भारतीय किसान संघ का प्रशिक्षण शिविर शुरू
कटक,(visakeo) कटक डीएवी द यूनिवर्स परिसर में बुधवार से भारतीय किसान संघ का तीन दिवसीय प्रशिक्षण शिविर शुरू हुआ है। शिविर में राज्य व राष्ट्रीय स्तर के किसान संघ के नेताओं ने शामिल होकर कई अहम मुद्दों पर चर्चा की। आगामी दिनों में संघ के तरफ से अपनाने वाले तमाम कार्यक्रमों के बारे में भी विस्तार से चर्चा की गई। भारतीय किसान संघ के अखिल भारतीय सचिव दिनेश कुलकर्णी, महिला शाखा की प्रमुख विमला तिवारी, किसान संघ के राज्य अध्यक्ष राधाकृष्ण मेयर, संगठन सचिव प्रदीप राय, उपाध्यक्ष निमाई चरण स्वांई, महासचिव जानकी बल्लभ स्वांई व राज्य भर से आए तमाम सदस्यों ने इस शिविर में भाग लिया। इस दौरान आगामी दिनों में अपनी मांगों को लेकर राज्य भर में आन्दोलन किए जाने के बारे में चर्चा की गई। खासतौर पर किसानों को जागरूक कराकर उनके लिए उपलब्ध तमाम फायदों के बारे में उन्हें सूचित करना ही इस शिविर का लक्ष्य है, जिससे उन्हें अधिक से अधिक फायदा मिल पाएगा।
Friday, October 28, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Dr Subramanian Swamy files complaint against Soniya Gandhi on Communal Violence
Dr Subramanian Swamy files complaint against Soniya Gandhi on Communal Violence Bill
http://samvada.org/2011/news/dr-subramanian-swamy-files-complaint-against-soniya-gandhi-on-communal-violence-bill/
From:
Dr Subramanian Swamy , President of Janata Party, A-77, Nizamuddin East, Sector 18, Rohini, New Delhi-110013:
To:
SHO/Insp: D.P. Singh, Sector 18, Rohini, Crime Branch, New Delhi.
Re: Registering of FIR u/s 153A & B, 295A & 505(2) of Indian Penal Code.
Dated: October 24, 2011.
1. In public interest I am sending by Courier service a complaint in my name against Chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi of National Advisory Council, which has its office at 2 Motilal Place, New Delhi-110011, Tel: 23062582, and also against unnamed other members of the said NAC for committing offences of propagating hate against the Hindu community of India by circulating for enacting as law a Draft Bill described as PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE BILL OF 2011. This Draft Bill has been posted on the NAC official website, is dated July 21, 2011 and sent for adoption by Parliament. That this 2011 Draft Bill is mischievous in content of targeting the Hindu community, malafide, unreasonable and prejudicial to public order, is apparent from the second section of Explanatory Note [Annexed herein] to the Draft Bill titled “Key Provisions of the Bill”, thereby inciting crimes against the Hindu community with impunity, and thus committing offences u/s 153A & B, 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The UPA Government in December, 2005 had introduced earlier a Draft Bill [2005] in the Parliament described as THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE (PREVENTION, CONTROL AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS) BILL (2005).
3. The Draft Bill however did not find favour with any Party. Leaders of several political parties felt that the Draft Bill provided sweeping powers to the Central Government thus undermining the authority of the State Governments. But the most vocal opposition to this draft Bill came from the Muslim, Christian and so called secular quarters. Their contention was just the opposite of what the political leaders were saying. The view of Muslim and Christian groups was that the 2005 Draft Bill was “completely toothless”. They demanded that the powers of managing communal violence be vested in non-government actors and make governments and administration at all levels accountable them for communal violence.
4. The All India Christian Council was in the forefront of this campaign against the 2005 Draft Bill as being “too weak”. In a letter written to the Prime Minister, Ms Sonia Gandhi, herself a Christian, through the AICC had conveyed to the PM the Christian Council concerns about the 2005 Draft Bill, and then revised the same as the 2009 Draft Bill.
5. The Muslim bodies too joined in the protest campaign against the draft as being too weak. They wanted provisions to make police and civil administration and state authorities “accountable” to public bodies. The Joint Committee of Muslim Organizations for Empowerment (JCMOE) made the demand on behalf of these organizations. JCMOE also urged the government to convene a meeting of leaders of “targeted communities” to note their views on the Bill as follows:
“The Bill does not make police or administration or state authorities accountable and provide for timely and effective intervention by the National Human Rights Commission, if the communal violence spreads or continues for weeks, or by the Central Government under Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, duly modified. On the other hand, ironically, the Bill grants more power to the local police and administration, which, more often than not acts in league with the rioters by declaring the area as ‘communally disturbed area’ JCMOE statement said.
6. It is interesting to note that these two statements, the Muslim and the Christian, come at around the same time as though they were premeditated. They probably were.
7. From their arguments in opposition to the Draft Bill, it is clear that they wanted a Bill that would consider only the Christians and Muslims as the “generally targeted” victims of communal violence; and that the word ‘communal violence’ be re-defined in such a way that only the Muslims and Christians are treated as victims and Hindus as predators, and that the local police and administration, including the State administration, considered hand-in-glove with the perpetrators of violence. Hence the Bill should empower the Central Government to invoke Art. 355 and 356 of the Constitution against any state in the event of such communal violence.
8. Since the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill (2005) does not discriminate between the perpetrators and victims of communal violence on religious grounds and also it does not envisage the State administration as committed in preventing such violence, these groups wanted the Bill to be withdrawn.
9. The National Advisory Council (NAC) was re-constituted in 2009 by the UPA Government again under the chairmanship of Ms. Sonia Gandhi. The UPA Government promptly handed over the re-drafting of the Bill to the newly constituted NAC and asked it to come up with a fresh draft.
10. The basic communally provocative premise of the re-drafted Bill is that: a) there is a non-dominant group in every State in the form of religious and linguistic minority which is always a victim of violence; b) the dominant majority (usually Hindus) in the State is always the perpetrator of violence; and c) the State administration is, as a rule, biased against the non-dominant group.
11. The object of the re-drafted Bill thus was the basic premise of the NAC that the majority community – read Hindus – are the perpetrators of communal violence in India and the minority – read Muslims and Christians – are the victims, clearly is incitement of religious strife.
12. What is more important is to conclude is that in all cases of communal and targeted violence, dominant religious and linguistic group at the State level is always the perpetrator and the other the victims. Similarly the conclusion that the State machinery is invariably and always biased against the non-dominant group is a gross misstatement of the sincerity and commitment of millions of people who form State administration in the country.
13. This dangerous premise is the incitement of communal strife in this Bill.
14. One can safely conclude that the script writers of this Bill are themselves blinded with religious biases. In India communal violence happens mostly because of politico-communal reasons. In many instances, as documented by several Commissions of Inquiry, it is the so-called minority group that triggers the trouble. We hence need laws that can prevent such violence irrespective of whoever perpetrates it. To argue that since the administration is always biased in favour of the dominant group we need acts that are biased in favour of the non-dominant group is imprudent and puerile.
15. The final Draft is available on the NAC website now. One is not sure when the same will be placed before the Parliament. However, a close scrutiny of the Draft is essential to understand the serious implications of and threats from it to our national integration, social harmony and Constitutional Federalism.
16. This Bill when it becomes an Act will apply to whole country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Note that J&K is one of the two States in India (excluding the North East and other tiny UTs) that has Hindus as minority – the ‘non-dominant group’ according to this Bill. Punjab is the other State where the Sikhs constitute the majority, while in the rest of the entire country it is the Hindus who constitute ‘dominant group’ and by implication the perpetrators of communal violence, according to this Draft Bill.
17. The mischief in the drafting primarily lies in the ‘Definitions’ part contained in Art.3 of the first chapter. Art. 3 (c ) defines Communal and Targeted Violence as under:-
“Communal and targeted violence” means and includes any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group”.
18. The mischief is centered round the word ‘Group’. Art 3(e) defines what constitutes a ‘Group’.
“Group” means a religious or linguistic minority, in any State in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clauses of the Constitution of India;
19. Having thus established that the individual member of the Minority community is always considered a part of the Minority group the Draft Bill goes on to add several detrimental clauses subsequently. Art.3 (f) defines ‘Hostile environment against a group’ thus:
“Hostile environment against a group” means an intimidating or coercive environment that is created when a person belonging to any group as defined under this Act, by virtue of his or her membership of that group, is subjected to any of the following acts:
(i) boycott of the trade or business of such person or making it otherwise difficult for him or her to earn a living; or
(ii) publicly humilitate such person through exclusion from public services, including education, health and transportation of any act of indignity; or
(iii) deprive or threaten to deprive such person of his or her fundamental rights;
or,
(iv) force such person to leave his or her home or place of ordinary residence or livlihood without his or her express consent; or
(v) any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act, that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.”
Note the Clause (v) – ‘Any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act’. The intention here seems to be to make anything and everything an offence, even if it doesn’t come under any definition of an offence. It is clear that the entire definition of ‘hostile environment’ is malafide.
Clause (k) defines who is a ‘victim’. Here the draft makers are very explicit:
“victim” means any person belonging to a group as defined under this Act, who has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or hr property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate;
“Victim” can only be belonging to a ‘group’ as defined under this Act. And the group as defined under this Act is the Minority – the ‘non-dominant group’. That means this act will consider only the Minority as the victims. And he or she will become a ‘victim if he or she has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm….’ Now, physical harm is measurable, mental harm is difficult to gauge, but how on earth can anyone define ‘psychological harm’? The Bill does not define it. Then how can be so-called ‘psychological harm’ be one of the reasons for victimhood?
Similarly, Art. 4 (a) states as follows:
4. Knowledge. – A person is said to knowingly direct any act against a person belonging to a group by virtue of such person’s membership of that group where;
(a) he or she means to engage in the conduct against a person he or she knows belongs to that group;
20. Art 7 of the draft Bill defines ‘sexual assault’. It is by far the most widely covered definition that is very much needed to protect women from becoming targets of sexual violence as part of communal violence. But against the problem is that this definition is applicable to the women belonging to Minority group and women of the Majority community cannot benefit from it. Secondly, it also states that in a case of communal violence sex by consent also can be construed as a crime.
21. Patriotic Indians now realize that the present draft Bill is a standing proof that neo Jinnah-ism – the belief that the minority is perpetually oppressed in India by the Hindu majority – is still poisoning our minds even today by mischievous minds..
22. The present Draft Bill will only promote disharmony. With these kind of laws the LeTs and Hujls across the border need not have to promote terrorism in our territory anymore. All that they need to do is to encourage a minor communal riot and they can achieve what they want – huge rift between the Majority and Minority communities.
23. Hence, the NAC, with Ms Sonia Gandhi as Chairperson, and other members have jointly committed offences under IPC Sections 153A & B, 295A, and 505(2).
24. It is significant that even well known persons of secular credentials have condemned this Bill as divisive. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms. J. Jayalalitha has in a Press Release dated July 29, 2011 [Annexed] has concluded that “the remedy sought [in the Draft Bill] to be provided against communal and targeted violence is worse than the disease itself”.
25. Therefore, this complaint be taken as a basis to register an FIR and conduct investigation into the communal mentality of the NAC chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi and other members and take necessary action under the law to prosecute the offenders under the cited sections of the IPC.
http://samvada.org/2011/news/dr-subramanian-swamy-files-complaint-against-soniya-gandhi-on-communal-violence-bill/
From:
Dr Subramanian Swamy , President of Janata Party, A-77, Nizamuddin East, Sector 18, Rohini, New Delhi-110013:
To:
SHO/Insp: D.P. Singh, Sector 18, Rohini, Crime Branch, New Delhi.
Re: Registering of FIR u/s 153A & B, 295A & 505(2) of Indian Penal Code.
Dated: October 24, 2011.
1. In public interest I am sending by Courier service a complaint in my name against Chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi of National Advisory Council, which has its office at 2 Motilal Place, New Delhi-110011, Tel: 23062582, and also against unnamed other members of the said NAC for committing offences of propagating hate against the Hindu community of India by circulating for enacting as law a Draft Bill described as PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE BILL OF 2011. This Draft Bill has been posted on the NAC official website, is dated July 21, 2011 and sent for adoption by Parliament. That this 2011 Draft Bill is mischievous in content of targeting the Hindu community, malafide, unreasonable and prejudicial to public order, is apparent from the second section of Explanatory Note [Annexed herein] to the Draft Bill titled “Key Provisions of the Bill”, thereby inciting crimes against the Hindu community with impunity, and thus committing offences u/s 153A & B, 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The UPA Government in December, 2005 had introduced earlier a Draft Bill [2005] in the Parliament described as THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE (PREVENTION, CONTROL AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS) BILL (2005).
3. The Draft Bill however did not find favour with any Party. Leaders of several political parties felt that the Draft Bill provided sweeping powers to the Central Government thus undermining the authority of the State Governments. But the most vocal opposition to this draft Bill came from the Muslim, Christian and so called secular quarters. Their contention was just the opposite of what the political leaders were saying. The view of Muslim and Christian groups was that the 2005 Draft Bill was “completely toothless”. They demanded that the powers of managing communal violence be vested in non-government actors and make governments and administration at all levels accountable them for communal violence.
4. The All India Christian Council was in the forefront of this campaign against the 2005 Draft Bill as being “too weak”. In a letter written to the Prime Minister, Ms Sonia Gandhi, herself a Christian, through the AICC had conveyed to the PM the Christian Council concerns about the 2005 Draft Bill, and then revised the same as the 2009 Draft Bill.
5. The Muslim bodies too joined in the protest campaign against the draft as being too weak. They wanted provisions to make police and civil administration and state authorities “accountable” to public bodies. The Joint Committee of Muslim Organizations for Empowerment (JCMOE) made the demand on behalf of these organizations. JCMOE also urged the government to convene a meeting of leaders of “targeted communities” to note their views on the Bill as follows:
“The Bill does not make police or administration or state authorities accountable and provide for timely and effective intervention by the National Human Rights Commission, if the communal violence spreads or continues for weeks, or by the Central Government under Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, duly modified. On the other hand, ironically, the Bill grants more power to the local police and administration, which, more often than not acts in league with the rioters by declaring the area as ‘communally disturbed area’ JCMOE statement said.
6. It is interesting to note that these two statements, the Muslim and the Christian, come at around the same time as though they were premeditated. They probably were.
7. From their arguments in opposition to the Draft Bill, it is clear that they wanted a Bill that would consider only the Christians and Muslims as the “generally targeted” victims of communal violence; and that the word ‘communal violence’ be re-defined in such a way that only the Muslims and Christians are treated as victims and Hindus as predators, and that the local police and administration, including the State administration, considered hand-in-glove with the perpetrators of violence. Hence the Bill should empower the Central Government to invoke Art. 355 and 356 of the Constitution against any state in the event of such communal violence.
8. Since the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill (2005) does not discriminate between the perpetrators and victims of communal violence on religious grounds and also it does not envisage the State administration as committed in preventing such violence, these groups wanted the Bill to be withdrawn.
9. The National Advisory Council (NAC) was re-constituted in 2009 by the UPA Government again under the chairmanship of Ms. Sonia Gandhi. The UPA Government promptly handed over the re-drafting of the Bill to the newly constituted NAC and asked it to come up with a fresh draft.
10. The basic communally provocative premise of the re-drafted Bill is that: a) there is a non-dominant group in every State in the form of religious and linguistic minority which is always a victim of violence; b) the dominant majority (usually Hindus) in the State is always the perpetrator of violence; and c) the State administration is, as a rule, biased against the non-dominant group.
11. The object of the re-drafted Bill thus was the basic premise of the NAC that the majority community – read Hindus – are the perpetrators of communal violence in India and the minority – read Muslims and Christians – are the victims, clearly is incitement of religious strife.
12. What is more important is to conclude is that in all cases of communal and targeted violence, dominant religious and linguistic group at the State level is always the perpetrator and the other the victims. Similarly the conclusion that the State machinery is invariably and always biased against the non-dominant group is a gross misstatement of the sincerity and commitment of millions of people who form State administration in the country.
13. This dangerous premise is the incitement of communal strife in this Bill.
14. One can safely conclude that the script writers of this Bill are themselves blinded with religious biases. In India communal violence happens mostly because of politico-communal reasons. In many instances, as documented by several Commissions of Inquiry, it is the so-called minority group that triggers the trouble. We hence need laws that can prevent such violence irrespective of whoever perpetrates it. To argue that since the administration is always biased in favour of the dominant group we need acts that are biased in favour of the non-dominant group is imprudent and puerile.
15. The final Draft is available on the NAC website now. One is not sure when the same will be placed before the Parliament. However, a close scrutiny of the Draft is essential to understand the serious implications of and threats from it to our national integration, social harmony and Constitutional Federalism.
16. This Bill when it becomes an Act will apply to whole country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Note that J&K is one of the two States in India (excluding the North East and other tiny UTs) that has Hindus as minority – the ‘non-dominant group’ according to this Bill. Punjab is the other State where the Sikhs constitute the majority, while in the rest of the entire country it is the Hindus who constitute ‘dominant group’ and by implication the perpetrators of communal violence, according to this Draft Bill.
17. The mischief in the drafting primarily lies in the ‘Definitions’ part contained in Art.3 of the first chapter. Art. 3 (c ) defines Communal and Targeted Violence as under:-
“Communal and targeted violence” means and includes any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group”.
18. The mischief is centered round the word ‘Group’. Art 3(e) defines what constitutes a ‘Group’.
“Group” means a religious or linguistic minority, in any State in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clauses of the Constitution of India;
19. Having thus established that the individual member of the Minority community is always considered a part of the Minority group the Draft Bill goes on to add several detrimental clauses subsequently. Art.3 (f) defines ‘Hostile environment against a group’ thus:
“Hostile environment against a group” means an intimidating or coercive environment that is created when a person belonging to any group as defined under this Act, by virtue of his or her membership of that group, is subjected to any of the following acts:
(i) boycott of the trade or business of such person or making it otherwise difficult for him or her to earn a living; or
(ii) publicly humilitate such person through exclusion from public services, including education, health and transportation of any act of indignity; or
(iii) deprive or threaten to deprive such person of his or her fundamental rights;
or,
(iv) force such person to leave his or her home or place of ordinary residence or livlihood without his or her express consent; or
(v) any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act, that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.”
Note the Clause (v) – ‘Any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act’. The intention here seems to be to make anything and everything an offence, even if it doesn’t come under any definition of an offence. It is clear that the entire definition of ‘hostile environment’ is malafide.
Clause (k) defines who is a ‘victim’. Here the draft makers are very explicit:
“victim” means any person belonging to a group as defined under this Act, who has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or hr property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate;
“Victim” can only be belonging to a ‘group’ as defined under this Act. And the group as defined under this Act is the Minority – the ‘non-dominant group’. That means this act will consider only the Minority as the victims. And he or she will become a ‘victim if he or she has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm….’ Now, physical harm is measurable, mental harm is difficult to gauge, but how on earth can anyone define ‘psychological harm’? The Bill does not define it. Then how can be so-called ‘psychological harm’ be one of the reasons for victimhood?
Similarly, Art. 4 (a) states as follows:
4. Knowledge. – A person is said to knowingly direct any act against a person belonging to a group by virtue of such person’s membership of that group where;
(a) he or she means to engage in the conduct against a person he or she knows belongs to that group;
20. Art 7 of the draft Bill defines ‘sexual assault’. It is by far the most widely covered definition that is very much needed to protect women from becoming targets of sexual violence as part of communal violence. But against the problem is that this definition is applicable to the women belonging to Minority group and women of the Majority community cannot benefit from it. Secondly, it also states that in a case of communal violence sex by consent also can be construed as a crime.
21. Patriotic Indians now realize that the present draft Bill is a standing proof that neo Jinnah-ism – the belief that the minority is perpetually oppressed in India by the Hindu majority – is still poisoning our minds even today by mischievous minds..
22. The present Draft Bill will only promote disharmony. With these kind of laws the LeTs and Hujls across the border need not have to promote terrorism in our territory anymore. All that they need to do is to encourage a minor communal riot and they can achieve what they want – huge rift between the Majority and Minority communities.
23. Hence, the NAC, with Ms Sonia Gandhi as Chairperson, and other members have jointly committed offences under IPC Sections 153A & B, 295A, and 505(2).
24. It is significant that even well known persons of secular credentials have condemned this Bill as divisive. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms. J. Jayalalitha has in a Press Release dated July 29, 2011 [Annexed] has concluded that “the remedy sought [in the Draft Bill] to be provided against communal and targeted violence is worse than the disease itself”.
25. Therefore, this complaint be taken as a basis to register an FIR and conduct investigation into the communal mentality of the NAC chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi and other members and take necessary action under the law to prosecute the offenders under the cited sections of the IPC.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
dvani demands recovery of black money
Advani demands recovery of black money
Sambalpur: As part of his countrywide campaign against corruption, BJP leader L K Advani on Sunday said that if the black money worth Rs 25 lakh crore stashed in foreign banks returns to India, the country could see a new age.
The entire money would be utilized for the villages of India and with such huge investment in rural India, the dream of Naya Bharat could be achieved, he said during his Jan Chetana Yatra in Odisha.
Advani reached Bargarh almost two hours late after completing his schedules in the BJP- ruled Chhatisgarh. At the entry point at Luhurachati on Odisha-Chhatisgarh border, the State party leaders gathered to accord him a warm welcome.
Addressing a vast gathering at Bargarh, Advani said the main aim of the Yatra was to create awareness among the people all over the country on the unbriddled corruption by the UPA Government and recovery of black money stashed in foreign banks.
Referring to the ‘Cash for Vote’ incident in Parliament in 2008 and the role he and his party MPs played in it, Advani said, “We did everything to expose the ugly face of the Congress in particular and the UPA Government’s plans in general to save the minority Government by any means. Our MPs showed the crores of money in the floor of the Parliament, given to them to vote for the Congress to save the Government. But finally, the UPA Government arrested the MPs for no fault of theirs,” lamented Advani during his speech.
“In the floor of the Parliament, I asked Pranab Mukherjee and P Chidambaram last month that I directed the MPs to receive the cash and show it in the House. If you have arrested my MPs, arrest me too,” said Advani further.
“In every developed and civilised nation, whistle-blowers are treated with respect. They are also given protection. But in our country, the situation is just reverse and not ordinary persons but MPs who brought the ugly affairs of ‘Cash for Vote’ to light had to go to Tihar jail,” he rued.
Coming down heavily on the UPA II, the BJP patriarch said, “I have not seen such a corrupt Government in my lifetime and particularly since Independence.”
While comparing the present regime with that of Jawaharlal Nehru and even of Indira Gandhi, he termed UPA II to be the most corrupt one.
Talking about the current Government, Advani ridiculed, “Manmohan Singh presides and Sonia Gandhi decides.”
“In 1997, I started the Swarn Jayanti Rath Yatra and BJP with NDA came to power in 1998 and ruled for six years with AB Vajpayee as the Prime Minister. People of the country still remember the good governance of the NDA and BJP,” said Advani. He also cited examples of the BJP- and the NDA-ruled States in Chhatisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar with their people satisfied to the greatest extent.
Senior leaders of the party like Anant Kumar, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Vijay Goel, State unit president Jual Oram, Rudra Pani, Radha Rani Panda and all local leaders of the party were present.
Sambalpur: As part of his countrywide campaign against corruption, BJP leader L K Advani on Sunday said that if the black money worth Rs 25 lakh crore stashed in foreign banks returns to India, the country could see a new age.
The entire money would be utilized for the villages of India and with such huge investment in rural India, the dream of Naya Bharat could be achieved, he said during his Jan Chetana Yatra in Odisha.
Advani reached Bargarh almost two hours late after completing his schedules in the BJP- ruled Chhatisgarh. At the entry point at Luhurachati on Odisha-Chhatisgarh border, the State party leaders gathered to accord him a warm welcome.
Addressing a vast gathering at Bargarh, Advani said the main aim of the Yatra was to create awareness among the people all over the country on the unbriddled corruption by the UPA Government and recovery of black money stashed in foreign banks.
Referring to the ‘Cash for Vote’ incident in Parliament in 2008 and the role he and his party MPs played in it, Advani said, “We did everything to expose the ugly face of the Congress in particular and the UPA Government’s plans in general to save the minority Government by any means. Our MPs showed the crores of money in the floor of the Parliament, given to them to vote for the Congress to save the Government. But finally, the UPA Government arrested the MPs for no fault of theirs,” lamented Advani during his speech.
“In the floor of the Parliament, I asked Pranab Mukherjee and P Chidambaram last month that I directed the MPs to receive the cash and show it in the House. If you have arrested my MPs, arrest me too,” said Advani further.
“In every developed and civilised nation, whistle-blowers are treated with respect. They are also given protection. But in our country, the situation is just reverse and not ordinary persons but MPs who brought the ugly affairs of ‘Cash for Vote’ to light had to go to Tihar jail,” he rued.
Coming down heavily on the UPA II, the BJP patriarch said, “I have not seen such a corrupt Government in my lifetime and particularly since Independence.”
While comparing the present regime with that of Jawaharlal Nehru and even of Indira Gandhi, he termed UPA II to be the most corrupt one.
Talking about the current Government, Advani ridiculed, “Manmohan Singh presides and Sonia Gandhi decides.”
“In 1997, I started the Swarn Jayanti Rath Yatra and BJP with NDA came to power in 1998 and ruled for six years with AB Vajpayee as the Prime Minister. People of the country still remember the good governance of the NDA and BJP,” said Advani. He also cited examples of the BJP- and the NDA-ruled States in Chhatisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar with their people satisfied to the greatest extent.
Senior leaders of the party like Anant Kumar, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Vijay Goel, State unit president Jual Oram, Rudra Pani, Radha Rani Panda and all local leaders of the party were present.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Arun Jaitley: Communal violence bill punishes only the majority community
Arun Jaitley: Communal violence bill punishes only the majority community
A draft of a proposed legislation titled 'Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011' has been put in the public domain. The draft bill ostensibly appears to be a part of an endeavour to prevent and punish communal violence in the country.
Though that may be the ostensible object of the proposed law its real object is to the contrary. It is a bill which if it is ever enacted as a law will intrude into the domain of the state, damage a federal polity of India and create an imbalance in the inter-community relationship of India.
What does the bill in effect state
The most vital definition of the bill is of the expression 'group'. A 'group' means a religious or linguistic minority and in a given state may include the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The bill creates a whole set of new offences in Chapter II. Clause 6 clarifies that the offences under this bill are in addition to the offences under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Can a person be punished twice for the same offence?
Clause 7 prescribes that a person is said to commit sexual assault if he or she commits any of the sexual act against a person belonging to a 'group' by virtue of that person's membership of a group. Clause 8 prescribes that 'hate propaganda' is an offence when a person by words oral or written or a visible representation causes hate against a 'group' or a person belonging to a 'group'.
Clause 9 creates an offence for communal and targeted violence. Any person who singly or jointly or acting under the influence of an association engages in unlawful activity directed against a 'group' is guilty of organised communal and targeted violence.
Clause 10 provides for punishment of a person who expends or supplies money in the furtherance or support of an offence against a 'group'. The offence of torture is made out under clause 12 where a public servant inflicts pain or a suffering, mental or physical, on a person belonging to a 'group'.
Clause 13 punishes a public servant for dereliction of duty in relation to offences mentioned in this bill. Clause 14 punishes public servants who control the armed forces or security forces and fails to exercise control over people in his command in order to discharge their duty effectively.
Clause 15 expands the principle of vicarious liability. An offence is deemed to be committed by a senior person or office bearer of an association and he fails to exercise control over subordinates under his control or supervision. He is vicariously liable for an offence which is committed by some other person. Clause 16 renders orders of superiors as no defence for an alleged offence committed under this section.
Any communal trouble during which offences are committed is a law and order problem. Dealing with the law and order is squarely within the domain of the state governments. In the division of powers between the Centre and the states, the central government has no direct authority to deal with the law and order issues; nor is it directly empowered to deal with them nor it can legislate on the subject. The central government's jurisdiction restricts itself to issue advisories, directions and eventually forming an opinion under Article 356 that the governance of the state can be carried on in accordance with the Constitution or not.
If the proposed bill becomes a law, then effectively it is the central government which would have usurped the jurisdiction of the states and legislated on a subject squarely within the domain of the states.
India has been gradually moving towards a more amicable inter-community relationship. Even when minor communal or caste disturbances occur, there is a national mood of revulsion against them. The governments, media, the courts among other institutions rise to perform their duty. The perpetrators of communal trouble should certainly be punished.
This draft bill however proceeds on a presumption that communal trouble is created only by members of the majority community and never by a member of the minority community. Thus, offences committed by members of the majority community against members of the minority community are punishable. Identical offences committed by minority groups against the majority are not deemed to be offences at all.
Thus a sexual assault is punishable under this bill and only if committed against a person belonging to a minority 'group'. A member of a majority community in a state does not fall within the purview of a 'group'. A 'hate propaganda' is an offence against minority community and not otherwise. Organised and targeted violence, hate propaganda, financial help to such persons who commit an offence, torture or dereliction of duty by public servants are all offences only if committed against a member of the minority community and not otherwise.
No member of the majority community can ever be a victim. This draft law thus proceeds on an assumption which re-defines the offences in a highly discriminatory manner. No member of the minority community are to be punished under this act for having committed the offence against the majority community.
It is only a member of the majority community who is prone to commit such offences and therefore the legislative intent of this law is that since only majority community members commit these offences, culpability and punishment should only be confined to them.
If implemented in a manner as provided by this bill, it opens up a huge scope for abuse. It can incentivise members of some communities to commit such offences encouraged by the fact that they would never be charged under the act.
Terrorist groups may no longer indulge in terrorist violence. They will be incentivised to create communal riots due to a statutory assumption that members of a jihadi group will not be punished under this law. The law makes only members of the majority community culpable. Why should the law discriminate on the basis of a religion or caste?
An offence is an offence irrespective of origin of the offender. Here is a proposed law being legislated in the 21st century where caste and religion of an offender wipe out the culpability under this law.
Who will ensure implementation of this act
The bill provides for a seven-member national authority for communal harmony, justice and reparations. Of these seven members at least four of them including the chairman and vice-chairman shall only belong to a 'group' (the minority community). A similar body is intended to be created in the states. Membership of this body thus shall be on religious and caste grounds. The offenders under this law are only the members of the majority community.
The enforcement of the act will be done by a body where statutorily the members of the majority community will be in a minority. The governments will have to make available police and other investigative agencies to this authority. This authority shall have a power to conduct investigations and enter buildings, conduct raids and searches to make inquiries into complaints and to initiate steps, record proceedings for prosecution and make its recommendations to the governments.
It shall have powers to deal with the armed forces. It has a power to send advisories to the central and state governments. Members of this authority shall be appointed in the case of central government by a collegium which shall comprise of prime minister, the home minister, and the leader of the opposition in the house of people and a leader of each recognised political party. A similar provision is created in relation to the states. Thus, it is the opposition at the Centre and the states which will have a majority say in the composition of the authority.
What are the procedures to be followed
The procedures to be followed for investigations under this act are extraordinary. No statement shall be recorded under section 161 of the CrPC. Victim statements shall be only under section 164 (before courts). The government will have a power to intercept and block messages and telecommunications under this law. Under clause 74 of the bill if an offence of hate propaganda is alleged against a person, a presumption of guilt shall exist unless the offender proves to the contrary. An allegation thus is equivalent to proof. Public servants under this bill under clause 67 are liable to be proceeded against without any sanction from the state.
The special public prosecutor to conduct proceedings under this act shall not act in aid of truth but 'in the interest of the victim'. The name and identity of the victim complainant will not be disclosed. Progress of the case will be reported by the police to the victim complainant. The occurrence of organised communal and targeted violence under this act shall amount to an internal disturbance in a state within the meaning of Article 355 entitling the central government to impose President's Rule.
The drafting of this bill appears to be a handiwork of those social entrepreneurs who have learnt from the Gujarat experience of how to fix senior leaders even when they are not liable for an offence.
Offences which are defined under the bill have been deliberately left vague. Communal and targeted violence means violence which destroys the 'secular fabric of the nation'. There can be legitimate political differences as to what constitutes secularism. The phrase secularism can be construed differently by different persons. Which definition is the judge supposed to follow? Similarly, the creation of a hostile 'environment' may leave enough scope for a subjective decision as to what constitutes 'a hostile environment'.
The inevitable consequences of such a law would be that in the event of any communal trouble the majority community would be assumed to be guilty. There would be a presumption of guilt unless otherwise proved. Only a member of the majority shall be held culpable under this law.
A member of the minority shall never commit an offence of hate propaganda or a communal violence. There is a virtual statutory declaration of innocence under this law for him.
The statutory authority prescribed at the central and state level would intrinsically suffer from an institutional bias because of its membership structure based on caste and community.
I have no doubt that once this law is implemented with the intention with which it is being drafted, it will create disharmony in the inter-community relations in India. It is a law fraught with dangerous consequences. It is bound to be misused. Perhaps, that appears to be the real purpose behind its drafting. It will encourage minority communalism. The law defies the basic principles of equality and fairness.
Social entrepreneurs in the National Advisory Council can be expected to draft such a dangerous and discriminatory law. One wonders how the political head of that body cleared this draft. When some persons carried on a campaign against the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act -- an anti-terrorist law, the members of the UPA argued that even terrorists should be tried under the normal laws. A far more draconian law is now being proposed.
The states will be watching hopelessly when the Centre goes ahead with this misadventure. Their power is being usurped. The search for communal harmony is through fairness -- not through reverse discrimination.
Arun Jaitley
A draft of a proposed legislation titled 'Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011' has been put in the public domain. The draft bill ostensibly appears to be a part of an endeavour to prevent and punish communal violence in the country.
Though that may be the ostensible object of the proposed law its real object is to the contrary. It is a bill which if it is ever enacted as a law will intrude into the domain of the state, damage a federal polity of India and create an imbalance in the inter-community relationship of India.
What does the bill in effect state
The most vital definition of the bill is of the expression 'group'. A 'group' means a religious or linguistic minority and in a given state may include the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The bill creates a whole set of new offences in Chapter II. Clause 6 clarifies that the offences under this bill are in addition to the offences under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Can a person be punished twice for the same offence?
Clause 7 prescribes that a person is said to commit sexual assault if he or she commits any of the sexual act against a person belonging to a 'group' by virtue of that person's membership of a group. Clause 8 prescribes that 'hate propaganda' is an offence when a person by words oral or written or a visible representation causes hate against a 'group' or a person belonging to a 'group'.
Clause 9 creates an offence for communal and targeted violence. Any person who singly or jointly or acting under the influence of an association engages in unlawful activity directed against a 'group' is guilty of organised communal and targeted violence.
Clause 10 provides for punishment of a person who expends or supplies money in the furtherance or support of an offence against a 'group'. The offence of torture is made out under clause 12 where a public servant inflicts pain or a suffering, mental or physical, on a person belonging to a 'group'.
Clause 13 punishes a public servant for dereliction of duty in relation to offences mentioned in this bill. Clause 14 punishes public servants who control the armed forces or security forces and fails to exercise control over people in his command in order to discharge their duty effectively.
Clause 15 expands the principle of vicarious liability. An offence is deemed to be committed by a senior person or office bearer of an association and he fails to exercise control over subordinates under his control or supervision. He is vicariously liable for an offence which is committed by some other person. Clause 16 renders orders of superiors as no defence for an alleged offence committed under this section.
Any communal trouble during which offences are committed is a law and order problem. Dealing with the law and order is squarely within the domain of the state governments. In the division of powers between the Centre and the states, the central government has no direct authority to deal with the law and order issues; nor is it directly empowered to deal with them nor it can legislate on the subject. The central government's jurisdiction restricts itself to issue advisories, directions and eventually forming an opinion under Article 356 that the governance of the state can be carried on in accordance with the Constitution or not.
If the proposed bill becomes a law, then effectively it is the central government which would have usurped the jurisdiction of the states and legislated on a subject squarely within the domain of the states.
India has been gradually moving towards a more amicable inter-community relationship. Even when minor communal or caste disturbances occur, there is a national mood of revulsion against them. The governments, media, the courts among other institutions rise to perform their duty. The perpetrators of communal trouble should certainly be punished.
This draft bill however proceeds on a presumption that communal trouble is created only by members of the majority community and never by a member of the minority community. Thus, offences committed by members of the majority community against members of the minority community are punishable. Identical offences committed by minority groups against the majority are not deemed to be offences at all.
Thus a sexual assault is punishable under this bill and only if committed against a person belonging to a minority 'group'. A member of a majority community in a state does not fall within the purview of a 'group'. A 'hate propaganda' is an offence against minority community and not otherwise. Organised and targeted violence, hate propaganda, financial help to such persons who commit an offence, torture or dereliction of duty by public servants are all offences only if committed against a member of the minority community and not otherwise.
No member of the majority community can ever be a victim. This draft law thus proceeds on an assumption which re-defines the offences in a highly discriminatory manner. No member of the minority community are to be punished under this act for having committed the offence against the majority community.
It is only a member of the majority community who is prone to commit such offences and therefore the legislative intent of this law is that since only majority community members commit these offences, culpability and punishment should only be confined to them.
If implemented in a manner as provided by this bill, it opens up a huge scope for abuse. It can incentivise members of some communities to commit such offences encouraged by the fact that they would never be charged under the act.
Terrorist groups may no longer indulge in terrorist violence. They will be incentivised to create communal riots due to a statutory assumption that members of a jihadi group will not be punished under this law. The law makes only members of the majority community culpable. Why should the law discriminate on the basis of a religion or caste?
An offence is an offence irrespective of origin of the offender. Here is a proposed law being legislated in the 21st century where caste and religion of an offender wipe out the culpability under this law.
Who will ensure implementation of this act
The bill provides for a seven-member national authority for communal harmony, justice and reparations. Of these seven members at least four of them including the chairman and vice-chairman shall only belong to a 'group' (the minority community). A similar body is intended to be created in the states. Membership of this body thus shall be on religious and caste grounds. The offenders under this law are only the members of the majority community.
The enforcement of the act will be done by a body where statutorily the members of the majority community will be in a minority. The governments will have to make available police and other investigative agencies to this authority. This authority shall have a power to conduct investigations and enter buildings, conduct raids and searches to make inquiries into complaints and to initiate steps, record proceedings for prosecution and make its recommendations to the governments.
It shall have powers to deal with the armed forces. It has a power to send advisories to the central and state governments. Members of this authority shall be appointed in the case of central government by a collegium which shall comprise of prime minister, the home minister, and the leader of the opposition in the house of people and a leader of each recognised political party. A similar provision is created in relation to the states. Thus, it is the opposition at the Centre and the states which will have a majority say in the composition of the authority.
What are the procedures to be followed
The procedures to be followed for investigations under this act are extraordinary. No statement shall be recorded under section 161 of the CrPC. Victim statements shall be only under section 164 (before courts). The government will have a power to intercept and block messages and telecommunications under this law. Under clause 74 of the bill if an offence of hate propaganda is alleged against a person, a presumption of guilt shall exist unless the offender proves to the contrary. An allegation thus is equivalent to proof. Public servants under this bill under clause 67 are liable to be proceeded against without any sanction from the state.
The special public prosecutor to conduct proceedings under this act shall not act in aid of truth but 'in the interest of the victim'. The name and identity of the victim complainant will not be disclosed. Progress of the case will be reported by the police to the victim complainant. The occurrence of organised communal and targeted violence under this act shall amount to an internal disturbance in a state within the meaning of Article 355 entitling the central government to impose President's Rule.
The drafting of this bill appears to be a handiwork of those social entrepreneurs who have learnt from the Gujarat experience of how to fix senior leaders even when they are not liable for an offence.
Offences which are defined under the bill have been deliberately left vague. Communal and targeted violence means violence which destroys the 'secular fabric of the nation'. There can be legitimate political differences as to what constitutes secularism. The phrase secularism can be construed differently by different persons. Which definition is the judge supposed to follow? Similarly, the creation of a hostile 'environment' may leave enough scope for a subjective decision as to what constitutes 'a hostile environment'.
The inevitable consequences of such a law would be that in the event of any communal trouble the majority community would be assumed to be guilty. There would be a presumption of guilt unless otherwise proved. Only a member of the majority shall be held culpable under this law.
A member of the minority shall never commit an offence of hate propaganda or a communal violence. There is a virtual statutory declaration of innocence under this law for him.
The statutory authority prescribed at the central and state level would intrinsically suffer from an institutional bias because of its membership structure based on caste and community.
I have no doubt that once this law is implemented with the intention with which it is being drafted, it will create disharmony in the inter-community relations in India. It is a law fraught with dangerous consequences. It is bound to be misused. Perhaps, that appears to be the real purpose behind its drafting. It will encourage minority communalism. The law defies the basic principles of equality and fairness.
Social entrepreneurs in the National Advisory Council can be expected to draft such a dangerous and discriminatory law. One wonders how the political head of that body cleared this draft. When some persons carried on a campaign against the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act -- an anti-terrorist law, the members of the UPA argued that even terrorists should be tried under the normal laws. A far more draconian law is now being proposed.
The states will be watching hopelessly when the Centre goes ahead with this misadventure. Their power is being usurped. The search for communal harmony is through fairness -- not through reverse discrimination.
Arun Jaitley
Sunday, October 16, 2011
PCTV BILL 2-11 IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL : DR M.RAMA. JOIS
PCTV BILL 2-11 IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL : DR M.RAMA. JOIS
Bhubaneswar (VISAKEO), 16th Oct:- Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (PCTV) Bill-2011 is un-constitutional. It is violative of article 15 of the constitution which prohibits discrimination on the ground of religion or caste and reserves the the right to equality of all citizens. The bill is more disastrous than the partition of India as it is intended to divide us the people of india on communal lines. Therefore this bill should not be permitted even to be introduced in the parliamenr, told Dr M.Rama Jois, RajyaSabha MP, former Chief Justice of Punjab-Haryana Highcourt & X-Governor of Bihar & Jhadkhand. He speaks all this in a seminar on this proposed bill organised today by Viswa Sambad Kendra, Odisha at Redcross Bhawan, Bbsr.
Retd Prof of Utkal University Dr Sachidananda Tripathy presided over the meeting. Other guests were retd police DG Sarat Chandra Mishra, former spl CBI judge Hrudaya Ballabha Das, Sr journalist Pratap Mahanty, Advocate of Highcourt Kailash Chandra Kara & Sarbeswara Behera. All of them speaks about the social, political & legal aspects of this proposed law.
Dr Jois also told that this bill is intended more for vote bank politics than respect to constitution and law. It is also is a threat to the secular aspects of our country. Mr S.Ch Misra told that the persons who preapered the draft bill are neither legal experts nor elected representatives of our country. It will be mere an injustice to the majority of people in the name of secularism. Mr P.Mahanty expressed his concern over the anti-Hindu attitude of the UPA government who is preparing such a bill to favour minority. He even warned that if the bill will transfer into law it can cause another partition of India. Mr Das, Advocate Mr Kara & Mr Behera also told in the same line that this bill has number of lacunas & it can be used against Hindus with ill intention.
In the meeting it was anounced that Viswa Sambad Kendra, Odisha will launch a mass awareness campaign against the bill to unite all people irrespect of religion, caste & creed.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Invitation to cover a statelevel seminar on ‘Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill- 2011’on October 16, 2011 (Sunday) at 10.00Am at Redcro
VISWA SAMBAD KENDRA, ORISSA
(An agency for news, feature and press clipping service)
Plot No.-4, BUDHESWARI COLONY (NEAR OLD RAILWAY STATION), BHUBANESWAR
Phone / Fax: -0674 – 2573483
E-mail: -visakeobbsr@gmail.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To
Editors, Resident Editors and News Editors
All Oriya, English and Hindi Newspapers and TV Channels
Sub- Invitation to cover a statelevel seminar on ‘Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill- 2011’on October 16, 2011 (Sunday) at 10.00Am at Redcross Bhawan, Unit-9, Bhubaneswar.
Sir,
Viswa Sambad Kendra, Odisha is organising a statelevel seminar on ‘Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill- 2011’. Participants from all over the state & from different sections of society will be present there. Also eminent speakers are going to address in the seminar.
Therefore, we are requesting you to send your media team along with photographers and cameramen to cover the said event as per schedule.
SCHEDULE
Date- 16th Oct 2011 (Sunday)
Time- 10.00Am (Inauguration)
Place- Redcross Bhawan, Unit-9, BBSR
Infront of Institute of Engineers
DETAIL OF SEMINAR
First session-(Violation of constitution, federal system, anti-converson law, violation of CRPC and other law)
Chairperson-Dr Sachidananda Tripathy (Retd Prof Utkal Univ)
Speaker-1 -Kailash ch Kara (Advocate, Odisha Highcourt)
Speaker-2 -Dr M.Rama Jois (Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana
Highcourt, Former Governor of Jhadkhand & Bihar)
Second session-(Effect on social harmony, Hindu-Muslim-Christian-other community, riot, personal relation and other)
Chairperson-Hrudaya Ballabha Das (Retd Judge, Highcourt)
Speaker-1 -Sarat Mishra (Retd DGP)
Speaker-2 -Pratapa Mohanty (Sr. Journalist)
Third Session-
Chairperson-Samira Mohanty
Speaker -Sarbeswara Behera (Advocate, Odisha Highcourt)
With regards
Yours sincerely
Sumanta Kumar panda
Secretary
Viswa Sambad Kendra,Odisha
(An agency for news, feature and press clipping service)
Plot No.-4, BUDHESWARI COLONY (NEAR OLD RAILWAY STATION), BHUBANESWAR
Phone / Fax: -0674 – 2573483
E-mail: -visakeobbsr@gmail.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To
Editors, Resident Editors and News Editors
All Oriya, English and Hindi Newspapers and TV Channels
Sub- Invitation to cover a statelevel seminar on ‘Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill- 2011’on October 16, 2011 (Sunday) at 10.00Am at Redcross Bhawan, Unit-9, Bhubaneswar.
Sir,
Viswa Sambad Kendra, Odisha is organising a statelevel seminar on ‘Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill- 2011’. Participants from all over the state & from different sections of society will be present there. Also eminent speakers are going to address in the seminar.
Therefore, we are requesting you to send your media team along with photographers and cameramen to cover the said event as per schedule.
SCHEDULE
Date- 16th Oct 2011 (Sunday)
Time- 10.00Am (Inauguration)
Place- Redcross Bhawan, Unit-9, BBSR
Infront of Institute of Engineers
DETAIL OF SEMINAR
First session-(Violation of constitution, federal system, anti-converson law, violation of CRPC and other law)
Chairperson-Dr Sachidananda Tripathy (Retd Prof Utkal Univ)
Speaker-1 -Kailash ch Kara (Advocate, Odisha Highcourt)
Speaker-2 -Dr M.Rama Jois (Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana
Highcourt, Former Governor of Jhadkhand & Bihar)
Second session-(Effect on social harmony, Hindu-Muslim-Christian-other community, riot, personal relation and other)
Chairperson-Hrudaya Ballabha Das (Retd Judge, Highcourt)
Speaker-1 -Sarat Mishra (Retd DGP)
Speaker-2 -Pratapa Mohanty (Sr. Journalist)
Third Session-
Chairperson-Samira Mohanty
Speaker -Sarbeswara Behera (Advocate, Odisha Highcourt)
With regards
Yours sincerely
Sumanta Kumar panda
Secretary
Viswa Sambad Kendra,Odisha
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Workshop on “prevention of communal and targeted violence Bill -2011”
Workshop on “prevention of communal and targeted violence Bill -2011”
Time table of work shop
Registration - 09.00am
Inauguration - 10.00am-10.30am
First session - 10.30am-11.45am
Second session - 12.00pm-01.30pm
Lunch - 01.30pm-02.30pm
Third session - 02.45pm-04.00pm
The end - Vandemataram
Detail of Workshop
Registration - Sri Niranjana Nayak
First session -(violation of constitution , federal system, Anti converson law, violation of CRPC and other law)
Coordinator - Srimanta ku.Samantaray (Adhibakta Parishada)
Chair person- Dr Sachidananda Tripathy(Rtd. prof.Utakala University)
Speaker-1 - Kailash ch Kara (Adv High court)
Speaker-2 - Dr. M. Rama Jois( Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. Former Governor of Jharkhand and Bihar.)
Second session - (Effect on social harmony, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, other community, riot, Personal relation and other)
Coordinator - Sumanta ku panda
Chair person- Hrudaya Ballabha Das(Rtd Special Judge CBI,Bhubaneswar)
Speaker-1 - Sarat Mishra (Rtd D.G.)
Speaker-2 - Pratapa Mohanty (Sn. Journalist)
Third Session
Coordinator - Sumanta ku panda
Chair person- Samira Mohanty
Speaker - Sarbeswara Behera (Adv High court)
Time table of work shop
Registration - 09.00am
Inauguration - 10.00am-10.30am
First session - 10.30am-11.45am
Second session - 12.00pm-01.30pm
Lunch - 01.30pm-02.30pm
Third session - 02.45pm-04.00pm
The end - Vandemataram
Detail of Workshop
Registration - Sri Niranjana Nayak
First session -(violation of constitution , federal system, Anti converson law, violation of CRPC and other law)
Coordinator - Srimanta ku.Samantaray (Adhibakta Parishada)
Chair person- Dr Sachidananda Tripathy(Rtd. prof.Utakala University)
Speaker-1 - Kailash ch Kara (Adv High court)
Speaker-2 - Dr. M. Rama Jois( Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. Former Governor of Jharkhand and Bihar.)
Second session - (Effect on social harmony, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, other community, riot, Personal relation and other)
Coordinator - Sumanta ku panda
Chair person- Hrudaya Ballabha Das(Rtd Special Judge CBI,Bhubaneswar)
Speaker-1 - Sarat Mishra (Rtd D.G.)
Speaker-2 - Pratapa Mohanty (Sn. Journalist)
Third Session
Coordinator - Sumanta ku panda
Chair person- Samira Mohanty
Speaker - Sarbeswara Behera (Adv High court)
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)