஸ்.என்.எல்.லின் 2009ம் ஆண்டு, ஜூன் 6ம் தேதியிட்ட கடிதம், நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் என்ற அடிப்படையில் அளிக்கப்பட்ட 24371500 என்ற தொலைபேசி இணைப்புதான் தயாநிதி மாறன் வீட்டில் உள்ளது என்பது பொய் என்பதை சுட்டிக் காட்டுகிறது.பி.எஸ்.என்.எல்.லிடமிருந்து பெறப்பட்ட மேலும் சில புதிய தகவல்கள் தயாநிதி மாறனுக்கு எதிராக அமைந்துள்ளன. அரசு கணக்கில், 323 இணைப்புகளுடன் ரகசிய தொலைபேசி இணைப்பகம் அவரது வீட்டில் இயங்கியதற்கான மறுக்கமுடியாத பல புதிய ஆதாரங்கள் பி.எஸ்.என்.எல்.லிடமிருந்து கிடைத்துள்ளன. தயாநிதி மாறன் கூறுவது அனைத்தும் பொய் என்பதை பி.எஸ்.என்.எல் சென்னை சர்க்கிளின் 21-6-2007 தேதியிட்ட அலுவலக கடிதம் உறுதிப்படுத்துகிறது.

2007ம் ஆண்டு மே மாதம் 13ம் தேதி தயாநிதி மாறன் மத்திய அமைச்சரவையிலிருந்து ராஜிநாமா செய்தார். இரு வாரங்களுக்கு பிறகு, பி.எஸ்.என்.எல் லுக்கு மாறன் கடிதம் ஒன்றை அனுப்புகிறார். அதில், அமைச்சர் என்ற முறையில் ஒதுக்கப்பட்ட 24371515 மற்றும் 24371616 இணைப்புகளை நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் கோட்டாவிற்கு மாற்றும்படி கேட்டுக் கொண்டுள்ளார். இதுதான், பி.எஸ்.என்.எல். உண்மையை வெளிப்படுத்த உதவியது. 323 இணைப்புகள் உள்ளது என்பதுடன், ரகசிய இணைப்பகம் செயல்பட்டதையும் அது பட்டவர்த்தனமாக வெளிப்படுத்தியது.  முதலாவதாக: 24371515, 24371616 ஆகிய எண்கள் குறித்த தகவல்கள், பொது குறைதீர்ப்புப் பிரிவு அல்லது கணினி பிரிவிடம் இல்லை. இந்த எண்கள் குறித்த தகவல்களை மாம்பலம் இணைப்பகத்தில் கேட்டு தெரிந்து கொள்ளவும் ” என பி.எஸ்.என்.எல். அளித்த முதல் கடிதம் தெரிவித்தது.

ஏன் இந்த இரண்டு இணைப்புகளும் மாம்பலம் இணைப்பகத்தில் ஒளித்து வைக்கப்பட்டிருந்தன என்கிற கேள்வி எழுகிறது. இதற்குப் பதில் கிடையாது. பொது குறைதீர்ப்புப் பிரிவு அல்லது கணினி பிரிவிடம் இந்த எண்கள் குறித்த தகவல்கள் இல்லை என்பதே மோசடி என்பதை உணர்த்துகிறது. இணைப்பக முறையில் இருந்து அவை மறைத்து வைக்கப்பட்டிருந்தன என்பது பொருளாகிறது. 2437 என்ற பொதுவான இணைப்பக கோடு கொண்ட அவை ரகசிய இணைப்பகத்தில் இடம் பெற்றன.

இதே போல, தொலைபேசி வாடிக்கையாளருக்குஏதாவது தகவல் தேவைப்பட்டால், அவர், “”1191” என்ற எண்ணுக்கு தொடர்பு கொள்வார். ஆனால், தயாநிதி மாறனின் இணைப்பகத்தில், 234711911க்கு வரும் அனைத்து அழைப்புகளும் 24311191 க்கு தானாகவே மாற்றப்பட்டு விடும். இது 2437 என்ற ரகசிய இணைப்பகம் செயல்படுவதை பாதுகாக்க செய்யப்பட்ட ஏற்பாடுதான்.

இரண்டாவதாக : பி.எஸ்.என்.எல்லின் அந்தக் கடிதம், 300 இணைப்புகள் கொண்ட இணைப்பகம் உள்ளதை ஒத்துகொண்டு,மாறனின் பொய்யை வெளிச்சம் போட்டுக் காட்டுகிறது. 24371515 மற்றும் 24371616 (அமைச்சர் என்ற முறையில் ஒதுக்கப்பட்ட அவற்றை நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் கோட்டாவிற்கு மாற்றும்படி கேட்டுக் கொண்டவை) ஆகிய இரண்டும், 300 எக்ஸ்டென்ஷன்கள் உள்ள 24371500 என்ற முக்கிய எண்ணின் துணை எண்கள் ஆகும் என்பது தெரிய வருவதாக அக்கடிதம் கூறுகிறது. அந்த முக்கிய எண் 24371500 இணைப்பு, 3/1 போட் கிளப் சாலையில், தலைமைப் பொது மேலாளர் என்ற பெயரில் உள்ளதாகவும் அது மேலும் தெரிவிக்கிறது. தயாநிதி மாறன், மத்திய அமைச்சரவையிலிருந்து விலகி 5 வாரங்களுக்கு மேல் இந்த மோசடி தொடர்ந்துள்ளது என்றும் அக்கடிதம் உணர்த்துகிறது. இக்கடிதம் நான்கு முக்கிய உண்மைகளை உறுதிப்படுத்துகிறது.  ஒன்று, 24371500 என்ற எண்ணுக்குள் 300 இணைப்புகள் கொண்ட சட்ட விரோத இணைப்பகம் மறைக்கப்பட்டிருந்ததையும், அதில் 24371515, 24371616 எண்கள் சேர்ந்திருந்ததையும் அது உறுதிப்படுத்துகிறது. இரண்டாவது, அந்த மோசடி இணைப்பகம், தலைமைப் பொது மேலாளர் பெயரில் செயல்பட்டது. அது மாறனின் பெயரில் இல்லை. மூன்றாவது, அந்த மோசடி இணைப்பகம், 2007ம் ஆண்டு ஜூன் மாதம் 21ம் தேதி வரை செயல்பட்டுள்ளது. நான்காவது, இந்த இணைப்பகத்திற்கான செலவுகளை அரசே ஏற்றுள்ளது – அதாவது “”டிடிஐஎஸ்டி (துறை) பிரிவில் ” என்ற கடிதத்தில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ள வார்த்தைகள் உண்மையை ஒப்புக் கொள்கின்றன.

323 இணைப்புகள் கொண்ட இணைப்பகம் திருட்டுத்தனமாக மாறன் வீட்டில் இருந்தன என்ற உண்மையை இது வெளிச்சம் போட்டுக் காட்டுகிறது.

அந்த இரு எண்களையும், கேட்டு கொண்டபடி, இலவச இணைப்புகளிலிருந்து, கட்டண முறையிலான நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் ஒதுக்கீட்டுக்கு மாற்ற, “” 24371500 ” என்ற முக்கிய எண் மறைக்கப்பட்டு, 24341515, 24371616 சாதாரண இணைப்புகளாக, எஸ்டிடி வசதியுடன் நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் ஒதுக்கீட்டில் அளிக்கப்படும் என்று அக்கடிதம் தெரிவிக்கிறது. ஏன் 24371500 ஐ மறைக்க வேண்டும் ?

இது கூடவா தெரியவில்லை? 24371500 முதல் 24371799 வரை உள்ள 300 துணை இணைப்புகளைக் கொண்ட 24371500 முக்கிய எண் தெரியக்கூடாது என்பதற்காகத்தான்.

இரண்டாவதாக அக்கடிதம் மாறனின் வீட்டில் மேலும் 23 இணைப்புகள் இருந்ததை உறுதிப்படுத்துகிறது. மற்ற இணைப்புகள், தொழில்நுட்ப வார்த்தையில் கூறினால், “பிரா’ இணைப்புகள் ஆகும். “”7 “பிரா’ இணைப்புகளும், போட் கிளப்பில், சென்னை டெலிபோன்ஸ் தலைமை பொது மேலாளர் பெயரில் 2 சாதாரண இணைப்புகளும் இருந்ததை அந்தக் கடிதம் கூறுகிறது”.

ஒவ்வொரு “பிரா’ லைனும் ஒரே சமயத்தில், குரல், ஆவணங்கள்,விடியோவை அனுப்பும் திறன் கொண்டவை. எனவே, 7 “பிரா’ இணைப்புகள் என்பது, 21 இணைப்புகள் ஆகும். 21 இணைப்புகளுடன், 2 சாதாரண இணைப்புகள், 24371500 எண்ணில் உள்ள 300 இணைப்புகள் ஆக மொத்தம் 323 இணைப்புகள் (ஐஎஸ்டிஎன்) திருட்டுத்தனமாக மாறனின் வீட்டில் செயல்பட்டுள்ளன. இதைதான், சிபிஐ தனது அறிக்கையில் வெளிக்கொணர்ந்துள்ளது. 323 இணைப்புகள் கொண்ட இணைப்பகத்தையே மாறன் மறைத்து விட்டார் என்பதை “தினமணி’ நாளிதழ் அம்பலப்படுத்தியது. அவ்வளவே!  பி.எஸ்.என்.எல்.லின் கடிதத்தின் மூலம்,மாறன் தவறு செய்துள்ளார் என்பது சந்தேகத்துக்கு இடமின்றித் தெளிவாகி விட்டதே, இனிமேலாவது தயாநிதி மாறன், தனது குற்றத்தை ஒத்துக் கொண்டு தலைகுனிவை ஏற்றுக் கொள்வாரா? இல்லை, வலுக்கட்டாயமாகப் பதவி பறிக்கப்பட்டு, விசாரணைக்கு உட்படுத்தப்பட்டு அவமானங்களுக்குப் பிறகுதான் ஏற்றுக் கொள்வாரா?

உப்புத் தின்றவன் தண்ணீர் குடித்துத்தான் தீர வேண்டும். அவரவர் பாவம் அவரவருக்குத்தான் என்றெல்லாம் தமிழில் பல பழமொழிகள் உண்டு. தயாநிதி மாறன் என்பதால் இவையெல்லாம் மாறிவிடுமா என்ன?

Kerala- Muslim League Sex Scandal-Judiciary to all involved

When brothers fall apart

Indian Union Muslim League leader P K Kunhalikutty caused a sensation when he claimed at a press conference on Friday that his estranged brother-in-law K M Rauf had engaged some criminals from Mangalore to finish him off. He not only hinted at the possibility that Rauf was fabricating a CD to defame him but also regretted that he had gone out of the way to help him while he was in power. Sooner than later, Rauf who was his right hand man, until they fell out a year ago, said that in the infamous ice cream-parlour case, Kunhalikutty had influenced the witnesses and the judiciary to save his skin. He also claimed that he had documentary evidence of how he himself, at Kunhalikutty’s behest, got an agreement signed by a key witness in the case so that she did not go back on her statement.

A news channel has telecast portions of the agreement signed by Rejina, who had initially alleged that Kunhalikutty had sexually exploited her. It was in 1997 that the case involving Sreedevi, who used an ice-cream parlour in Kozhikkode, as a front to run a flesh trade racket was exposed at the initiative of a women’s welfare organisation. Rejina, one of the victims of the racket, named the Muslim League leader as one of those who exploited her. Her statement was recorded before a magistrate. Lo and behold, her statement was again recorded before another magistrate, when she denied point blank the involvement of Kunhalikutty. Neither the then LDF nor the subsequent UDF government showed any interest in either arresting Kunhalikutty or pursuing the case to its logical culmination.

True, Rauf’s statement cannot be taken at its face value. But the evidence he has produced corroborates the widely-held belief that political power was misused to derail justice in the case. It is a well-known secret that witnesses like Rejina and Bindu, who lived in shanties, suddenly became so prosperous that they could build large houses. Many people associated with the case have now come out in the open with assertions and allegations that various forces were at work to scuttle the case. However welcome registering a case against Rauf for threatening Kunhalikutty may be, the matter should not end there. Justice demands that all those who influenced witnesses, policemen and officials through money and muscle power are also brought to book.

Kunhalikutty, Rauf booked


KOZHIKODE: Police have registered case against IUML state general secretary P K Kunhalikutty and his co-brother K A Rauf for forcing the victims in the ice-cream parlour sex racket case to retract their statements.


Town Police registered the FIR (59/2001) in the case and have started the investigation following the news appeared in the media after the news conference by Kunhalikutty and Rauf. There was allegations that Rauf and Kunhalikutty asked two witnesses in the case to retract their statements in which they named the IUML leader. Cases have been charged against both for conspiracy, forgery, influencing witnesses, among others.  Police took the action ostensibly after a direction in this regard from the Home Department. City Police Commissioner P Vijayan will supervise the probe.



Ayodya HC Judge Expose- Indian Historians as Frauds

HC judge exposed experts espousing Masjids cause

Waqf Board Line-Up Accused Of Having Ostrich-Like Attitude

Abhinav Garg | TNN

New Delhi: The role played by independent experts historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim has come in for criticism by one Allahabad High Court judge in the Ayodhya verdict.
While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple,it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny.
Most of these experts deposed twice.Before the ASI excavations,they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and,after the site had been dug up,they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa.
During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal,the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise,background and basis for their opinions.
To the courts astonishment,some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets,were withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displayed an ostrich-like attitude to facts.He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were connected one had done a PhD under the other,another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.
Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed whatever knowledge I gained with respect to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told (other experts).She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department. Supriya Verma,another expert who challenged the ASI excavations,had not read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation.She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar.
Verma and Jaya Menon alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place.
Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the introduction to the book of another expert who deposed,Professor Mandal.She admitted she had no field experience.
Normally,courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not,but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements… the judge noted.
He said opinions had been offered without making a proper investigation,research or study in the subject.The judge said he was startled and puzzled by contradictory statements.When expert witness Suraj Bhan deposed on the Babri mosque,the weight of his evidence was contradicted by anotherexpert for Muslim parties,Shirin Musavi,who told the court that Bhan is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history.
Justice Agarwal noted that instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications,conflict and controversy. He pointed out that experts carry weight with public opinion.

3 main parties meet,discuss a formula

Unfazed by plans of others to approach the SC,three main parties in the Ayodhya title suitsRamjanmabhoomi Trust,Hashim Ansari and Nirmohi Akharaon Friday came together for the first time on a public platform and discussed a formula for a negotiated settlement.Panch Ram Das of Nirmohi Akhara,Ramvilas Vedanti of Ramjanmabhoomi Trust and Hashim Ansari held a meeting at the residence of Hanuman Garhi Mahant Gyan Das and discussed ways to find a solution.PTI

Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad head Mahant Gyan Das (2nd R),Mohd Hashim Ansari (2nd L),Ramvilas Vedanti (R) and Nirmohi Akhara representative Ram Das at their Ayodhya meeting

HC judge exposed experts espousing Masjids cause

Waqf Board Line-Up Accused Of Having Ostrich-Like Attitude

Abhinav Garg | TNN

New Delhi: The role played by independent experts historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim has come in for criticism by one Allahabad High Court judge in the Ayodhya verdict.
While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple,it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny.
Most of these experts deposed twice.Before the ASI excavations,they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and,after the site had been dug up,they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa.
During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal,the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise,background and basis for their opinions.
To the courts astonishment,some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets,were withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displayed an ostrich-like attitude to facts.He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were connected one had done a PhD under the other,another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.
Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed whatever knowledge I gained with respect to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told (other experts).She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department. Supriya Verma,another expert who challenged the ASI excavations,had not read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation.She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar.
Verma and Jaya Menon alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place.
Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the introduction to the book of another expert who deposed,Professor Mandal.She admitted she had no field experience.
Normally,courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not,but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements… the judge noted.
He said opinions had been offered without making a proper investigation,research or study in the subject.The judge said he was startled and puzzled by contradictory statements.When expert witness Suraj Bhan deposed on the Babri mosque,the weight of his evidence was contradicted by anotherexpert for Muslim parties,Shirin Musavi,who told the court that Bhan is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history.
Justice Agarwal noted that instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications,conflict and controversy. He pointed out that experts carry weight with public opinion.

3 main parties meet,discuss a formula

Unfazed by plans of others to approach the SC,three main parties in the Ayodhya title suitsRamjanmabhoomi Trust,Hashim Ansari and Nirmohi Akharaon Friday came together for the first time on a public platform and discussed a formula for a negotiated settlement.Panch Ram Das of Nirmohi Akhara,Ramvilas Vedanti of Ramjanmabhoomi Trust and Hashim Ansari held a meeting at the residence of Hanuman Garhi Mahant Gyan Das and discussed ways to find a solution.PTI

Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad head Mahant Gyan Das (2nd R),Mohd Hashim Ansari (2nd L),Ramvilas Vedanti (R) and Nirmohi Akhara representative Ram Das at their Ayodhya meeting


Ayodhya: Why are some historians angry?

The Allahabad High Court verdict in the “The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs UP Lucknow & Others Versus Gopal Singh Visharad and Others” lawsuit has upset some historians and they have started questioning the credibility of the Archaeological Survey of India report. According to Romila Thapar, few archaeologists and historians had quesioned the ASI report and hence it was not fair to accept it in a simplistic manner. She then lamented about the mention of destruction of the “supposed temple” without balancing it with the mention of the destruction of the not-so-supposed mosque. Dr. Omar Khaladi went one step furthur and accused the ASI — an institution controlled by a non-Hindutva party — of being a handmaiden of Hindutva.

This anger against the ASI can be understood if we examine the narrative perpetuated by these historians. In 1989 many historians issued a statement that there was no temple.But a decade back, under a project titled, “Archaeology of Ramayana Sites”, the ASI had conducted surveys around Babri Masjid. The goal was to determine the antiquity of the site; settlements existed in Ayodhya as far back as the second millennium BCE. Archaeologists also found twelve stone pillars with Hindu motifs and deities, but the report published in 1976 did not mention these.

Some eminent historians tried to explain these pillar bases away by suggesting that these were part of a wall or a cowshed. But the court ordered excavations conducted by the ASI from March 12 to August 7, 2003 found pillar bases all over the area. Based on this, the ASI summarized the following for the court.

“Subsequently, during the early medieval period (11th–12th century AD) a huge structure was constructed, which seems to have been short-lived. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached to it. It is over the top of this construction during the early sixteenth century, the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.[Massive shrine was under disputed site]

Second, following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, a large stone block with a Sanskrit inscription was found. This inscription clearly indicated that a temple dating to 11-12th century existed at that location. Some historians argued that the inscription was forged but many epigraphists who examined the slab disagreed. Finally, as B.B.Lal (Director General of ASI) wrote in Rama: His Historicity, Mandir and Setu, Evidence of Literature, Archaeology and other Sciences

Anyway, to allay misgivings, I append here a note from the highest authority on epigraphical matters in the country, namely the Director of Epigraphy, ASI, Dr KV Ramesh (Appendix II). In it he first gives a summary of the inscription, then an actual reading of the text and finally an English translation thereof. While many scholars may like to go through the Note, it maybe straightaway here that according to it this temple was built by Meghasuta who obtained the lordship of Saketamandala (i.e. Ayodhya) through the grace of the senior Lord of the earth viz Govinda Chandra, of the Gahadavala dynasty who ruled over a vast empire, from 1114 to 1155 CE.

What ASI proved was that Romila Thapar’s “supposed temple” did exist. Taking note of the criticism against the ASI, the judges have mentioned the ASI excavations were transparent and it proved beyond doubt, the existence of the temple and “even Muslim members have also signed the report of ASI.” Finally, dismissing the argument by some historians that the structure beneath the mosque could not be a temple because of the discovery of animal bones, “HC was also surprised to note the “zeal” in some of the archaeologists and historians appearing as witnesses on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board who made statements much beyond reliefs demanded by the Waqf.”

Related posts:

  1. Apsidal ShrinesLast year there was news of discovery of a 2000 year old Shiva temple complex in Uttar Pradesh, one of the oldest in India. Besides the age, what was interesting…
  2. Stone inscription with Indus signs(Indus Signs from a earlier find in Dholavira) An inscription on stone, with three big Indus signs and possibly a fourth, has been found on the Harappan site of Dholavira…
  3. 2000 Year Old Shiva TempleLast year at a place called Sanchakot in Uttar Pradesh, archaeologists found evidence of a temple complex consisting of five temples. Four temples were dated between 1st – 3rd century…
  4. Pavlopetri, Dwaraka etc.That is the video of a 5000 year old submerged town —- almost a complete town with separate buildings, courtyards, streets and graves — in Greece. Pavlopetri was a harbor town which…

ASI evidence proved demolition beyond doubt

A Surya Prakash

08 Oct 2010 01:14:53 AM IST

An important aspect of the Allahabad High Court judgment in the Ayodhya title suits case is its conclusion on the issue whether a Hindu temple existed below the Babri Masjid. All three judges have answered in the affirmative and the reason is the meticulous investigation by the Archaeological Survey of India on the court’s orders in 2003. The judgment refers to that report. Given the significance of this report, it would be worthwhile to examine the evidence they gathered and their conclusions.

Below the surfaceExcavation was carried out by ASI from March 12 to August 7, 2003. The court took the view that archaeological evidence would be of importance to decide the question ‘whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed site’. It first ordered a Ground Penetrating Radar and geo-radiology survey. The Ground Penetrating Radar detected what archaeologists term as ‘anomaly alignments’. Following this survey, the court passed an order on March 5, 2003 directing the ASI to excavate the disputed site and permitted the parties to the dispute to appoint nominees to watch the excavation.The ASI excavated 90 trenches in five months and submitted its report. It states under the heading ‘The Massive Structure Below the Disputed Structure’: As stated earlier the disputed structure or structure 3 was found directly resting over an earlier construction, structure 4 (pp 33-34) which has survived through its nearly 50-metre long wall (wall 16) in the west and 50 exposed pillar bases to its east attached with floor 2 or the floor of the last phase of the structure’.The Circular ShrineFurther, it said, ‘From the excavation it could be inferred that there were seventeen rows of pillar bases from north to south, each row having five pillar bases’. Under the heading ‘The Circular Shrine’ it says, ‘A partly damaged east facing brick shrine, structure …… was noticed. It is a circular structure with a rectangular projection in the east….. The structure was squarish from the inner side and a 0.04 m wide and 0.53 m long chute or outlet was noticed on plan made through the northern wall up to the end where in the lower course a 5.0 cm thick brick cut in ‘V’ shape was fixed which was found broken and which projects 3.5 cm outside the circular outer face as a pranala to drain out the water, obviously after the abhisheka of the deity….‘The brick shrine is similar (Fig 18) on plan to the Chirenath brick temple at Sravasti exposed recently by the Archaeological Survey of India ………..It has also affinity with circular Siva temples of Rewa in Madhya Pradesh at Chandrehe and Masaon belonging to C 950 AD and a Vishnu temple and another without deity at Kurari in Fatehpur district of Uttar Pradesh and Surya Temple at Tindali in Fatehpur district… Thus on stylistic grounds, the present circular shrine can be dated to tenth century AD… They possibly brought the tradition of stone circular temples transformed into brick in Ganga-Yamuna valley’.Unearthing factsThe Archaeological Survey of India ’s ‘Summary of Results’ is as follows:The Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) using people were the first to occupy the disputed site at Ayodhya during the first millennium BC. This period may be assigned to circa 1000 BC to 300 BC. The Sunga horizon (Second–First century BC) comes next in order of cultural occupation at the site. “Typical terracotta mother goddess, human and animal figurines….represent the cultural matrix of this level”. The Kushan period (first to third century AD) followed the Sunga occupation. The advent of Guptas (fourth to sixth century AD) is represented by the typical terracotta figurines and a copper coin. During the post-Gupta-Rajput period (seventh to tenth century AD) too the site witnessed structural activity including a circular brick shrine. Though the structure is damaged, the northern wall still retains a provision for pranala (waterchute).“Subsequently, (11th–12th century AD) a huge structure was constructed, which seems to have been short-lived. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached to it. It is over the top of this construction during the early 16th century, the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.”

Finally, the ASI summed up its answer to the question put to it by the court, namely ‘whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and a mosque was constructed on the disputed site’, as follows: ‘Now, viewing in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of stone and decorated bricks… amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine, having pranala (waterchute) in the north, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features associated with the temples of north India”.

Presidential reference

This report played a crucial role in determining a crucial issue before the court. At this point, it would be pertinent to revert to proceedings before the Supreme Court in regard to the presidential reference of January, 1993 and to the declarations and assertions by the Union government before the apex court on how it proposed to resolve the dispute.

A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on October 24 1994 delivered its judgment in the Faruqui case (M Ismail Faruqui and Others Versus Union of India and Others) while simultaneously disposing of the presidential reference made the previous year. In that reference the president asked the court: “Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhoomi–Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?” The court declined to answer this question.

In the Faruqui case, the constitutional validity of Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 was challenged. The court upheld the Act but declared Section 4(3) of Act, which provided for abatement of all pending suits and legal proceedings pertaining to the disputed structure, to be invalid. This meant the revival of all pending suits and legal proceedings before the Allahabad High Court. On the Presidential Reference, the court said it was “superfluous and unnecessary and does not require to be answered”.

The judgement pertained to the constitutional validity of the ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya’ Ordinance on January 7, 1993 for acquisition of 67.703 acres of land in the Ram Janma Bhoomi–Babri Masjid complex and the reference made by the president that very day to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution.

The government’s word

Those who opposed the presidential reference said the question was ‘academic’ and ‘vague’ and did not serve any constitutional purpose. The Supreme Court asked the solicitor-general to clarify. The solicitor-general responded with a written statement on behalf of the central government on September 14 1994. He said the government would treat the finding of the court on the question of fact raised in the presidential reference “as a verdict which is final and binding”. The government would make efforts to resolve the controversy by a process of negotiations “in the light of the Supreme Court’s opinion and consistent with it”.

The solicitor-general further went on to say that if efforts at a negotiated settlement did not succeed, “government is committed to enforce a solution in the light of the Supreme Court’s opinion and consistent with it. Government’s action in this regard will be even-handed in respect of both the communities. If the question referred is answered in the affirmative, namely, that a Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished structure, government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community. If, on the other hand, the question is answered in the negative, namely, that no such Hindu temple/structure existed at the relevant time, then government action will be in support of the wishes of the Muslim community”. The solicitor-general’s statement formed a part of the record and was taken into account by the court.

The Supreme Court however held that the presidential reference was “superfluous and unnecessary” in view of its decision to uphold the validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, except Section 4(3).

Central issue

The white paper published by the Centre after the demolition of the Babri Masjid offers a clue to why the government posed that question to the Supreme Court: The white paper said: During the negotiations aimed at finding an amicable settlement, one issue that came to the fore was whether a Hindu temple had existed on the site occupied by the disputed structure and whether it was demolished on Babur’s orders for the construction of the masjid. It was stated on behalf of the Muslim organisations, as well as by certain eminent historians, that there was no evidence in favour of either of these two assertions. It was also stated by certain Muslim leaders that if these assertions were proved, the Muslims would voluntarily hand over the disputed shrine to the Hindus. Naturally, this became the central issue in the negotiations between the VHP and AIBMAC. This explains the purpose of the presidential reference…”

Now that the Allahabad High Court has concluded that there indeed was a temple below the disputed structure, the Union government is bound by the commitment made before the Supreme Court on September 14 1994. It now has the answer to the question it posed via the presidential reference and will be morally and legally bound to live up to its commitment.

Understanding Hindu law

Several commentators who are not clued into the intricacies of Hindu law have expressed surprise over the high court’s verdict, especially on the juristic rights of deities exercisable through a ‘next friend’ and on the court’s eventual conclusion that Ram Janma Bhoomi is the birthplace of Ram.

Of the four title suits decided in the Ayodhya case, only one filed on behalf of Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman was accepted by the court. All the other suits (filed by Sunni Waqf Board and others; Sri Gopal Singh Visharad and Nirmohi Akhara) were dismissed. In the suit filed on behalf of Ram, Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman was the first plaintiff, the second was Asthan Sri Ram Janma Bhoomi, Ayodhya (the place known as Ram Janma Bhoomi) and the third plaintiff was Deoki Nandan Agarwal, a retired judge, who became the ‘next friend’ of the deities in 1989. Following his demise, T  P Verma and then Trilokinath Pandey were appointed the ‘next friend’ by the apex court.

K N Bhat, former additional solicitor-general who represented Lord Ram and the Janmasthan acting through the ‘next friend’ Pandey argued that a Hindu deity is a juristic person who can sue and be sued and can possess properties and that this is well-established through judgments of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court; that the Janmasthan is itself a deity; and that the suit is not barred by limitation because the deity (Lord Ram) is in the position of a perpetual minor. The final outcome depended substantially on whether the court accepted these points.

The deity’s ‘next friend’Quoting from Mukherjea’s Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, the plaint said Lord Ram was a ‘juristic entity’ with a juridical status. “Its (the deity’s) interests are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who in law is its manager, with all the powers which would …be given to the manager of the estate of an infant heir. This doctrine …is firmly established”. Such a deity, deemed to be a perpetual minor, can sue through a ‘next friend’ appointed by the courts.

As regards Lord Ram’s place of birth, the contention was that Asthan Sri Ram Janma Bhoomi (the place itself) was an object of worship as a deity and it personified the spirit of the divine. The asthan (the place) thus had a juridical personality of its own even before construction of the temple and installation of the idol, which is not necessary for invoking the divine spirit. Other examples of places sanctified by belief even though there is no idol are Kedarnath, Vaishno Devi and Gaya.

The plaint also quoted extensively from the gazetteers to establish the fact that Hindu belief in Lord Ram’s birthplace had been acknowledged by many authorities over several centuries. The evidence adduced on behalf of these plaintiffs included Ajudhia in Historical Sketch of Tehsil Faizabad, by P Carnegy, officiating commissioner and settlement officer. Carnegy states that Janmasthan marks the place where Sri Ramchnadra was born and goes on to add that “Ajudhia (Ayodhya) is to the Hindu, what Mecca is to the Mohomedan, Jerusalem to the Jews…” . These gazetteers, written by British officers, are seen as having considerable evidentiary value.The court said the suit filed on behalf of the deities was not barred by limitation and that the premises in question (or any part thereof) were by tradition, belief and faith the birthplace of Ram. Justice Sudhir Agarwal said the area covered by the central dome of the disputed structure “being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belongs to plaintiffs (Suit 5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner”.Justice Dharam Veer Sharma also concluded that Lord Ram’s place of birth was a juristic person and a deity and that the ASI had proved that the disputed structure was built after demolition of a “massive Hindu religious structure”. Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan also opined that Hindus treated/believed that the birthplace of Lord Ram was situated in that area and granted the place where at present the idol is kept in a makeshift temple.

Given the eventual outcome of this long drawn dispute, devotees of Lord Ram owe a debt of gratitude to Deoki Nandan Agarwal, whose efforts from 1989, when he became the ‘next friend’, has in many ways clinched the issue in favour of Lord Ram and Ram Janma Bhoomi.


03 Oct 2010 01:29:04 AM IST

ASI report was crucial to judges’ deliberationst

The best part of the Ayodhya verdict is the judgment of Justice Sudhir Agarwal. Though a huge affair running to over 5,200 pages, his is one of the most organised and best-written judgments. One has only to look at the index he has provided (at p5136-5218) in Volume 21 of the judgment to get to what one wants — whether it is to know what the decision was on any of the issues, or to search for any documentary evidence or oral testimony used or any case law considered. Any reasonably skilled reader of legal documents may use the index as the key to unravel the judgment in a couple of days, which might otherwise take a fortnight.

That explains how articles like this appear in such a short time. It must have taken Justice Agarwal long periods of stress and labour to produce such a wonderful judicial document. More, to maintain confidentiality he must have done lots of the work himself. Also for writing the main judgment, he has analysed minutely all the evidence, documentary, oral and technical, himself; so that the other judgments just supplement his where there is agreement. But for his huge effort, it would be extremely difficult to unravel the Ayodhya verdict. If Justice Khan could write his “very short” judgment it is thanks to Justice Agarwal writing a very long one.


The Ayodhya verdict is not just a legal affair. It discusses, frankly, but with sensitivity, the Hindu-Muslim interface based on historic facts. It also touches upon history, archeology, sociology, religion and related disciplines. A reading of the verdict will reveal its reach and depth. So the nation must be grateful to the judges, particularly Justice Agarwal, for a stupendous work.The criticality of Justice Agarwal’s judgment, in the overall Ayodhya verdict, is manifest in that, virtually what he has said has turned out to be the final verdict. This is because, with Justice Sharma and Justice Khan taking almost divergent positions, to the extent Justice Agarwal agreed with either of them on any issue his views became the final view on that issue. Just see the effect of his view on the most sensitive issue in the Ayodhya case, namely, was a preexisting Hindu temple destroyed to make way for the mosque?

Even though he agrees that a massive broken Hindu structure was found under the mosque, Justice Khan does not agree that any Hindu structure was demolished to build the disputed mosque. But Justice Sharma is firm that a Hindu temple was indeed demolished to build the mosque. Justice Agarwal analyses the evidence over some 900 pages (from 3513 to 4415) and after holding that a Hindu temple predated the mosque at the spot, he says, on evidence, that “it can safely be said that the erstwhile structure was a Hindu temple and it was demolished, whereafter the disputed structure was raised” (p4415). This makes it the Court’s view. But, having held that a Hindu temple existed before the mosque was constructed, Justice Agarwal was not keen to pursue the demolition issue. But he does. Why? Read on.


He was compelled to do so by the lies of the experts relied upon by the Muslim parties. Prefacing that, for the purposes of the case, it was “sufficient” to stop at finding “that the mosque had been raised” on a pre-existing “massive temple”, Justice Agarwal writes [at p4333], “it would not have been necessary to tell positively that there existed a massive temple structure, which was demolished and thereafter the disputed structure was raised”.He then explains why he did that thus: the statement of so many experts appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs (Sunni Waqf Board) asserting that “temples in past were never demolished by then Muslim rulers or invaders from Persia etc, is so blatant a lie” that he was “reluctant to ignore it without referring to some well-known historical” account of the demolition of Hindu temples, some “written by Muslim writers themselves.”

Only after that, considering (from p4333 to p4415) the massive evidence about destroying temples, including at Ayodhya, Justice Agarwal concluded that a Hindu temple was indeed destroyed to build the mosque. Yet the visual media kept insisting throughout Sept 30 that the Court had indeed held that “no temple was destroyed to build the mosque”. So, till now, the people do not know the truth that Justice Agarwal has found; they only believe as true the lie that the media has telecast.

The critical evidence that became one of the most contentious issues between the Hindu parties and the Muslims parties in the court was the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) Report which established that a massive structure “indicative of the remains which are distinctive features” of “the temples of North India” existed under the mosque.

The first point to note was that the ASI was brought in by the court on its own in 2002, not by any party or the government. The ASI did the GPR survey and excavation under the orders of the court and under supervision by two judicial officers appointed by the court, in the presence of the counsel for the parties.

But the most disgusting part of this critical exercise, the importance of which to the case is brilliantly captured by Justice Agarwal (p3869-4333), was the way the Muslim parties attacked the ASI work in court, including on the ground that the BJP was ruling then, and that the ASI team did not include sufficient number of Muslims in the excavation work. This led to the court chiding them for suffixing experts with “Muslim”, “Hindu” or “Christian” (Justice Agarwal p230). But now, after the verdict, the secularists attack the court for relying on the ASI report in almost the same language the Muslim parties used to attack the ASI prior to the verdict!

But the otherwise well-conceived and best-written judgment badly slipped, in law and in judicial wisdom, on the division of the disputed site.

Division will escalate dispute

04 Oct 2010 12:35:18 AM IST

The otherwise legally proper and judiciously sound Ayodhya verdict has suffered serious legal haemorrhage by the decision of Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal to divide the disputed land into three parts and give one-third each to Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara. This article explains that fatal infirmity. An issue where law is mixed with facts, it calls for some strenuous reading to know what the deadly defect in the judgment is. To recall, the short facts are: in their two suits, the Hindus claim the disputed site as exclusively their own; in their suit, the Muslims claim it exclusively as their own; in its suit, the Nirmohi Akhara too claims it as exclusively its own. None of them had asked for nor would accept to share the disputed land with any other or the others.


To simplify the law for the uninitiated, the law says that a person filing a suit has to plead his case properly and clearly, and also ask for reliefs in clear terms. The court will look only what suitor says in his plaint and his opponents in response, nothing else, to know what is the case. It will then frame the contentious issues and decide them on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence tendered by them. The principal issues decided on that basis by the Allahabad High Court, unanimously or by 2:1 majority, in the present case are: one, the rights of the Hindus over the Ram Janmabhoomi never ceased at any point in time; two, the Muslims were never in possession of the disputed premises at any point in time; three, the Muslims failed to prove their possession of any part of the disputed land; four, the last time the Muslims did namaz on the disputed property was on 16.12.1949; five, the Hindus never admitted possession by Muslims at any time, even in the suit of 1885; six, Muslims never acquired title even by adverse possession; seven, the Akhara never had possession nor acquired title by adverse possession; eight, the suits of Muslims and the Akhara, having been filed beyond the limitation period, are dismissed. On this basis, the court dismissed the suits of Muslims and Akhara, thus denying any relief. While, Justice Sharma allowed the suits of Hindus in full, Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan allowed the Hindus’ suit partly.On why they ruled partitioning of the disputed land, Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan have said that under a provision (Order 7 Rule 7) in the Civil Procedure Code they had the authority to give less relief than what the Hindus had prayed for in their suits. So by assuming that they had the power to reduce the share of the Hindus, the two judges seem to have thought that they had also the power to give the balance to Muslims (1/3) and the Akhara (1/3); in the process what the two judges have done is to give Muslims and Akhara rights, which Justice Sharma and Justice Agarwal have separately declared they do not have. Also none of the three parties had asked for what the court has done. The first principle is that, any relief beyond what the suits set out in pleadings and prayers can only be given at the instance of one of the parties; not by the court on its own motion like it has done in this case. If parties themselves had not asked for anything outside the pleadings, the court cannot go beyond their pleadings at all.

The law on this point has never been in doubt. The Madras High Court has ruled in 1998 (Arunachalm Pillai Vs Ramu Mudaliar and others) that where each party claims exclusive title to the property and none of them accept the right of the other (exactly as in the Ayodhya case) the question of partitioning the property between them does not arise at all (under the very provision of law cited by the two judges in Ayodhya case). The courts in Patna, Kolkata, and the Madras High Court itself have ruled this principle earlier. As far back as 1991 the Supreme Court (Om Prakash V Ram Kumar (1991) 1 SCC 441) had ruled that even if a party asks for reliefs outside his pleadings the court can never allow them; by doing so it will prejudice rights of the other party.

So the settled legal position is this: even if parties, like the Ayodhya parties, who have filed suit asserting exclusive rights against one another, ask for partition, the court cannot grant it; and in no event the court can do it without the parties asking for it. None of these judicial rulings seem to have been noticed by the two judges. Had one of the parties asked for partition, the other party would have brought the case laws to the court’s notice. That is why law requires that the court should decide no issue that is not put to the parties. An order contrary to this principle is, in law, without jurisdiction. Civil law pundits would cite the old maxim of Coram Non Judici to say that the courts — read Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal — have no jurisdiction to do what they have done.

Now that they have passed the judgment, the judges will have to write a decree in accordance with the judgment. Assume that the judges can write a decree in the Hindus’ suit giving them less than their claim of 1/3 share. The suits of Muslims and Akhara having been dismissed, how could a decree be written in their favour? If no decree could be passed in their favour in their suits, they cannot get the 1/3 share at all. And no decree could be passed in the suits of the Hindus in favour of Muslims and Akhara! Therefore, the 1/3 gift by the two judges to them each will be only on paper. So a new battle will start only at the point if the two judges attempt to write the decree for two-thirds of the disputed land in favour of the Muslims and the Akhara whose suits stand dismissed.

The legal unsoundness aside, the decision to divide the disputed land and award 1/3 each to the Muslims and the Akhara, stands out contrary to the spirit of the otherwise judicious judgment. It has put roadblock on the temple construction; how could a temple to which a million people come on Ram Navami day be accommodated in one acre of land (a third of the disputed area) with a mosque beside. It will be an invitation to a law and order disaster.

Many idealists welcome this action of the two judges as an ideal solution. But, in sensitive issues like relations between Hindus and Muslims (many among whom still share bitter memories of past) the ideal is not practical; only what is practical is ideal. This sense of idealism without practical sense is that what seems to have led the two judges into the judicially erroneous decision to divide the disputed land.

QED: The historic Ayodhya judgment has, thanks to this fatal defect, now less potential to resolve the dispute and more potential to escalate it.


Tamilnadu-Ancient Items found

Former Chief Justice YK Sabharwal gets Prime Property in Delhi- Judicial Scam

Ex-CJIs sons get prime property in Delhi,but they never bid for it

Manoj Mitta | TNN

Justice Sabharwal

New Delhi: The two sons of the former Chief Justice of India,YK Sabharwal,under probe for their business deals,suddenly came to buy a Rs 122 crore property here four months ago,thanks to controversial orders passed by the Delhi high court.
Chetan and Nitin Sabharwal,with partner Kabul Chawla,chief of real estate company BPTP,turned out to be the ultimate beneficiaries of HC orders passed since 2006 in connection with the auction of the 2.7-acre property at 7 Sikandra Road.
An appeal challenging the April 2010 sale deed revealed they had not participated in an auction in September 2006,in which a twojudge bench declared Triveni Infrastructure the highest bidder.Triveni was required to pay 25% of its bid amount,Rs 117 crore,within a week and the rest in three weeks,subject to the property being converted from leasehold to freehold.
But Triveni became liable to pay the 75% component only in February 2009 as it took so long for the property to be converted to freehold.It was then that a succession of single-judge orders resulted in the payment being made,with a Rs 5 crore penalty,in April 2010,that too by the two Sabharwals and Chawla although they had no formal stake in Triveni.

Ex-CJIs sons didnt take part in auction,yet acquired property

New Delhi: An appeal challenging the April 2010 sale deed revealed that the three partners,including the two sons of former CJI Y K Sabharwal,had not participated in an auction in September 2006 on which a two-judge bench declared Triveni Infrastructure the highest bidder.
The appeal being heard by a special bench,headed by Justice A K Sikri,shed light on the various ways in which the 2006 order had been bypassed,particularly by Justice Manmohan Singh,leading to a windfall for the Sabharwal brothers and Chawla:
When the owners of the property filed a contempt application against Triveni for its failure to pay the balance in February 2009,Justice Manmohan Singh gave more time to the defaulter directing that it would have to pay Rs 3 crore by July-end and Rs 85 crore by October-end.Later,he extended the time further to Decemberend with a penalty of Rs 5 crore.
The repeated extension of the deadline by Justice Manmohan Singh was contrary to the division benchs direction that if the highest bidder failed to make the payments on time,the property would have to be sold to the next highest bidder,Prime Commercial.
In June 2009,Justice Manmohan Singh allowed a four-day old company,Angle Infrastructure,to come in place of Triveni for paying the balance and to take over the property.The owners of the property appealed against this order as it had been passed without any notice to them.
A week before the expiry of the December 2009 deadline,Justice Manmohan Singh gave a fresh extension to Angle,this time by five months.He also granted Angles request to introduce the condition that it would be required to pay the balance only when the owners were in a position to deliver immediate possession of the property.Most of the owners challenged this order,again because it had been passed without any notice to them.
A month before the expiry of the May 2010 deadline,Triveni and Angle filed a joint application requesting that the balance be allowed to be paid by the Sabharwals and Chawla and that the property be registered in their names.Since the Sabharwal brothers and Chawla appeared in the court with demand drafts of the balance amount,Justice Rajiv Shakdher directed the owners on April 20 to execute the sale deed within two days.
That is how the Sabharwal brothers and Chawla acquired the property from an auction in which they had not participated at all.

Chola Inscriptions in Nagai

Saraswathi -Michel Danino’s The Lost River

Giving shape to the lost river-G K Rao

Among the many myths central to Indian culture, one is remarkably constant — the story of a lost or invisible river, which has immense religious significance for the average Hindu. In fact, the confluence of the Ganga and Yamuna at Prayag or Allahabad is called Triveni, a garland of three strands, the Ganga, the Yamuna and the Saraswati, the heart of the matter, the most sacred of India’s myriad waters.

There have always been two sharply defined schools of opinion on this subject, that of the average devotee and that of the scholar. The devotee has no doubt that the Saraswati exists, invisible, ineffable and intangible. Its influence is subtle but nevertheless decisive as it is the Saraswati that is the true touchstone of Indianness. The scholars, for their part, have puzzled over the numerous references to the river but having found no physical sign of it have treated it as a metaphor, an abstraction.

What if it is literally true? That the Saraswati once flowed through the heart of

India, but no longer does so? That is the theme of Michel Danino’s The Lost River. It is not a new story because there has always been speculation since the beginning of modern archaeology that there was a river in ancient times that got lost in the sands of the Indian desert. It never entered the history books perhaps because historians paid little heed to the archaeological evidence in the Gangetic plain.

In this story the star role belongs undoubtedly to the Archaeological Survey of India. To most people ASI is a protector of monuments and little else, but over the decades, the ASI has patiently worked in almost total obscurity to unearth some of the greatest treasures of the past, lost cities such as Dwaraka, Dholavira, Kalibangan and Lothal, all from the same cultural matrix as Harappa and Mohenjodaro. It is ASI which established that far from being confined to the Indus valley, the Harappa culture spread across a vast area between the Indus and the Ganga.

Students of Indian history have been particularly excited at the evidence that a great many of the sites may have been linked by a river, a river, moreover, that looked like being a mighty mass of water. Thus, faintly, the contours of the Saraswati first became visible as the byproduct of a search for something quite different.

Danino begins his quest by looking at a small, nondescript stream called the Ghaggar or Chaggar, which flows west of the Yamuna, through present-day Haryana, Rajasthan and then on to Sind in Pakistan where it becomes the Hakra. One of its tributaries is an even smaller stream called Saraswati or Sarsuti, which rises in the Shivalik Hills about 50 miles northeast of Ambala.

At first sight it is a most unpromising prospect. Both are seasonal rivers, swelling in the monsoon to a respectable size, but visible as a thin trickle for the rest of the year. It would be hard to believe that a city, much less a civilisation, could be built along its banks. But there is more to the story.

One pointer is the vast number of ancient settlements that have been found hugging what may be the original riverbanks, which also indicate a much greater flow than seen at present. At some places, according to Danino, the ancient riverbed is several kilometres wide, a mighty river indeed. But the question is, how did that happen, and what happened afterwards? Danino proposes a startling hypothesis.

In ancient times, that is, about five millennia ago, the Yamuna flowed into the Ghaggar. So did the Sutlej. These are major rivers and both are perennial, having their sources high up in the Himalayan snowfields. When to this is added the likelihood of a much wetter climate overall, it is easy to see that the Ghaggar (Saraswati) may indeed have been mighty, as the scriptures say. It could have reached the sea through the Rann of Kutch. Such a river would have been a highway for commerce and helped seed new settlements all along its length. The many maps in the book show just that kind of clustering of ancient sites discovered by the ASI.

The big question, of course, is what happened to end this happy state of affairs? Danino proposes that a big earthquake in ancient time altered the topography sufficiently to send the Yamuna away from its old bed. This is certainly a possibility as the river is already in the plains and even a minor change in the lie of the land could do the trick over the course of a few decades. As for the Sutlej, it has long been known as a vagrant, wandering across the plains, changing course many times over the millennia. Indeed, one of its names, in post-Vedic literature, Shatadru, means “of a hundred channels”. Some of those channels passed very close to today’s Ghaggar so it could well have deserted the Saraswati at some point. With the Yamuna gone and the Sutlej gone, the results would have been catastrophic for the settlements along the banks. One by one they would have gone, and so the light went out on a brilliant civilisation.

The second question is, where’s the evidence for this thesis? There is where the story gets interesting. The writer has painstakingly gathered data from a variety of sources, ancient literature, historical accounts, official reports by British administrators, ASI site data, hydrological reports, analysis of ancient sediments and pollen from the lakes of Rajasthan, studies of planktonic foraminifers from the Arabian Sea, and of planktonic oxygen isotope ratios, remote sensing satellite data, studies of ancient underground waters, and so on. Taken together, they do provide a picture approximately similar to Danino’s hypothesis but it should be stressed that the evidence is not definitive, but indicative. Danino has gathered many but not all of the pieces of the puzzle. It is an impressive collection but it has not reached critical mass.

The lost river is finally taking shape, even though it has not manifested itself completely. But given the trend one feels the evidence will be found and students of India can then raise a collective glass to the silent, unknown warriors of the Archaeological Survey. Incidentally, if the Saraswati is found it will deal the deathblow to the Aryan invasion theory. That is another subject that should occupy Indologists happily for decades to come.

— grao@expressbuzz.com

False Caste certificates by Congress Kerala MP

DGP Devaram’ misuse of Power

“”இன்னொரு நடவடிக்கை பலரையும் சந்தோஷப்பட வச்சிருக் குங்க தலைவரே… முன்னாள் டி.ஜி.பி. தேவாரத்தின் தங்கை முறை உறவான ஜெசி நிர்மலாவுக்கும் டாக்டர் ராஜன் என்பவருக்கும் கல்யாணமாகி, கருத்து வேற்றுமையால் பிரிஞ்சிட்டாங்க. அந்த கோபத்தில் ஜெசி நிர்மலாவின் சகோதரர்கள் ஜெயசந்திர ஜோசப்பும், ஜாபர் ஜோசப்பும் டாக்டர் ராஜன் காரை ஏற்றி கொல்ல முயற்சித்ததாக பொய்ப்புகார் கொடுக்க, தேவாரத்தின் அதிகாரத்தால் ராஜன் மேலே வழக்கு போடப்பட்டது. 1995லேயே இந்த வழக்கு பொய்யான வழக்குன்னு தீர்ப்பாயிடிச்சி. அதிகாரத்தைத் தவறா பயன்படுத்தி தன்னை பழிவாங்க முயற்சித்த தேவாரம் மேலே நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கக்கோரி ஜனாதிபதி வரை டாக்டர் ராஜன் மனு கொடுத்தும் அப்ப எந்த நட வடிக்கையும் இல்லை. அதற்கப் புறம்தான் 97-ல் தேவாரம் மேலே மான நஷ்ட வழக்கு போட்டு 5 லட்ச ரூபாய் கோரினார் டாக்டர் ராஜன்.”

“”வழக்கு என்னாச்சு?”

“”13 வருசமா வழக்கு இழுத் தடிக்கப்பட்டது. இந்த நிலை மையில்தான், நாகர்கோவில் முதலாவது கூடுதல் சார்பு நீதிமன்ற நீதிபதி ப.உ.செம்மல் , 13 வருசமா ஒரு வழக்கு நிலுவையில் இருப்பதை எடுத்து விசாரித்தார். தேவாரம் தரப்பு கோர்ட்டுக்கே வராமல் புறக்கணித்ததை அறிந்ததுடன், அவர்கள் தரப்பில் சரியான ஆதாரமும் இல்லைன்னு விசாரணையில் தெரியவர, டாக்டர் ராஜனுக்கு 13 வருசத்துக்கான வட்டியோடு 5 லட்ச ரூபாயை தேவாரமும் ஜெசிநிர்மலாவின் சகோதரர்களும் கூட்டாகவோ தனித் தனியாகவோ தரணும்னு போன 21-ந் தேதியன்னைக்குத் தீர்ப்பளித்தார்..’

Muslim FAKIR kills child and Drinks Blood.

குழந்தையை நரபலி கொடுத்த    “சைக்கோ” மந்திரவாதி    மதுரை ஜெயிலில் அடைப்பு:    கள்ளக்காதலி ரமலாபீவி     திருச்சி கொண்டு செல்லப்பட்டார்

Fakir ‘beheads’ toddler, ‘drinks’ his blood in Tamil Nadu
MADURAI: In a chilling incident of child sacrifice, a fakir and his woman associate allegedly kidnapped, beheaded a one-and-a-half-year-old baby and buried the remains at two different places in southern Tamil Nadu, apparently to attain supernatural powers, the police said.

The police also suspected that the kidnapper may have drunk the child’s blood as part of occult rituals.

The police have arrested the two and exhumed the torso of the child from a secluded spot near Erwadi dargah in Ramanathapuram district and the head from Kallamozhi near Yeral in Thoothukudi district. Abdul Gafoor, the fakir, had apparently sacrificed the child to goddess Kali Amman.

The police said Gafoor (31) from Kayalpattinam in Thoothukudi district, told investigators that he had kidnapped and murdered the child after he had a dream in which he was instructed to sacrifice a child and drink its blood to acquire supernatural powers.

He had kidnapped G Khader Yusuf, the child, from Goripalayam dargah in Madurai on July 2. The child’s mother, Sherin Fathima, a widow, had been staying in the dargah for several months. The police said Gafoor had spotted the child during a visit to the dargah for the treatment for his associate, Ramala Beevi (28).

“Gafoor and Ramala Beevi took the child to a lodge in Ramanathapuram. When the child started crying, Gafoor slit his throat. He then beheaded the boy and buried the head at Kattupallivasal near the Erwadi dargah. The couple then took the head to Thoothukudi where they buried it near the Kallamozhi dargah,” Chidambaram Murugesan, inspector and head of the special team investigating the case said.

The police zeroed in on Gafoor after enquiries at the Goripalayam dargah revealed that he had stopped visiting the place since July 2. He was arrested on Friday night from his hometown and brought to Madurai. On Sunday, the police took Gafoor to Ramanathapuram and Thoothukudi, where he was asked to exhume the body.

When Gafoor started digging at the spot, a portrait of goddess Kali Amman, and a garland of beads were found along with the torso wrapped in red cloth. The police team then went to Yeral and exhumed the head.




உயர் ஜாதி ஏழைகளுக்கும் இட ஒதுக்கீடு-மத்திய அரசு திட்டம்

டெல்லி: உயர் ஜாதியில் உள்ள ஏழைகளுக்கும் இட ஒதுக்கீடு வழங்க மத்திய அரசு திட்டமிட்டுள்ளது.

இது தொடர்பாக பொருளாதார ரீதியிலான பிற்படுத்தப்பட்டவர்களுக்கான தேசியக் கமிஷனின் அறிக்கை மத்திய அரசிடம் சமர்பிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

இந்த அறிக்கையில், பொருளாதாரரீதியிலான பிற்படுத்தப்பட்டவர்களை பிற்படுத்தவர்கள் பட்டியலில் சேர்க்க வேண்டும். அவர்களுக்கு கல்வி , வேலைவாய்ப்புகளில் இட ஒதுக்கீடு வழங்க வேண்டும்.

வருமான வரி செலுத்தாத உயர் ஜாதியினரை இந்தப் பட்டியலில் சேர்த்து இட ஒதுக்கீடு வழங்கலாம் என்று கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.

இந்த அறிக்கையை விரைவில் மத்திய அரசு சட்டமாக்கும் என்று தெரிகிறது.

நக்ஸல் ‘எபெக்ட்’: ஓ.பி.சி. பட்டியலில் மேலும் சில சாதிகள்:

இதற்கிடையே நக்ஸலைட் பாதிப்பு அதிகம் உள்ள ஜார்க்கண்ட், சட்டீஸ்கர் மாநிலங்களைச் சேர்ந்த சில சாதியினரை பிற்படுத்தப்பட்ட வகுப்பினர் பட்டியலில் சேர்க்க மத்திய அரசு முடிவு செய்துள்ளது.

இவர்களை பிற்படுத்தப்பட்ட வகுப்பினரை இந்தப் பட்டியலில் சேர்ப்பதன் மூலம் அவர்களுக்கு அரசு அளிக்கும் சலுகைகள், கல்வி மற்றும் வேலைவாய்ப்பில் முன்னுரிமை கிடைக்கும்.

சமூக-பொருளாதார ஏற்றத்தாழ்வுகளால் ஏற்படும் நக்ஸல் பிரச்சனையை ஆயுதங்களை மட்டும் கொண்டு அடக்க முடியாது என்பதால் இந்த நடவடிக்கையை மத்திய அரசு எடுத்துள்ளது.

மேலும் சட்டீஸ்கர், ஹரியாணா, ஹிமாசலப் பிரதேசம், கர்நாடகம் , ராஜஸ்தான் மற்றும் யூனியன் பிரதேசமான டாமன் மற்றும் டையூ பகுதிகளில் உள்ள பிற்படுத்தப்பட்ட வகுப்பினங்கள் சிலவற்றையும் இந்தப் பட்டியலில் சேர்க்க முடிவாகியுள்ளது.

புதிய சாதிகள் அடங்கிய ஓ.பி.சி. பட்டியலை சமூக நீதி மற்றும் மேம்பாட்டு அமைச்சகம் விரைவில் வெளியிடும்.

இளவரசி டயானா கொலை செய்யப்பட்டார்

இளவரசி டயானா கொலை செய்யப்பட்டார் : வழக்கறிஞர் தகவல்

பதிவு செய்த நாள் 7/23/2010 1:09:53 PM

See full size image See full size image See full size image

1997 ம் ஆண்டு கார் விபத்தில் உயிரிழந்த இங்கிலாந்து இளவரசி டயானா, திட்டமிட்டு கொலை செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளதாக வழக்கை புலனாய்வு செய்த வழக்கறிஞர் தெரிவித்துள்ளார். இங்கிலாந்து இளவரசி டயானா திட்டமிட்டுதான் கொலை செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளார் என்று வெளியான செய்தி உலகம் முழுவதும் பரபரப்பை ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது. மைக்கேல் மேன்ஸ்பீல்டு என்ற வழக்கறிஞர், டயானா உயிரிழக்கக் காரணமான கார் விபத்து குறித்து புலன் விசாரணை செய்தவர். இந்நிலையில் பத்திரிக்கை நிறுவனம் ஒன்றுக்கு அளித்துள்ள பேட்டியில், உலகையே உலுக்கிய டயானாவின் மரணத்துக்கு, எதிர்பாராத விபத்துதான் காரணம் என்று பாரீஸ் போலீசார் உடனடியாக வழக்கு பதிவு

Tamil news paper, Tamil daily news paper, Tamil news, Tamil movie news, Tamil news paper online, political news, business news, financial news, sports news, today news, India news, world news, daily news updateவிபத்தின்போது டயானாவின் கார் ஓட்டுநராக இருந்த பால் மீது வலுவான சந்தேகங்கள் எழுந்துள்ளது. விபத்து நடப்பதற்கு சில நாட்களுக்கு முன்னர், டயானா கார் ஓட்டுநர் பால் தனது வங்கிக் கணக்கில் பல கோடி ரூபாய் முதலீடு செய்திருப்பது பற்றி விசாரணையில் தெரிவிக்கவில்லை டிரைவர் வங்கியில் போட்ட பணத்திற்கு எந்தவொரு தகவலும் இல்லை என தெரிவித்துள்ளார். மேலும் டிரைவர் வங்கியில் கோடிக்கணக்கில் முதலீடு செய்தது குறித்து விசாரணை நடத்தாதது ஏன் என்றும் தெரிவித்துள்ளார். இந்நிலையில் டயானா கொலை செய்யப்பட்டதற்கு தகுந்த ஆதாரங்கள் இருப்பதாக வழக்கறிஞர் மைக்கேல் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.செய்திருப்பது, இந்த விவகாரத்தில் குழப்பத்தை ஏற்படுத்துவதாக உள்ளது.
விபத்தல்ல.. டயானா கொலை செய்யப்பட்டார்-வழக்கறிஞர்
July 23, 2010

இங்கிலாந்து இளவரசி டயானா திட்டமிட்டு கொலை செய்யப்பட்டதாக முன்னணி வழக்கறிஞர் கூறியுள்ளார். டயானாவுடன் பலியான தொழிலதிபர் டோடி பயாதின் குடும்பம் சார்பில் இந்த வழக்கில் வாதிட்ட மைக்கேல் மேன்ஸ்பீல்ட் என்ற முன்னணி வழக்கறிஞர் இந்தக் குற்றச்சாட்டைக் கூறியுள்ளார்.
டோடி பயாதின் தந்தை முகம்மத் அல் பயாத் ஏற்கனவே இது கொலை தான் என்று நீண்டகாலமாகக் கூறி வருகிறார். தனது மகனுடன் இளவரசி காதல் கொண்டதால் அதை பொறுக்க முடியாமல் கொலை செய்துவிட்டதாகக் கூறி வருகிறார் அல் பயாத்.
இந் நிலையில் அவருக்காக இந்த வழக்கில் ஆஜராகி புலனாய்வும் செய்த வழக்கறிஞரும் இவ்வாறு கூறியுள்ளது பரபரப்பை ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது.1997ம் ஆண்டு ஆகஸ்ட் 31ம் தேதி பாரிசில் நடந்த கார் விபத்தில் டயானாவும் பயாதும் பலியாயினர்.
இந்த வழக்கை நடத்திய மைக்கேல் கூறுகையில், இங்கிலாந்து ராஜ குடும்பத்தினர் மீது டயானா சந்தேகத்துடன் தான் வாழ்ந்தார். தன்னை அவர்கள் உளவு பார்ப்பதாக அஞ்சினார். இந்த அச்சத்தின் பின்னணியில் தான் இந்த சாவுகள் நடந்தன. இதனால் அவை விபத்தினால் ஏற்பட்ட மரணங்கள் அல்ல, நிச்சயம் கொலைகள் தான்.
உலகையே உலுக்கிய டயானாவின் மரணத்துக்கு, எதிர்பாராத விபத்து தான் காரணம் என்று பாரீஸ் போலீசார் உடனடியாக வழக்கு பதிவு செய்தது, இந்த விவகாரத்தில் மேலும் சந்தேகங்களை ஏற்படுத்துவதாக உள்ளது.
விபத்தின்போது டயானாவின் கார் ஓட்டுநராக இருந்த பால் மீது வலுவான சந்தேகங்கள் எழுந்துள்ளன. விபத்து நடப்பதற்கு சில நாட்களுக்கு முன், பால் தனது வங்கிக் கணக்கில் பல கோடி ரூபாய் முதலீடு செய்திருப்பது பற்றி விசாரணை அறிக்கையில் ஒரு வரி கூட இடம் பெறாதது டயானா கொலை செய்யப்பட்டிருக்கலாம் என்பதை மேலும் உறுதிப்படுத்துகிறது என்று கூறியுள்ளார்

Illegal kid’s home in Kanchi shut

KANCHEEPURAM: It was a ‘Karunai Illam’ (house of compassion) that had a lone toilet for about 47 inmates, including 19 girls, who are students of LKG to college.

The Sathyajothi Karunai Illam contained only one semblance of a bathroom. This sorry spectacle witnessed in the Illam was allowed to go on since 2003, under the guise of an orphanage at Olimohammad Pettai on the way to Kilambi (there is one more orphanage by the same name in the vicinity), less than three km from the Collector’s office “without any valid papers whatsoever”.

On Thursday, it was closed down all of a sudden by the District Social Welfare Department (DSWD) in conjunction with District Child Welfare Committee (DCWC) because the “rented home” had flouted all norms laid down under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2006. After a heated argument with the raiding members of the Welfare Department and Committee, Sathyajothi’s founder-runner Karmegam said that since he did not receive any grant from the government he should not be construed as having flouted the rules.

When the raiding authorities pointed out to him that under the Act an “observation home” would mean a home established by a State government or by a voluntary organisation and certified by the State government, Karmegam said he had no knowledge such a thing existed.

The DSWD officer Devi Kumar told Express that though Karmegam claimed he had applied for a temporary registration in 2006, he did not have any papers to support his claim.

Devi Kumari said according to the Act, a Sathyajothi – kind of observation home having 47 inmates, should have a 1,500 sq ft drawing room, a 800 sq ft dining hall, a 500 sq ft library, a kitchen, a store room of 250 sq ft each, a 300 sq ft recreation hall, a 120 sq ft counselling room and five bathrooms (including toilet) of 125 sq ft each. Karmegam’s 1000-odd sq ft narrow oldfashioned house was a far cry from these specified requirements of the law, observed Saiznuddin Mohmammed, a Chengalpattu-based member of the DCWC during the inspection.

Moreover, Karmegam had a deposit of only Rs 1,000 in the home’s account, whereas the law requires that the home should maintain at least a deposit of two months’ expenses: in this case around Rs 30,000.

After ordering the closure of the home with immediate effect, the Welfare Department has housed the students at a temporary place at Pillayarpalayam.

Devi Kumari said an alternative place would soon be found in Kancheepuram itself since most of the students are studying in and around Kancheepuram. Except two students one each from Salem and Ambattur, the rest are from Kancheepuram.

Asked why it had taken such long time (7 years) to detect the irregularity, one officer said it was impossible for his department to do a house-to-house search, and unless specific complaints are received they are helpless


Hinduism,Cosmos ,Sanatan Dharma.Ancient Hinduism science.

வரலாற்று உண்மைகளை அலசுவோமே

வரலாற்று உண்மைகளை அலசுவோமே

வரலாற்று உண்மைகளை அலசுவோமே

Dwindling In Unbelief

வரலாற்று உண்மைகளை அலசுவோமே

Larry Hurtado's Blog

Comments on the New Testament and Early Christianity (and related matters)


Religion Matters from the Bible to the Modern World


வரலாற்று உண்மைகளை அலசுவோமே

வரலாற்று உண்மைகளை அலசுவோமே

இறையில்லா இஸ்லாம்

வரலாற்று உண்மைகளை அலசுவோமே

Devapriyaji - True History Analaysed

வரலாற்று உண்மைகளை அலசுவோமே

வரலாற்று உண்மைகளை அலசுவோமே

கிறிஸ்தவம் உள்ளபடியே

உண்மைகளை அறிவோம் தீமைகளை விரட்டுவோம்

Tamilar Kural - Devapriya- தேவப்ரியா- (Based on Archaelogical,Historical & Theological)

வரலாற்று உண்மைகளை அலசுவோமே