WHY NO 'FIR' AGAINST CHIEF MINISTER & CHIEF SECRETARY OF THE STATE

SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/opinion/



              HARYANA ON THE TINDERBOX 

WHY NO  'FIR'  AGAINST CHIEF MINISTER                                          &
       CHIEF SECRETARY  OF THE STATE






                    PANCHKULA, HARYANA, INDIA
                  25 AUG 2017 AT 1700 Hrs

            Is it not contempt of court?

                                     by                     Jagdeep S. Chhokar





I would urge to Honourable Court to institute contempt of court proceedings against the following officials of the Haryana Government:

• The Director General of Police
• The Home Secretary
• The Chief Secretary
• The Home Minister and the Chief Minister (since the same person holds both positions).

From 

Jagdeep S. Chhokar

To

Honourable Acting Chief Justice Surinder Singh Saron, Honourable Justice Surya Kant, and Honourable Justice Avneesh Jhingan,

At the outset, let me express my deep gratitude and appreciation for your orders dated August 24, 25, and 26, 2017 in CWP No. 19086 of 2017, Ravinder Singh Dhull v. State of Haryana & others. The concern that you have shown for safeguarding public interest and protecting the Constitution of India, is admirable. I am not being presumptuous in saying so but I know I speak for some people I know, and a lot of people whom I do not know but whom I believe agree with me.

In this context, I would like to bring to your kind attention that in your order dated August 25, 2017, inter alia, it was said that:

“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that:-

• (i)  All parties and every section of the society should maintain peace and harmony;

• (ii)  In case anybody indulges in any kind of violence, arson, loot, etc., he or they should be dealt with firmly by use of force, if necessary;

•  (iii)  The police force and paramilitary forces would have free-hand to deal with the situation wherever and whenever required against any individual or any section of the society or organisation;

•  (iv) In case of need, the Army shall be deployed and made operational.

•  (v) he police force shall make arrangements forthwith for capturing every moment of untoward situation through video-graphy by using video-cameras. Those who are indulging in any kind of violence, arson or breach of peace etc. shall be video-graphed and an FIR shall be registered against him/them;

•   (vi) In case any politician or anybody else including Ministers interferes in the enforcement of law, FIR be registered against him/them. In case of failure on the part of the police officer to register an FIR, similar action would be called against him;

•   (vii)  No politician, leader, social-worker, spiritual leader, religious leader or any such organization shall make any provocative speech or statement, which may have the tendency to affect public order.

This order shall be applicable in the States of Haryana and Punjab as also Union Territory, Chandigarh.”

Further, your order dated August 25, 2017, inter alia, stated that:

“Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that there have been thirty-two casualties in the State of Haryana out of which twenty-eight are in Panchkula. It is submitted that out of twenty-eight dead bodies, one has been identified. The remaining so far remained unidentified.”

The admission by the Advocate General, Haryana, mentioned in the order of August 25, 2017, clearly shows that the directions (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) of the order dated August 24, 2017, were not followed. This itself amounts to ‘contempt of court’ as defined in section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as follows, “‘civil contempt’ means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;…”

While I could not locate the official record of the hearings held on Saturday, August 26, 2017, for the same case, reports in several newspapers reported the following:

“the Punjab and Haryana High Court today categorically said the Bench was misled by the state functionaries ahead of the verdict in the rape case against dera chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim.” 

“A Full Bench of Acting Chief Justice Surinder Singh Saron, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Avneesh Jhingan said: ‘There was a sea difference between the administrative and political decisions, and the 
administrative decisions were paralysed because of the political decisions.’”

“Addressing Haryana Advocate-General BR Mahajan, the Bench said : 
‘You have suspended the DCP… Do you think he committed the mistake? Was he not asked to do it? It has strengthened our belief that it is all political. You are compelling us to go into a deeper probe to ascertain it was done on instructions of which officer.’”

“There is politics surrounding it. Just to allure the vote bank, you allowed people to gather. A probe will expose it’. As the Bench convened for assessing law and order during a special hearing on a court holiday, it noted: ‘The CM was also the Home Minister. Why could you not prevent the crowd from gathering for the last seven days? They were all outsiders, but were allowed to enter Panchkula, stay there and occupy public places…. Law and order will be maintained at all costs and no one will be allowed to interfere. Those failing to perform are answerable to the people and the court.’”

The reported observations of the Honourable Court during the hearing on August 26, 2017, show that the actions of the State of Haryana were in clear violation of the directions (vi) and (vii) of the Honourable High Court issued on August 25, 2017. This is also a clear case of contempt of court under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

In view of what is stated above, particularly in paragraphs 4 and 6, 

I would urge to Honourable Court to institute contempt of court proceedings against the following officials of the Haryana Government:

• The Director General of Police
• The Home Secretary
• The Chief Secretary
• The Home Minister and the Chief Minister (since the same person holds both positions).

Holding more enquiries is neither required nor necessary as the facts of the case are quite clear and are in the public domain. As the Hon’ble Court has very correctly observed taking actions such as suspension against lower level officials such the DCP are completely out of place. Dereliction of duty was happening well before the specific days of the horrible events when enormous crowds were wilfully allowed to gather despite there being public knowledge of what might happen. And the enormity of this dereliction is such that the responsibility lies at the highest echelons of administration.

I request the Hon’ble Court to consider this letter as a Public Interest Litigation, if considered necessary, in the glorious tradition started by Hon’ble Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.

Yours truly,

JS Chhokar

The writer is a former Director-in-charge, IIM, Ahmedabad

IESM GOVERNING BODY ELECTIONS 2017

SOURCE :
IESM  FACE BOOK



IESM GOVERNING BODY ELECTIONS 2017


29 Aug 2017

IESM GOVERNING BODY ELECTIONS 2017

 Dear All,

1.         This is to inform all authorities that Election to Constitute Governing Body of Indian Ex servicemen Movement (IESM) were held at AVCC NOIDA on 27 Aug 2017 as per the Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 09 May 2017.  The holding of Election was challenged by Lt Gen Raj Kadyan in the High Court.  On 25 Aug 2017, Punjab & Haryana High Court Disposed of the case which paved the way for holding of Election.

2.         The Governing Body consists of 21 members, Chairman, Vice Chairman, Gen Secy, Treasurer Joint Secy and 16 members.  List is as under:-

Ser No	Name	Designation
1	Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM	Chairman
2	Gp Capt VK Gandhi, VSM	Vice Chairman
3	Cdr Ahuja Sharan	General Secretary
4	Wg Cdr CK Sharma	Treasurer
5	Hon Lt Pandey K	Joint Secretary
6	Wg Cdr Akshaya Bhalla	Member Governing Body
7	Sub Attar Singh	Member Governing Body
8	Brig BS Gill, VrC	Member Governing Body
9	Hav Byas Yadav	Member Governing Body
10	Mrs Dalbir Kaur	Member Governing Body
11	Hav Dawane Vilas	Member Governing Body
12	Sub Maj Devi Dayal	Member Governing Body
13	Lt Co Dhiren Bahl	Member Governing Body
14	Hav Dina Nath Yadav	Member Governing Body
15	Hon Capt Jai Singh Rathee	Member Governing Body
16	Hon Capt Kuldeep Singh Suhag	Member Governing Body
17	Maj Gen Lalji D Singh	Member Governing Body
18	Lt Col MS Matharoo	Member Governing Body
19	Sgt Prakash Narain Pandey	Member Governing Body
20	Lt Col RD Sharma	Member Governing Body
21	Wg Cdr Vinod Nebb	Member Governing Body

3.         The new Governing Body has assumed the duties of management of all affairs of IESM.

4.         This is for the information of all concerned.

            With regards,                                               

            Yours Sincerely,

 Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)                                                                                                            

Chairman Indian Ex Servicemen Movement (IESM)                                                               

Tele : 0124 -4110570 & Mobile: 9312404269,                                                                                         

Email:satbirsm@gmail.com   

                                                 Appx :  For Info

REPORT MY SIGNAL

22 Aug 17. 
Dear Indian Military Veterans and Veer Naaris,
Jai Hind.

Regarding the Case filed by “The Kadyan” to Stall the IESM Elections.

The Case came up for hearing on 21 Aug 17, in the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

“The Kadyan’s” argument was that The Ad hoc Committee has not requested Registrar for detailing a RO/Observer, as ordered by The Court.

This is a blatant lie as we have written three letters to The Registrar for detailing observer for election as per the High Court Order of 9 May 2017.

Our lawyer showed all the letters that have been sent to  The District Registrar of Firms & Societies, Gurgaon, in this regard by Secretary General IESM and Coordinator of Ad hoc Committee for IESM Elections.
The Coordinator is a law abiding citizen and will do nothing against the laid down rules.

However the Court decided to await response from Registrar on this issue.

Next date of hearing in this case is 25 Aug 2017. Election process will go as planned.

In service of Indian Armed Forces Veterans of All Ranks
& Families Around the World
Chander Kamboj

SOURCE:
https://newsstand.google.com/articles/CAIiEATfI2eOJF-2Zg-Mo_AH9RMqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowot7cCjD8xM4BMJSYhgI

Doklam standoff: Why Indian Army must prepare to beat back more Chinese incursions

                                   By

                     Prabhash K Dutta

With China getting more aggressive with its 

salami slicing policy in the Himalayas, the

 Indian Army must prepare for what General 

Bipin Rawat described as more Doklam-like 

incidents. 

August 27, 2017

Delivering the General BC Joshi Memorial Lecture in Pune yesterday, Indian Army chief General Bipin Rawat warned that standoffs with China like that at Doklam are likely to "increase in future".

"The recent stand-off in the Doklam plateau by the Chinese side attempting to change the status quo are issues which we need to be wary about, and I think such kind of incidents are likely to increase in the future," General Bipin Rawat said.

Indian and Chinese troops are in eyeball encounter at Doklam plateau of Bhutan for over two months. Standoff began when Indian troops, after formal request by the Royal Army of Bhutan, stopped the People's Liberation Army of China from constructing a highway through Doklam area.

Doklam plateau is governed by Bhutan and has long been inhabited by the Bhutanese shepherds. China has been eyeing this piece of hilly terrain because of strategic significance. Doklam lies very close to the Silliguri Corridor that connects the northeastern states of India with rest of the country. It is the sole passage for supply of materials and transport to and from the northeastern states.

CHINA'S SALAMI SLICING IN 

HIMALAYAS

General Bipin Rawat has underlined what many geostrategic experts have been saying for long. China is the only country post-World War II that has been engaged in territorial expansion by poaching lands and maritime areas of its neighbours. This Chinese policy is widely known as Salami Slicing through which it cuts into the territories of its neighbours and then stakes claim over the same.

Furthering the Salami Slicing policy China has captured the entire Tibetan kingdom in 1949 forcing the Buddhist government of the plateau state flee to India and seek asylum. The Dalai Lama has headed the Tibetan government in-exile since 1950s with its headquarters at Dharamshala in Himachal Pradesh. Later, India recognised Tibet as part of China.

China captured Aksai China area in Ladakh of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1962 war with India and has illegally governed it since then. Aksai Chin is roughly of the size of Switzerland in area. China also forced Pakistan to cede almost 6,000 sq km area north of Karakoram mountain ranges in Pakistan-occupied parts of Jammu and Kashmir state.

CHINESE BORDER POLICY WITH INDIA

Apart from Aksai Chin and the area in northern Kashmir, China stakes claim on Indian territories in two more pockets. It claims Arunachal Pradesh to be its own territory calling it South Tibet and several patches along international borders falling in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh.

The borders between India and China are not properly demarcated and the demarcation done during the British colonial regime is contested by Beijing as per its suitability.

During his lecture on India's Challenges in the Current Geo-Strategic Construct at the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies of Savitribai Phule Pune University in PUne, General Bipin Rawat said, "Pockets of dispute and contested claims to the territory continue to exist. These are due to differing perceptions on the alignments of the Line of Actual Control (LAC)."

"Transgressions across Line of Actual Control do happen and sometimes they do lead to some kind of misunderstanding between the forward troops," General Rawat said, adding, "However, we do have joint mechanisms in place to address such situations."  But, Chinese Salami Slicing policy stands in the way of resolving issues.

Even in the case of Doklam standoff, it has been reported that during all flag meetings with Chinese counterparts, the Indian Army has insisted on restoring pre-June 16 positions of the troops. But, no resolution has been found yet.

DOKLAM AS SALAMI SLICE

The Doklam standoff is a classical example of Chinese border policy with India. Chinese policy towards Indian borders has three well defined contours. China invests heavily to strengthen its infrastructure in the regions where it is in stronger position.

It pursues Salami Slicing policy more aggressively where both troops are on equal footing strategically while China needles India where Indian Army is in stronger position to test water.

At Doklam plateau, Indian Army has been patrolling for decades while Chinese troops used to visit there occasionally and never stayed for long. As it is a disputed area between China and Bhutan, and is very close to the Indian borders, PLA attempted to alter status quo.

WHY THERE MAY BE MORE DOKLAMS

China has invested in its defence forces and 

infrastructure more than any other Asian 

country over past several decades. Even General 

Bipin Rawat underlined that the PLA has made 

significant progress in enhancing its 

"capabilities for mobilisation, application and 

sustenance of operations" particularly in the 

Tibet.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has overhauled the entire military structure and divided the PLA commands in more reasonable units. Their force reorganisation along with developing capabilities in space and network-centric warfare is likely to provide them greater synergy in force application," General Rawat noted in his speech.

China is also working on other aspects of geostrategy vis-a-vis India. China is increasing its military and economic partnership with Pakistan and has also been trying to win over Maldives, Sri Lanka and even Bangladesh in India's neighbourhood.

On the other hand, while Doklam standoff continues, China has not yet confirmed about the annual joint military exercises with India.  India and China conduct joint exercise every year on reciprocal basis. Named "Hand-in-Hand", Indian team goes to China one year followed a visit by Chinese troops next year.

Responding to a question whether Doklam standoff is affecting India-China annual military exercise, General Bipin Rawat said, "It could be, but we are not sure."

The ground realities leave no doubt that China's approach towards India is adversarial than friendly and General Bipin Rawat seems to have delivered the right message by saying, "It is always better to be prepared and alert than think that this will not happen again. So my message to troops is that do not let your guard down."

ALSO READ |

General Bipin Rawat on Doklam standoff: We have mechanism to resolve such issues:

Why Doklam standoff is not good for Chinese President Xi Jinping ahead of BRICS Summit, CPC Congress

 Why Japan lent support to India against China over Doklam standoff

WATER : China is waging a water war on India (R)

SOURCE::
http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/china-is-waging-a-water-war-on-india/story-6jqgabEffcatPFzJ6fQ6eJ.html

China is waging a water war on India

                                      By

                           Brahma Chellaney

Beijing is fashioning water into a political weapon by denying India flood-related hydrological data since May, even as major flooding has hit the region from Assam to Uttar Pradesh. Data on upstream river flows is essential for flood forecasting and warning in order to save lives and reduce material losses. China’s data denial crimps flash flood modelling in India

The ministry of external affairs sought to obscure China’s August 15 twin raids in the Lake Pangong area by gratuitously telling the Financial Times that “no commonly delineated boundary” exists there(AP)

Tibet, a treasure-trove of natural resources, including water and precious metals, is a great strategic asset for China in its pursuit of an often improvident style of economic growth. The sprawling Tibetan plateau also arms Beijing with water leverage over downstream countries because it is the starting point for most of Asia’s great rivers, many of which are being heavily dammed just before they cross into neighbouring nations.

China is sharpening its leverage with co-riparian India. Water indeed has emerged as a new divide in Sino-Indian relations, as Beijing quietly and opaquely builds dams, barrages and other structures on rivers flowing to India. It spurned then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s 2013 proposal that the two countries enter into a water treaty or establish an intergovernmental institution to define mutual rights and responsibilities on shared rivers. The flash floods that ravaged Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh between 2000 and 2005 were linked to the unannounced releases from rain-swollen Chinese dams and barrages.

At a time when the Doklam face-off has entered its third month and the risk of a Chinese military attack on India is growing, there is more troubling news: Beijing is fashioning water into a political weapon by denying India flood-related hydrological data since May, even as major flooding has hit the region from Assam to Uttar Pradesh. Data on upstream river flows is essential for flood forecasting and warning in order to save lives and reduce material losses. China’s data denial crimps flash flood modelling in India.

By embarking on a dangerous game of water poker, Beijing has demonstrated how the denial of hydrological data in the critically important monsoon season amounts to the use of water as a political tool against a downstream country. Indeed, even while supplying data in past years, China’s lack of transparency raised questions. After all, like rice traded on the world market, hydrological data comes in different grades and qualities — from good, reliable data to inferior data and broken data.

China’s latest action actually violates two bilateral MOUs of 2013 and a 2014 accord, which obligate it to transfer hydrological data to India from three upstream monitoring stations in Tibet every year from May 15 to October 15. No data has been transferred thus far this year, although India, in keeping with the MOUs, paid for the data in advance. While China sells hydrological data to downriver countries, India provides such data free to both its downstream neighbours — Pakistan and Bangladesh.

China has long displayed contempt for international law. No bilateral accord seems to have binding force for it once its immediate purpose has passed, as Beijing recently highlighted by trashing the 1984 Sino-British treaty that paved the way for Hong Kong’s handover in 1997. China said that pact had lost “practical meaning” because 20 years had passed since Hong Kong’s return. Yet it selectively invokes a 19th-century, colonial-era accord to justify its Doklam intrusion, while ignoring its own violations — cited by Bhutan and India — of more recent bilateral agreements not to disturb the territorial status quo.

India should not be downplaying China’s breach of commitment to supply hydrological data from May 15. Yet, for two months, the ministry of external affairs hid China’s contravention, which began much before the Doklam standoff. When the ministry of external affairs (MEA) finally admitted China’s breach of obligation, it simultaneously sought to shield Beijing by saying there could be a “technical reason” for non-transfer of data (just as MEA sought to obscure China’s August 15 twin raids in the Pangong Lake area by gratuitously telling the Financial Times that “no commonly delineated boundary” exists there). How can a technical hitch explain data withholding from three separate stations for over two months? Had China been in India’s place, it would have promptly raised a hue and cry about the commitment violation and linked it to the downstream floods and deaths.

More fundamentally, the Doklam standoff, the Chinese hydro-engineering projects to re-engineer cross-border river flows, the denial of hydrological data, and China’s claims to vast tracts of Indian land are all a reminder that Tibet is at the heart of the India-China divide. The 1951 fall of Tibet represented the most far-reaching geopolitical development in modern India’s history, with the impact exacerbated by subsequent Indian blunders. 

India must subtly reopen Tibet as an outstanding issue, including by using historically more accurate expressions like “Indo-Tibetan border” (not “India-China border”) and emphasising that its previously stated positions were linked to Tibet securing real autonomy. 

Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and author