In the case of arrests for crimes planned or in the process of implementation or actual execution in any civilised society the police are expected to put them behind bars. No one except fascist forces plan to execute people because they are alleged to have planned or committed crimes without them having the right to prove their innocence in a court of law.
In this article several inept attempts have been made to subtly show such cold blooded murders in good light and then they are condemned in words - showing duplicity right down the middle of this column.
However even if Shorabuddin was a petty criminal there was no reason to execute him by claiming he was an LeT operative especially when there are people with much much more blood on their hands like the Sangh Parivaris - those whose inflammatory speeches have caused loss of life and limb and spilt innocent blood of minorities whose only crime is not be falling in their foolish definition of Indian.
I do not support such fascists thoughts. I am only pointing out that if you are right then the major criminals should be eliminated first.
RE:Bizarre thought Processes!
by deetee on May 24, 2007 08:47 PM Permalink
iyer your thoughts are idealistic. you might be a nice person but what you think cannot be implemented practically. there are some who believe that Indian kingdoms lost in battle to islamic invaders simply because the invaders did not follow the same rules of battle that the indian kingdoms did. that is why you cannot be completely "nice and just" with criminals. because criminals by definition and nature are not going to do "nice and just" things. Sohrabuddin has a long record, he was abdul latifs (dawood man in ahmedabad-killed in encounter by vaghela government)driver, they say he was a "petty criminal" how on earth can any petty criminal even dream of extorting money from big businessmen kauserbis death is unfortunate, but then if she had stayed with her husband and three children and not chosen a life with a known history-sheeter she would still be alive. Rajeev is trying to say that today encounter killings have become a necessary evil, and that is all. if that thought is "facist" then so be it.
RE:Bizarre thought Processes!
by Varun Shekhar on May 29, 2007 11:39 PM Permalink
Good one, deetee. Many people assume that the terrorists and criminals fight "fair", and hence deserve honourable treatment. Nothing of the kind. And yes, fighting fair cost India its independence for 800 years.
RE:Bizarre thought Processes!
by Marshal Tito on May 24, 2007 02:46 PM Permalink
Islamic terrorists are facist forces trying to intimidate the society by bomb blasts. They have declared war (Jihad) on India and therefore are not civilians, but war combatants. They are therefore shot down, just as enemies in a war are shot down.
Imagine in the next Indo-Pak war, the left/liberal/commies force Indian army to not kill Pak soldiers but arrest them and present them in a court!!
It is war dude, and shoot at sight is the norm.
India Today reported that Vanzara had created such a terror among Muslims that they do not want to provide any help to fundamentalists for bomb blasts, and that is they reason why Gujarat has remained terrorism free under Modi's reign.
You idealist bleeding heart brigade is unable to solve any problem facing the society. You faint on mere sight of blood. People like you are sitting ducks for people who carry a gun.
RE:Bizarre thought Processes!
by V H on May 25, 2007 11:30 AM Permalink
Iyer - dude were where you all these years. Encounter killing has been happening since long time? TN kicked you guys out. Now its time to kick you out of India along with these terrorists
RE:Bizarre thought Processes!
by sm on May 25, 2007 08:00 PM Permalink
Leftists like you are forever denigrating their own culture and life-systems, sleeping with the enemies (Islamists, Christian fanatics, Secular scum and Maoists) who want the destruction and fragmentation of Hindu society at large first; followed by destruction of India itself. It's a mistake to label guys like you as Left-liberal!! Leftists are never liberals; whosoever thought of it!!
Leftists-Communists under Stalin had a pact with Hitler till 1940; birds of a feather flocked together- it was an uneasy truce during which both these MASS MURDERERS inspected each others arsenals!! Only close friends can see one another's toys!! Greed, misplaced trust got the better of them esp. Hitler and led to the Nazis fighting their erstwhile friends - the Commies. DON'T FORGET THIS FACT, Mr Iyer!! Both Nazis and Communists have mercilessly killed their detractors or sent them to concentration camps/ gulags!! Hindus themselves - passive, timid(like you!!) or broad minded - lived with others for centuries inspite of their land, homes, women and children being taken away at the point of the sword; were subjected to gruesome genocides by these very Muslims over a MILLENIUM, Hindu/ Sikh womenfolk were subjected to every dishonour unimaginable!!
Today these very Muslim descendants are crying hoarse to defend a criminal Jihadi's life.....just because he is a Muslim!! They like Mohammad Ali would still support a 'fallen Muslim' to a kind Hindu (Ali brothers reference to the murderer of Swami Shraddhanand in the early 1940s) and still get support from Spineless Gandhis!!
Sangh is not what it is made out to be. If left to the activists the whole of India could've burned each time it was banned(thrice) and millions of Muslim households would have mourned during Partition! That didn't happen; only millions of Hindu households were left shattered, for the patience and temerity shown by Sangh leaders, swayamsevaks and is still mistakenly shown.
I know that 'Educated, Egoistic and Arrogant' Hindus like are in the FIFTH COLUMN of India n Hindu -bashers (along with the Missionaries, Mullahs n Maoists). I used to be one amongst you. I feel ashamed to be called Secular. Religion and the State were always separate in India since thousands of years before the Muslim Kingdoms!! Where is it's place now??? Communally yours - Sushil Manoharan
Never heard of it. So we have it in India, because Police and judiciary are unable to punish the guilty. The politicians and judiciary are chamcha's of the terrorists and underworld. So if the terrorist falls out with the politicians or police they are put away. That's what is encounter killing, it is not precursor to averting a real danger. It is matter of convenience for police and the politician that's it. Please stop justifying it on a public forum and subvert the public opinion. it is a different matter if sohrabuddin or whatever crap had to be shot while he was doing something sinister. That will not count as encounter...Police could have shot Choo if they had a chance and that's real encounter.
The objection is, or was - before the media of yellow hue stepped in, to faking the encounter. Not to the killing of Sohrabuddin. Kausar Bi is a different matter altogether. Genuine encouters are inevitable and the cops have little choice in it. However, stage-managing of encounters and according such encounters back-handed legitimacy would cut both ways. There is always a strong chance that such legitimacy would result in births of monsters for whom nothing matters.
how come police officers all of a sudden become all honest, morally corrupt, upholding the honor of the society when the " encounters" are discussed? we know that is not true. in fact, in any other topic, we all discuss how most of the poice force in india is morally corrupt. Now rajeev, with his twisted logic suggests that encounters should be subtly legitimized, may be because this time the victim was a mozzie, and a smuggler. but that will not always be! he should understand the implications of his suggestions. how about police in nithari encountering all the slum population and their children and then claiming that they were a danger!! WHAT THEN?
RE:NONSENSE
by nitn on May 24, 2007 08:29 AM Permalink
sorry, read the first line as "how come police officers all of a sudden become all honest, morally upright, upholding the honor"
Rajeev, your point is well-taken. But there are holes in the 'greater common good' approach. Did the police take money for doing this or did they consider this a 'social work' ? What was the reason for Sohrabuddin to blackmail the marble lobby ? Is there a politician-marble lobby-police nexus that drives these killings ? Why is it that majority of the encounters happen to one religious community ? Are we running short of hindu extortionists ? Too many angle to investigate. If it is indeed that Vanzara was acting for 'greater common good' and not for money, you may have a point. What does it mean for the society as a whole ? How many encounters can be justified as 'greater common good' ? Who decides what is good for the common man ?
Whatif no alert is sent by the terrorists? What if an alert is sent? In both the cases,the system as works today hardly prevents any attack! Those who are motivted in the name of Islam, are basically poor/exploited, to such an extent that they don't care for their lives at all! Either they received a good amount of ARAB money or threatened to death for not following the commander's orders, they, being immune to the feeligs of incoming death, are eveready to perform in toto , just after signal by the masterminds! Why some alerts are foiled or dont get executed because the Islamic BRUTES,though threat, are cautious to create panic and destructions economically and psychologically too(fear tactics)and kill least men, because of after effects! Everytime we noticed men were killed but it was not as much as a havoc would kill! Its the feeling to be passed on that terror is avoidable if Islam is not allowed to rule or Islamis are touched! "Cowards die many times!" the proverb says. Similar to the hunting of a buffalow by a tiger, in the jungles! Coming to the point, inaction exists in different ways - by the policy(infights in the parliament shows), by the bias(muslims as a whole are to be safeguarded),by the laws (enactment then discard),by pastings(favoutites and unfaboutits),in short by anything ! The complacency has grown over a period of time! The question is how to get out of it? SHOULD WE DISCUSS THAT FOR AN EFFECTIVE SOLUTION?
RE:Anything new ??
by Ramprakash Naidu on May 23, 2007 09:25 PM Permalink
what you mean is that RAJEEV has to write a simple sentence that he supports "what Police has done in the large interest of Society", than writing this article......Is it?
RE:Anything new ??
by Lucky B on May 24, 2007 06:39 PM Permalink
Rajeev usually writes for sack of writing. He usually steal an idea, or some time pick an idea, even without knowing much detail about them.
