Sarah Morrison - Avaaz<avaaz@avaaz.org> Date: Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:43 PM Subject: The pro-rape MP
THE PRO -RAPE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
An MP accused of rape and murder has just defended a guru sentenced for raping two women. Enough is enough. The entire country is reacting in outrage -- sign now with one click to kick this pro-rape MP out of Parliament!
MP Sakshi Maharaj has just stood up for the guru jailed for twenty years for raping two women!It's a betrayal of women everywhere, but if we act right now, we can kick this pro-rape politician out!
BJP MP Maharaj has been accused of rape himself, and is a known hardliner -- in the past he's suggested conversion to Islam and Christianity could be punishable by death. Now he has supported the rapist guru, calling him a 'simple man' who he says is being 'harassed'.
Let's stand up for women everywhere and demand he's shown the door. His party is already under pressure -- let’s push Prime Minister Modi and the President of the BJP to suspend this sexist rape-champion and remove pro-rape politicians from India’s Parliament.
To Prime Minister Narendra Modi and National President of the BJP, Amit Shah:
As concerned citizens deeply disturbed by the sexist comments made by BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj, we call on you to urgently suspend him from Parliament and from all Parliamentary Committees. We call on you to stand up for India’s women and send a strong signal to the country that there is no place in Parliament for a politician who condones rape.
Maharaj’s hateful remarks came after at least 38 people were killed and hundreds injured in Haryana state by supporters of the rapist. He is now trying to backpedal on his comments, but this isn’t about him. The two heroic women, who wrote to the Prime Minister first accusing the guru of rape, are now facing brutal retaliation.
Instead of calling for the protection of these brave women, Maharaj sent a warning to the courts, saying they could be held responsible for further violence. But now, he is on the back foot. A petition has been filed against him in the High Court for making offensive remarks against the judiciary and his own party are said to be considering what to do with him.
Let’s get rid of this outrageous pro-rape MP and clamp down on institutional sexism in India. Prime Minister Modi says he supports gender equality. Sign now and tell him and the President of the BJP to kick this sexist, rape-champion out of Parliament and stand up for women everywhere.
Avaaz has been fighting for women’s rights in India for years. This campaign is part of our drive to stand with the women of India in their fight for freedom, safety, and equality.
With hope and determination,
Sarah, Luca, Alaphia, Danny, Anne, Bert, and the rest of the Avaaz team
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6bdw-rbwuY&t=37s Published on Aug 31, 2017 In this episode of TO THE POINT KANWAL SIBAL decodes the DOKLAM STANDOFF and explains how it was a diplomatic victory for India. He also cautions that India should not indulge in humiliating China and also should not respond to the ranting by the Chinese media. Sibal also talks about the challenges of the coming BRICS summit at XIAMEN, China
Guest: Kanwal Sibal, Career Diplomat & Former Foreign Secretary to The Govt Of India
Though one can only rejoice about the disengagement in Doklam, one should not forget issues that are extremely disturbing : It is China's non-respect of agreements and international rules On August 28, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) issued a statement: The Doklam confrontation was over, both the Indian and Chinese troops had agreed to withdraw. Later in the afternoon, the MEA clarified further: “India has always maintained that it is only through diplomatic channels that differences on such matters can be addressed. Our principled position is that agreements and understandings reached on boundary issues must be scrupulously respected.” This was a reference to the 2012 agreement between India and China to not change the status quo. Delhi explained once more its position: “India’s policy remains guided by the belief that peace and tranquility in the border areas is an essential pre-requisite for further development of our bilateral relationship.” Despite the agreement, Beijing’s propaganda continued. Answering a question fromPTI, on whether the disengagement is mutual, Hua Chunying, the Chinese spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, affirmed : “China will make adjustments based on actual situation.” On whether the issue had amicably been settled, she answered: “The settlement of issue shows sincerity and attitude of China as major country; will continue develop friendly relations with India.” She, however, urged “India to earnestly abide by historical conventions and international law. … China will continue to uphold sovereignty and territorial integrity in accordance with historical conventions.” Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, had told off Mao Zedong in 1959, “China can’t ever be wrong.” Nearly 60 years later, this has not changed. Many observers, however, feel that the important outcome is that the tension has been diffused. Though the shadow of a war has receded, there is no doubt that Bhutan is at the heart of China’s strategic miscalculation. Beijing has never admitted (or accepted) that Thimphu could have a special relation with Delhi. This is not new. Soon after the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) entered Lhasa in September 1951, Beijing started threatening the Land of the Dragon. A recently declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) report dating from February 1953 describes in detail how the Chinese tried to frighten the peaceful Buddhist kingdom. The CIA noted: “(during) the latter part of November 1952, the Chinese communists stationed some two thousand Sino-Tibetan troops along the northern border of Bhutan.” The CIA continued: “These troops were stationed in groups, numbering approximately 200 each, in the various passes between Bhutan and Tibet, from the pass lying between the Haa Valley and Yatung as far east as the pass between Punakha and Tibet.” A footnote explained the geographical position of the Chinese troops: “According to available maps, a route extends from Haa Dzong to Chumbi. (It) shows two routes from Punakha to Tibet, the more direct via Gasa Dzong, and a longer routevia Wangdu Phodrang and Byakar Dzong.” Hardly a year after the PLA’s entry in Lhasa, the Chinese troops were already positioned to bully Bhutan; communist China could not accept the special relation India had with the Kingdom. The information received by the CIA is usually quite accurate; the latitude and longitude of the passes are even given: “Detachments were stationed in the passes between the Paro Valley (and Chumbi)” It speaks of roads from Paro Dzong extending west to Haa Dzong and thence to Chumbi, and east to Tashi Chho Dzong and Phari Dzong, and between Tashi Chho Dzong and the Dochen Plateau (north of Phari), as well as at intermediate passes.” Note that Beijing was not as yet aware of the tri-junction where the present confrontation took place. The CIA noted that in the opinion of Bhutanese circles, “the disposition of these troops on the border was for the purpose of intimidating Bhutan, and not a preparation for the invasion of that country.” The Royal Government reacted by sending a letter of protest to the Chinese while accelerating the training of Bhutanese soldiers. As a result of the Chinese bullying, Bhutan became “actively engaged in training Bhutanese citizens in the art of modern warfare. Recruits are taught to handle and fire the British Lee-Enfield caliber .303 rifle and the British .45-caliber Sten gun. …By so trainings large percentage of the population, the Bhutanese hope eventually to have an Army modeled after the one in Switzerland.” Another aspect of the Chinese ‘calculation’ in 1952/53, is provided by the CIA analysts: “It may also be anticipated by the Communists in Tibet that the presence of these troops along the border may influence the Bhutanese to export to Tibet more rice, butter, meat and other foodstuffs.” During the first months of Tibet’s occupation, the PLA was starving and Beijing badly needed India …and Bhutan to supply foodstuff (mainly rice) to the occupying forces. One could say that it is a miracle that despite the tremendous pressure from the north, Bhutan has remained an independent nation, still striving for ‘happiness’. Sixty five years later, seeing that intimidation did not work, China stepped onto Bhutan’s territory while trying to make the world believe that it is India which ‘miscalculated’. Hopefully today, the Bhutanese are grateful to India to have come to their rescue. Another issue remains extremely disturbing, it is China’s non-respect of agreements, international rules and normal behaviour, whether it is for the supply of data for the Sutlej or the Yarlung Tsangpo, the Kailash Yatra, the implementations of border agreements or in the South China Sea (SCS): For years, China vociferously screamed that from time immemorial the sea belonged to the Middle Kingdom. When the issue was examined by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, it ruled differently. The court said that China had no legal basis to claim any historic right to the natural resources in most of the areas of the SCS. It also ruled that such rights must not exceed what’s permitted by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Further, there was no evidence China had historically controlled the waters or its resources exclusively. The court maintained it had jurisdiction to consider historic rights and maritime entitlements. The ruling was a terrible blow for the land (and sea) grabbing Middle Kingdom. Of course, this did not stop Beijing to continue with its claims and the reclamation of several islands. An Indian scholar, Namrata Goswami, pointed out in The Diplomat: “China has strategically preferred to act in ways that go contrary to its signed commitments in the framework agreements. …why does China sign ‘guiding principles’ and ‘framework agreements’ with countries with which it has territorial disputes and then violates the commitment to the status quo enshrined therein? …the pattern in these three cases reflects China’s inability to meet its ‘framework agreement’ commitments, thereby throwing in doubt its seriousness as a reliable negotiator.” Though one can only rejoice about the disengagement in Doklham, one should not forget these issues which remain alive. More than ever, India should be on its guard.
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
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.
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
