Fence is eating crop here!
Who should we hold responsible for the violence laden situation in the country today? Should we hold the police department responsible for being unable to contain the communal elements from spreading unrest in the country? Their role is evident in increasing number of communal cases and massacres that are spreading like wildfire across the nation. Another glaring reason is that the communal minds have been accommodated inside police department since long. Hence the primary duty now is to set the minds on path of correction over maintaining law and order. Only after that, does the department have any moral right to punish goondas or law breakers spreading communal violence.
IPS officer of Beed district in Maharashtra, Bhagyashree Navtake has been caught on candid video that went viral on social media on how they were filing false cases against the Dalits and Muslims, and thus safeguarding the Maratha people. She was boasting on this in the video without a hint of regret. Soon as video went viral, action was initiated against her. What was the penalization that was awarded to her? A mere transfer. How did this change the officer at all? This is as good as putting the crime instigator who has a nexus with criminals from one place to another. This is nothing more than a hogwash and the pattern of this is a predictable one. This is a stunt to silence the public for the time being. In the next few months, she'd be reinstated rather stealthily. The nexus between the police and rowdies is well know by now.
Mob lynching is increasing in the country owing to concurrence by the police. Rowdies kill people and then the police will watch it rather silently. Later when the pressure increases to act against such crimes, they file weak cases to ensure the powerful culprits are let off. This has a long history. And this fact reveals how the police department is laden and corrupted with the ideology of the ruling party. If we consider the Khairlanji incident that occurred in 2006 to the Bhima Koregaon violence in the recent times, the anti Dalit mindset of police is well evident. A case has been registered in Bombay High court on the inaction of police in cases involving destruction of properties and assets belonging to Dalits at the violence that erupted to weaken the atrocities act of 1989 that was drafted for the protection of Dalits, through silent morchas that were taken out by the Maratha communities.
In the last few years, the Uttar Pradesh police are famous enough to be either proactive or inactive based purely on the religion of the perpetrators or victims. They humiliate the Hindu Muslim lovers in the name of anti Romeo squad, or probe into people's lives in the name of Love Jehad carrying out misinformation campaign against them, and killing innocents accusing them of cow theft are all part of the bigger design. They had taken out black tape silent March to protest action against their colleague who killed an innocent unarmed official recently.
This state is witness to the verdict given by Delhi High court on the case of Hashimpur as well. About 42 muslim dead bodies were found discarded in a canal in Hashimpur and investigation had revealed that the police from Regional Armed Police had killed them and thrown them into the canal. The court concluded this hearing 31 years after the incident occurred. In the verdict, the court observed how violence and prejudice was institutionalised and this had found deeper roots in police department as well. No state governments have taken enough care to implement any progressive steps to improve conditions within the police department. Many committees starting from the police committee or 1978, to the PIL filed by former DIG of UP (still being heard) in Supreme Court in 1995, the Julius Ribero committee in 1998, Padmanabhaiah and subsequently the Malimath committee followers by Soli Sorabji committee have been making recommendations to improve the morale and mkrs of the department. Supreme Court has issued six directives in 2006. The fourth recommendation was particularly about designing training programmes on creating sensitivity among the police about the duty they need to perform in a society that is as plural as out nation.
In case of men and women officers who were part of targeting communities that they have an axe to grind against, and the discrimination they exhibit, the training such as the one mentioned above has clearly failed. A miniscule level of improvement is seen in states that have implemented model police conduct code. But a comprehensive improvement is a pipe dream and unless that happens, an ideal police department is a far cry. Discrimination and prejudices take a long time to get uprooted from the alleys of the society since they have been around for ages. Today the police need these trainings and dialogue about creating a fair and better society much more than ever before.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Speaker rules out discussion on Guv''s conduct amid K''taka Assembly standoff
Bengaluru (PTI): In an effort to end the logjam over the Governor's address that has stalled proceedings for the past week, Karnataka Assembly Speaker U T Khader on Wednesday ruled that legislators should not discuss Thaawarchand Gehlot or his conduct in the house, saying such debates send the wrong message to the public.
The House has witnessed repeated disruptions and adjournments since the session began on January 22 over the issue of the governor's conduct.
During his address to the joint sitting of the Karnataka legislature on January 22, Gehlot read out only three sentences from the 122-paragraph speech prepared by the state government.
The speech included criticism of the Centre for replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajivika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G), portions of which the governor declined to read.
Concluding his address in about two minutes, the governor left the house, triggering a commotion as Congress legislators attempted to gherao him and raised slogans.
While the opposition BJP accused the ruling Congress and its ministers of "insulting" the governor and demanded action, the treasury benches countered by claiming the governor had "insulted the National Anthem by leaving before it was played."
The house again witnessed heated arguments on the issue earlier in the day, leading to adjournment.
During the interruption, Khader held a meeting with ministers and opposition members to resolve the impasse.
When proceedings resumed, the speaker delivered his ruling.
Referring to the events of January 22 and the subsequent debate, Khader said the conduct and discussions had conveyed the wrong message to the public.
"Our conduct as members of this House and the opinions expressed must be in good taste and in accordance with constitutional provisions. They must uphold the dignity of the House and its members. We must introspect in this direction," he said.
He stressed the need for caution to ensure that such incidents are not repeated in the future.
"Let us end this matter here, continue the discussion on the motion of thanks to the governor, and refrain from discussing the governor or his conduct in this house," the speaker said.
Leader of the Opposition R Ashoka said the house should express regret over what he termed an "insult" to the governor.
Responding, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said the situation would not have arisen had the governor read out the entire address.
"Asking the house to express regret is not appropriate. Why did the governor leave even before the National Anthem was played," Siddaramaiah asked.
BJP MLA S Suresh Kumar reminded Siddaramaiah that as Leader of the Opposition in 2011, he had asked then Governor Hansraj Bhardwaj to curtail his address.
Bhardwaj had subsequently placed the address on the table of the house, requesting members to treat it as read.
Siddaramaiah said the situation in January 2011 was different from the present one.
The debate grew intense, leading to another adjournment of the house.
