Burqa-clad woman kidnaps Two-month-old from Mumbai Hospital

Burqa-clad women will be checked at Mumbai civic hospitals
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) said women visiting civic hospitals in veils will be checked. The move comes after a burqa-clad woman kidnapped a two-month-old boy from the civic-run VN Desai hospital in Santa Cruz on Friday.

The BMC cited a Supreme Court (SC) order issued in January, which said women cannot be issued voter identity cards if they refuse to lift their veils to be photographed.

Two-month-old kidnapped from VN Desai Hospital in Mumbai
Published: Friday, Oct 15, 2010, 20:36 IST | Updated: Saturday, Oct 16, 2010, 0:36 IST
By Sunchika Pandey | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA

Civic hospitals in the city just do not seem to care for the safety of their patients. On Friday, a woman in burqa kidnapped a two-month-old boy from VN Desai Hospital in Santa Cruz (East).

Police said the boy, Ayushman, is the son of 19-year-old Pooja Mishra, a resident of Santa Cruz (East). Pooja had got doubly lucky on August 14 when she delivered him and a daughter, Kumkum.

Around 11.30 am on Friday, Pooja and her mother-in-law, Shyama, took the twins to the hospital for polio vaccination. But the two drops of life cost them all their happiness. The police said Pooja took Kumkum to the second floor of the hospital for vaccination, and left her son with his grandmother on the ground floor.

A police officer said: “Shyama noticed a burqa-clad woman roaming around and talking to everyone, giving an impression that she knew them well. This woman came to her and said Pooja had called for Ayushman for the polio drop.”

Shyama said she did not suspect her and gave her the baby.

“The horror unfolded when Pooja returned and her mother-in-law narrated the story. A shocked Pooja revealed she had not sent anyone to get the boy,” the officer added.

DCP Satyanarayan Chaudhary said both the women frantically searched the entire hospital for the child. “Subsequently, they informed the hospital authorities and the police,” Chaudhary added.

The family has registered a case at the Vakola police station and police are investigating. “I did not see the woman’s face, but I can definitely identify her by her voice,” Shyama told DNA.

The unidentified woman was captured by the CCTV camera while she was walking out of the hospital, but because her face was covered, her identity remains a mystery.The police said she was not seen with the child, but it is clear she was in haste and she had something in her hand.

Pooja was taken ill and was admitted to the same hospital.

Shashikant Wadekar, dean of the hospital, said: “The family informed us very late. We immediately closed the gates and searched for the woman. But CCTV footage showed she had left the premises already.”

ASI report clinched presence of Temple in Ayodhya issue: Advani

“In its report, the ASI concluded that the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure ”are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India.”

ASI report clinched crucial aspect of Ayodhya issue: Advani
New Delhi | Sunday, Oct 10 2010

Terming as the ”crucial aspect of the Ayodhya issue” the question whether a Hindu temple existed at the site prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid, veteran BJP leader L K Advani today said the issue had been clinched by the Archaeological Survey Report which said the remains there indicated existence of a temple. Writing in his blog, Mr Advani said in 1993, the Central Government had sought an opinion from the Supreme Court, as part of the advisory role that Article 143 of the Indian Constitution has entrusted to the apex court. It was ”whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?” He said, ”This provision gives the Supreme Court the discretion, if it is so inclined, to decline giving an opinion. In this case, it actually did so decline. But in the process it became very clear what government regards as the most crucial aspect of this controversy.” Mr Advani said the Allahabad High Court took cognizance of the above mentioned Reference made by then President Shanker Dayal Sharma under Article 143 to the Supreme Court. The court felt it would be appropriate to ask the ASI to analyse the crucial question posed by the Centre first by a Ground Penetrating Radar survey and, thereafter by excavation.

After the radar survey showed up some anomalies, the High Court directed the ASI to undertake excavations.

In its report, the ASI concluded that the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure ”are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India.” Mr Advani said, ”At least in so far as the High Court judgment is concerned the clincher has been the Report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). This is a Report very painstakingly produced on the directions of the High Court itself.” His observations on the issue has come even as many parties like the Left and some sections of the minority community have alleged that the court verdict had given precedence to faith over evidence.

In his blog, Mr Advani said though the Supreme Court declined to answer the reference by the Central government in 1993, it recorded in its ruling that the Court had asked the Solicitor General ”to take instructions and put in writing the Central Government’s position in this behalf”.

”The Supreme Court has said: ”On 14th September, 1994, the learned Solicitor General made the following statement in response : Government will treat the finding of the Supreme Court on the question of fact referred under Article 143 of the Constitution as a verdict which is final and binding.

In the light of the Supreme Courts opinion and consistent with it, Government will make efforts to resolve the controversy by a process of negotiations. Government is confident that the opinion of the Supreme Court will have a salutary effect on the attitudes of the communities and they will no longer take conflicting positions on the factual issue settled by the Supreme Court.

If efforts at a negotiated settlement as aforesaid do not succeed, Government is committed to enforce a solution in the light of the Supreme Courts opinion and consistent with it, Governments action in this regard will be even-handed in respect of both the communities. If the question referred is answered in the affirmative, namely, that a Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished structure, Government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community. If, on the other hand, the question is answered in the negative, namely, that no such Hindu temple structure existed at the relevant time, then Government action will be in support of the wishes of the Muslim community.”

— (UNI) —

Islamic terrorist David Headley revelations will further dent FBI’s credibility in India

Headley revelations will further dent FBI’s credibility in India
October 18, 2010

The FBI moved against Headley seriously only after coming to know of his role in the planned attack in Copenhagen. It did not show the same seriousness in respect of his role in the Mumbai attack, writes B Raman

The latest round of disclosures relating to David Coleman Headley, which have embarrassed the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were brought out in two detailed investigative reports by Sebastian Rotella of ProPublica, a website which specialises in investigative reporting.

These two reports — titled FBI Was Warned Years in Advance of Mumbai Attacker’s Terror Ties and Feds Confirm Mumbai Plotter Trained With Terrorists While Working for DEA — which were published on the web site, have also been used by the Washington Post, thereby adding to their credibility.

A large part of these reports are based on a study of the court documents filed by the prosecution against Headley. The remaining is fresh information gathered from Headley’s ex-wives and serving and retired officials of the FBI and other agencies.

The salient points in the investigative reports are:

In three interviews with federal agents, Headley’s wife said he was an active member of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba, had trained extensively in its Pakistani camps, and had shopped for night vision goggles and other equipment, according to officials. The wife also told agents that Headley had bragged about working as a paid US informant while he trained with the terrorists in Pakistan.

The FBI “looked into” the tip, but they declined to say what, if any, action was taken. Headley was jailed briefly in New York on charges of domestic assault, but was not prosecuted. He wasn’t captured until 11 months after the Mumbai attack, when British intelligence alerted American authorities that he was in contact with Al Qaeda operatives in Europe.

The New York Times reported that another of Headley’s wives — he apparently was married to three women at the same time — had also warned US officials about his terror links. In December 2007, the Moroccan woman met with officials at the US embassy in Pakistan and told them about Headley’s friendship with Lashkar members, his hatred of India and her trips with him to the Taj Mahal Hotel, a prime target of the Mumbai attacks. On Saturday, federal officials said the women’s tips lacked specificity. “US authorities took seriously what Headley’s former wives said. Their information was of a general nature and did not suggest any particular terrorist plot,” a senior administration official said.

Headley’s relationship with the US government is especially delicate because the investigation has shown that he also had contact with suspected Pakistani intelligence officials and a Pakistani militant named Ilyas Kashmiri, who has emerged as a top operational leader of the Al Qaeda.

The following conclusions emerge from the two reports:

Headley was initially an informant for the Drug Enforcement Agency. He was being used to collect intelligence about the activities of the LeT in Pakistan. For this purpose, he used to visit Pakistan.

In August 2005, his US-based ex-wife had alerted an FBI task force about Headley’s links with the LeT and helping them procure equipment like night-vision glasses. She had also told the FBI about his e-mail and other contacts in Pakistan. She had also complained that he was ill-treating her. The FBI questioned him about her allegations of ill-treatment, but did not seriously follow up her tips about his ties with the Lashkar.

The FBI probably did not question him about his links with the Lashkar because it was already aware of the details since he was a DEA informant. In December 2007, his Moroccan ex-wife complained to the US embassy in Islamabad about his links with the LeT. It is not clear what action the embassy took on her complaint

In 2008, the FBI came to know about the Lashkar’s plans to launch a sea-borne terrorist strike on certain targets on the Mumbai sea-front, including the Taj Mahal Hotel. It promptly passed on the information to the Indian agencies. The FBI could not have been expected to tell the Indian agencies that the information came from Headley. This was a specific piece of information complete in many respects except the date of the planned attacks. No intelligence or investigation agency would reveal the name of a source giving such specific information.

Headley had visited India five times to collect operational intelligence and to help the Lashkar select targets and the landing point for the boat. Before starting his visits to India, Headley had taken a new passport under the name of David Coleman Headley in place of his previous passport under the name Daood Gilani in order to conceal his Pakistani origin from the Indian consular and immigration authorities. The FBI would have been expected to share this information with the Indian authorities, but it did not do so. Had the FBI done so, the Indian authorities might have been able to establish the details of his Indian network, arrest and question him and pre-empt the attack.

The FBI did not alert the Indian authorities, even when Headley visited India again after the 26/11 terrorist strikes.

The FBI seems to have arrested Headley only after it intercepted messages about his being used by the LeT and Ilyas Kashmiri of the 313 Brigade to plan a terrorist strike in Copenhagen against a newspaper which had published cartoons of Prophet Mohammed in 2005. The arrest was made actually after British intelligence came to know of his contacts with some associates of Kashmiri in Europe, while planning the Copenhagen attack. The FBI moved against him seriously only after coming to know of his role in the planned attack in Copenhagen. It did not show the same seriousness in respect of his role in the Mumbai attack.

How helpful was the FBI in helping the Indian agencies in this case? It would be difficult to answer this question unless one knows the following details:

When did the FBI first take the initiative in informing the Indian agencies about Headley’s arrest and the information obtained from him?
Why did the FBI delay its response to the Indian request for permission to interrogate him?

Why did the FBI insist on Headley being interrogated in US custody in the presence of FBI officers and did not allow Indian officers to question him independently?

During the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington, DC, in November 2009 for talks with President Barack Obama, the two countries had reached what was described as a joint counter-terrorism initiative to promote counter-terrorism co-operation between the agencies of the two countries. The FBI’s suspicious conduct, in keeping the Indian agencies in the dark about all relevant aspects of Headley’s involvement with the LeT, adds to the suspicions that the JCTI was an eye-wash sold to India to cover up the FBI’s sins of commission and omission and to conceal from the American families whose members were killed in the 26/11 attack, the extent of the FBI’s knowledge which could have been used to prevent the strikes.

While this issue may not have any major impact on President Obama’s visit to India next month, it will definitely add to the traditional distrust nursed by the Indian agencies about their American counterparts.

B Raman

Teesta Setalvad should be punished for tutoring riot case witnesses: Godhra accused tells Supreme Court

Punish Teesta for perjury, Godhra accused tells SC
October 18, 2010

Abraham Thomas | New Delhi

Quotes from SIT reports, affidavits to nail her lies

With evidence to suggest that Godhra riots case witnesses were “tutored” by social activist Teesta Setalvad, an accused in one of the riots cases has approached the Supreme Court and demanded that perjury proceedings be initiated against her.

The application filed by Shashikant Patil, an accused in the Narodiya Patiya case (FIR No 100/02), highlighted how false affidavits were filed with the complicity of Teesta and her NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) to mislead the court. The application is expected to be heard on October 26, when similar petitions related to Godhra riots would be heard by a Special Bench of the Supreme Court.

Patil, who is in jail since 2002, has relied heavily on the affidavits and reports filed by the court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), the Gujarat Government, Teesta and certain witnesses before the apex court, to make out a case of perjury against her. If found guilty under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Teesta could end up in prison for a term ranging from three years to even life, depending on how the court views her conduct.

In support of his claim, Patil has quoted a crucial finding of the SIT showing 22 witnesses submitting “identical” affidavits in the court. Upon inquiry, none of the witnesses was aware of the contents recorded in these affidavits and confessed that three of them were sent by Teesta and six witnesses were asked to give contradictory statements regarding the accused.

Even the Gujarat Government highlighted this fact in its affidavit of March 11, 2010. Incidentally, in her reply to the affidavit, Teesta did not contradict any fact nor denied the allegations.

With Teesta’s NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace a petitioner before the Supreme Court and spearheading the campaign for justice for the Gujarat riots victims, the applicant gave further proof to illustrate how the petitioner took undue advantage of her vantage position to mislead the court.

The incident was of Naroda Gaon, where an alleged rape victim filed an affidavit on November 15, 2003, in the Supreme Court and provided a detailed account of her agony and injustice. The affidavit was filed by Nanoomiya Rasoolmiya Malek, the rape victim’s neighbour who claimed to be an eyewitness.

But later in her statement to SIT on May 20, 2008, the victim denied being raped and disclosed that Teesta took her signature on the affidavits but did not reveal to her the contents. The eyewitness Malek too charged Teesta of tampering with his statement. He said, “At the time of drafting the affidavit, I informed Teesta Setalvad, who runs the NGO, not to mention the said incorrect fact in my affidavit and I strongly objected against the same.”

This fact was brought to the apex court’s notice by SIT in one of its status reports.

Pointing out a possible nexus between Teesta and the witnesses, the applicant referred to a news report of December 20, 2008, in The Pioneer, wherein copies of cheques of Rs 1 lakh each issued by Teesta to the victims were produced.

Patil strengthened his case by highlighting the shocking tale of a pregnant Kauser Bano’s womb being ripped open, highlighted by Teesta as a ground to replace the SIT members. On investigation, SIT found the foetus intact and the sensational allegations to be concocted lies.

Quoting the above events, Patil said, “The constant attempts of the respondent (Teesta) in stalling smooth conduct of investigation and trial has resulted in the accused being in jail for a period of eight years without trial.” In this backdrop, the accused has urged the court to initiate perjury proceedings against Teesta under Sections 191-195 of the IPC.

RSS ideologue recommends autonomy for Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh be made separate states

RSS voice seeks separate Kashmir state
SANKARSHAN THAKUR

MG Vaidya
New Delhi, Oct. 2: A leading RSS ideologue has turned the stated position of the Sangh and the BJP on Kashmir on its head by floating radical corrective proposals that could trigger a new debate on the way forward in the troubled Valley.

In what’s a plunge against the tide, former RSS spokesperson M.G. Vaidya has recommended that Kashmir be cleaved from Jammu and Ladakh and granted pre-1953 levels of autonomy with a prime minister (Wazir-e-Azam) as head of government with powers over all subjects other than defence, currency, foreign affairs and telecommunications.

But unlike the pre-1953 status, there should be no separate president (Sadr-e-Riyasat) for the state because “we have only one President for the whole country”.

Insisting that the office of the governor appointed by the Centre be retained, Vaidya says: “During the British regime, there were many princely states that enjoyed complete autonomy on internal matters. But a British Resident used to be there to look after the interests of the empire and the geographic unity and integrity of the state was not damaged. So will it happen in the case of the new state. Our governor, like the British Resident, will have to be vigilant about the whole nation’s interest.”

He has also suggested that powers to impose governor’s rule under Article 356 should be retained in the interests of national integrity.

Jammu, according to the Vaidya plan, should become a separate state and Ladakh a Union territory in accordance with its distinct “geographical, religious, linguistic and cultural” identity.

In addition, he has said that in order to contain Kashmir’s drift towards separatism, Article 370, which grants special status to the state, be strengthened by making it a permanent feature of the Constitution rather than the “temporary and transitory” status it currently has. He has suggested that once Kashmir becomes a separate state, it should also be allowed to enact a separate criminal law.

The Centre should call a roundtable conference comprising all shades of opinion in the Valley to put in place the minutiae of the new framework to ensure that Kashmir remains an integral part of India, Vaidya has suggested.

Among the other issues the conference should discuss are the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission over Kashmir as well as census operations and the appointment of IAS and IPS officers in the state.

He also believes that Kashmiri opinion should be sought on whether Parliament should continue to make laws for the state in accordance with Article 249 of the Constitution and whether central rules of excise, customs, civil aviation and post and telegraph should continue to apply to the new state of Kashmir.

The RSS senior has attached a few critical caveats, though. All Kashmiri Pandits forced into exile by a militant insurgency in the early 1990s should be rehabilitated in the Valley and elements that seek a merger with Pakistan should have no role in consultations over the new arrangement.

Vaidya’s sweeping and contentious reforms are part of a paper he circulated to scant notice following an all-party delegation’s visit to Jammu and Kashmir last month. His prescription not merely represents a drastic departure from the Sangh’s position, it also vastly exceeds what parties like the Congress are willing to concede at the moment.

The BJP rejects outright the trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir on regional lines, rejects autonomy, and remains theoretically committed to the abrogation of Article 370.

The Congress, which has been more accepting of Kashmiri demands than the BJP, too has pointedly ignored the autonomy resolution f the Assembly which is being foregrounded as a key demand by chief minister Omar Abdullah.

The autonomy proposals, Vaidya says, should not be “imposed” on the people of Jammu or Ladakh.

Speaking to The Telegraph from Nagpur, the 88-year-old Vaidya was keen to stress that the views were personal and did not represent the “official position” of the RSS. But that he has gone public with his note suggests that he is seeking a clean-slate debate on Kashmir within and outside the Sangh parivar.

The BJP, unsurprisingly, rejected the Vaidya remedy out of hand.

“The BJP has a clear, well-meditated position on Jammu and Kashmir,” chief party spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad said, reacting to the points made by Vaidya.

“Anything that becomes a facade for separatism or independence is totally unacceptable. Kashmir is and will remain an integral part of India.”

Without engaging with the specifics of Vaidya’s suggestions, Prasad said: “We must reach out to the people of the Valley, provide them relief and confidence and differentiate between them and separatists who only become important when there is violence. The current cycle of violence is the consequence of Omar Abdullah’s misrule; we believe his removal has to be the starting point of turning the Valley around.”

Another senior BJP leader sounded more dismissive of Vaidya and his Kashmir proposals. “Vaidya has always been a bit of a freelancer,” he said. “Often, even within the RSS and the Sangh parivar, his views are not taken seriously.”

Vaidya sounded unperturbed by either criticism or indifference from colleagues.

“Of course, these are ideas that many will find difficult to accept or even discuss,” he said. “Many of my friends have told me that the medicine I am prescribing is more dangerous than the disease. But I believe this should be debated…. In muddon par charcha honi chahiye kyonki Kashmir bahut mahatvapurna maamla hai (there should be a discussion on these matters because Kashmir is a very important issue).”

Ayodhya: Muslim Argument Examined

Ayodhya: Muslim Argument Examined Arun Shourie

via Link

Destruction Of Thousands Of Hindu Temples By Muslims – Literary and Epigraphic Evidence

The following section is taken from the chapter Hindustan ki Masjidein (The mosques of India) of the above mentioned book. Here we can see a brief description of few important mosques in India and how each one of them was built upon plundered Hindu temples.

Qawwat al-Islam Mosque at Delhi: “According to my findings the first mosque of Delhi is Qubbat al-Islam or Quwwat al_Islam which, Qutubud-Din Aibak constructed in H. 587 after demolishing the hindu temple built by Prithvi Raj and leaving certain parts of the temple outside the mosque proper; and when he returned from Ghazni in H. 592 he started building, under orders from Shihabud -Din Ghori, a huge mosque of inimitable red stones, and certain parts of the temple were included in the mosque…”

The Mosque at Jaunpur: “This was built by Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi with chiselled stones. Originally it was a Hindu temple after demolishing which he constructed the mosque. It is known as the Atala Masjid..”

The Mosque at Qanauj: “It is well known that this mosque was built on the foundations of some Hindu temple that stood here. The mosque was built by Ibrahim Sharqi in H. 809 as is recorded in Gharbat Nigar”

Read Link