2020 northeast Delhi riots: Group presents fact finding report, suggests corrective measures
New Delhi(PTI): Marking two years of the 2020 northeast Delhi violence, a group of citizens and organisations on Monday came together to present a fact finding report and suggest corrective measures.
Former Indian ambassador Deb Mukharji, ex-home secretary Gopal Pillai, historian Mridula Mukharji, senior journalist and researcher Pamela Philipose, and former member of Planning Commission of India and writer Syeda Hameed presented the report.
Speaking at a press conference here, the group alleged that the Delhi Police had failed to take adequate measures to prevent the spread of the riots in spite of adequate intelligence and warning indicators of heightened tensions and threats.
In its report, the group also claimed that there were widespread instances of police misconduct which included harassing victims and citizens by various means, including large-scale arrests, refusing to arrest and take action against powerful' people implicated in inciting violence and corruption.
The jury also flagged lack of a proper and transparent investigation into the riots that killed 53 people and injured over 250 people.
Such a report comes days after Union Home Minister Amit Shah lauded the city police for its "strict" and "fair" investigation in the northeast Delhi riots.
According to data provided by northeast district of Delhi Police, charge sheets were filed in 353 cases related to the violence and the court took cognizance in 293 such cases.
The data further stated that charges were framed in 87 cases, the fate of 16 cases was decided, conviction announced in two cases, 244 supplementary charge sheets filed and the total number of arrests made so far is 2,041.
The group further alleged that the Delhi government failed in providing adequate relief to victims of the violence. It has also not been able to prevent harassment and provide fair investigation of riot-related cases over the last two years, it said.
According to a report of the Delhi Assembly's minorities welfare committee, as on January 18, 2021, 3,425 applications were received for compensation, of which 2,221 were approved. A sum of Rs 26,09,78,416 has been paid as compensation, while 1,179 cases were rejected or were duplicate applications.
It stated that Rs 1 crore each has been paid in two separate death cases where the victims were government employees.
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.
Congress using hijab issue to pacify minority anger, alleges Karnataka LoP R Ashoka
Bengaluru: Leader of Opposition in the Assembly R. Ashoka has accused the Congress government of using the hijab issue to placate what he described as discontent among minority voters after the Davanagere by-election.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Ashoka alleged that the state government, instead of addressing issues such as price rise, corruption, farmers’ distress and law and order, was attempting to retain its minority vote base by reviving the hijab issue.
Referring to the 2022 dress code introduced by the BJP government, which prohibited hijab in schools and colleges, Ashoka said the Karnataka High Court had upheld the policy and emphasised the importance of discipline in educational institutions.
He questioned the Congress government’s move to revisit the issue and asked whether setting aside the court-backed policy to benefit one community could be described as secularism.
Ashoka further alleged that while the government was willing to permit hijab, it continued to prohibit saffron shawls.
He accused the government of dividing students on religious lines rather than treating schools and colleges as spaces of equality.
Drawing a comparison with Mamata Banerjee’s government in West Bengal, Ashoka claimed that excessive appeasement politics had harmed the state and warned that the Congress in Karnataka could face a similar political response.
He said voters in Karnataka would teach the Congress a lesson for what he termed “vote-bank politics” and for compromising constitutional and judicial principles.
