Today is Sunday the 8th Feb 2009 and Sunday Times carries three headlines on satyam:
1)Satyam fudging well planned. Dozens of Managers attended Scores of fudge meetings. (First page top headline)
2)Rajus get comfy in jail (second page)
3)Rajus in ‘proactive’ custody: Ex-Sebi chief. (third page prominent headline).
Contrast this with reporting in Deccan Chronicle of the same day.
A small column on front page, 'Raju gets jail till Feb.21' continued on page two summerising all that TOI did, in just a small report and in a very light vein. Is DC sympethatic to Rajus? Is it ‘manavadu’ feeling or is there something more?
I thought everyone was equel before law but police and judiciary possibly think otherwise.
The following is reported in the Statesman,which also shares my doubts.
Raju in ‘protective custody’, says Damodaran
Press Trust of India
AHMEDABAD, Feb. 7: In a biting criticism of Andhra Pradesh police's handling of the Satyam case, former Securities and Exchange Board of India chief, Mr M Damodaran today said the firm's founder Mr B Ramalinga Raju and other officials were in fact in “protective custody.”
Mr Damodaran, who demitted office as chairman of Sebi last year, suggested that there was no other way of looking at it given the weak resistance the police put up when the court remanded Mr Raju to judicial custody.
“Instead, the police happily handed over them (Raju brothers) in judicial custody, so that Sebi needs to get the court's permission first (to quiz them),” he said during a seminar at the IIM-A here.
When a Sebi probe team approached a magistrate court for permission to interrogate the Raju brothers, the petition was dismissed on technical grounds. As AP High Court too did not give early relief, the regulator had to finally move the Supreme Court.
The Sebi team yesterday finished questioning the Raju brothers on the accounting fraud in Satyam Computer.
“This is what I call protective custody of the Raju brothers and (former) Satyam chief financial officer, Mr Srinivas Vadlamani,” Mr Damodaran said.
“I don't know how the law will help when the state decides to provide protective custody,” he asked.
“This is a peculiar case in which the police produced a person before the court and (he) was granted judicial custody, not police custody,” Mr Damodaran noted, adding that normally policemen insist on securing custody of the accused in order to talk to them first and extract vital details. That is why they arrest people.”
On reports that Mr Raju was seeking special status and also mosquito nets in jail, he said sarcastically: “I don't know how brave the mosquitoes are to go near him.”
The matter of special status is still pending before the court.
On the rejection of Sebi's plea on technical grounds, Mr Damodaran said: “The lower court took a preposterous position that it was not a court that handles cases related to securities law. The Sebi application did not say that a case of securities law needed to be judged by that court.”
I have taken this Statesman report online because TOI online did not carry this report whereas their print edition did.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Terrorism
Terrorism is bad. And terrorism in the name of religion is worse. There are innumerable terrorist organisations world over. Only Muslim terrorists call their outfits with names, which are obvious of religious affiliations. These terrorist Muslims have given bad name to their own religion. Come to think of it, are we right in calling them Muslims? Ireland has terrorists who are chritians, Shri Lanka has terrorists who are Hindus, India has terrorists who are Hindus (Naxalites), Manipur has terrorists who are Hindus and in India itself we have terrorists in Nagaland who are chritians.
Religion has always played a significant role in pulling crowds. It was Bal Gangadhar Tilak who brought Ganesh to street corners. He knew that only in ganesh pendals could he address the masses about India’s dream of independence from the British. Bapu began and ended his speeches with bhajans.
Though the terrorist plans have failed because of good inteligence network, the fact remains that Britain, US, India and Israel are victims of psychological terror. The amount of tension that they are subjected to is worse than after effects of terror. Air passengers are afraid, security personnel are tense and on a slight suspision flights are held up. This is also a kind of success for terrorists. Or, as MJ asks, was there at all a liquid bomb?
Why is there so much of terrorism?
I worked in Imphal for nearly four years, which, I think, gives me enough credibility to rationalise. Manipuris felt, and quite correctly, that they were being exploited. This place has a strategic border with Burma. Manipuris, like Bangalis, consider manual labour below their dignity; it is quite another matter that their concept of dignity is misplaced one. So you have a large number of Bihari working as coolies. Manipuris are a relaxed people, and hence the business community is Marawaris.
They know that India needs Manipur. Bengalis have for long ill treated people from almost all the states bordering West Bengal. They were the first to embrace English and the English. If you don’t believe me read Ananda Math by Bankin Babu. British were the saviors from the demon called Muslims.
This was a right atmosphere for China to exploit the situation. Exploitation of an opportunity takes place when an opportunity is provided.
Sikh community was frustrated because they worked hard to bring green revolution and the fruits of their labour went to Lalas, Hindu traders. It all began as an agrarian problem. One has to pay the price of exploitation sometime or the other, but pay they must.
Kashmiri Pundits never treated Muslims as equels. A Brahmin is perhaps superior within the Hindu society not globally. They must keep their concept of superiority within the boundaries of Hinduism. Indian secularism is a wonderful concept. In practice it is set-aside in a very sophisticated and subtle manner.
Religion has always played a significant role in pulling crowds. It was Bal Gangadhar Tilak who brought Ganesh to street corners. He knew that only in ganesh pendals could he address the masses about India’s dream of independence from the British. Bapu began and ended his speeches with bhajans.
Though the terrorist plans have failed because of good inteligence network, the fact remains that Britain, US, India and Israel are victims of psychological terror. The amount of tension that they are subjected to is worse than after effects of terror. Air passengers are afraid, security personnel are tense and on a slight suspision flights are held up. This is also a kind of success for terrorists. Or, as MJ asks, was there at all a liquid bomb?
Why is there so much of terrorism?
I worked in Imphal for nearly four years, which, I think, gives me enough credibility to rationalise. Manipuris felt, and quite correctly, that they were being exploited. This place has a strategic border with Burma. Manipuris, like Bangalis, consider manual labour below their dignity; it is quite another matter that their concept of dignity is misplaced one. So you have a large number of Bihari working as coolies. Manipuris are a relaxed people, and hence the business community is Marawaris.
They know that India needs Manipur. Bengalis have for long ill treated people from almost all the states bordering West Bengal. They were the first to embrace English and the English. If you don’t believe me read Ananda Math by Bankin Babu. British were the saviors from the demon called Muslims.
This was a right atmosphere for China to exploit the situation. Exploitation of an opportunity takes place when an opportunity is provided.
Sikh community was frustrated because they worked hard to bring green revolution and the fruits of their labour went to Lalas, Hindu traders. It all began as an agrarian problem. One has to pay the price of exploitation sometime or the other, but pay they must.
Kashmiri Pundits never treated Muslims as equels. A Brahmin is perhaps superior within the Hindu society not globally. They must keep their concept of superiority within the boundaries of Hinduism. Indian secularism is a wonderful concept. In practice it is set-aside in a very sophisticated and subtle manner.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Raju the genius
Ramaling Raju was an important person during Clinton’s visit to Hyderabad. While rahul Bajaj was in the back row, Raju was at the mike. He is undoubtedly a genius. Only a genius can play a fraud of such magnitude, as did Raju. What a brilliant brain!
He is now in prison. May be he will get bail and then exemption from personal appearance in the courts of law. There after he will lead a normal affluent life.
Our own government is very serious on bailing out Satyam. Afterall they work for five or ten percent of the population. What percentage of employees and their families exercise their franchise? Are they part of our democratic process? Why should the government squander taxpayers’ money on these people?
I personally think that the government should hand over the management of the company to its employees and let them manage it as a cooperative enterprise.
Or recover or seize all the assets of Raju and all his family, including their land holdings, agricultural and non agricultural, and auction all that and take over as a public sector on par with any other PSU and give the employees the same benefits that BHEL employees get.
No political party should worry about the votes because none these employees exercise their franchise any way. Government has an opportunity to show now that they do not work only for ten percent of population.
He is now in prison. May be he will get bail and then exemption from personal appearance in the courts of law. There after he will lead a normal affluent life.
Our own government is very serious on bailing out Satyam. Afterall they work for five or ten percent of the population. What percentage of employees and their families exercise their franchise? Are they part of our democratic process? Why should the government squander taxpayers’ money on these people?
I personally think that the government should hand over the management of the company to its employees and let them manage it as a cooperative enterprise.
Or recover or seize all the assets of Raju and all his family, including their land holdings, agricultural and non agricultural, and auction all that and take over as a public sector on par with any other PSU and give the employees the same benefits that BHEL employees get.
No political party should worry about the votes because none these employees exercise their franchise any way. Government has an opportunity to show now that they do not work only for ten percent of population.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Media-upper middle class?
Television is a great medium. They investigate, prosecute and even pass judgement in any given case. I am talking about news channels.
And as Justice B Sudarshan Reddy of Supreme court criticised upper middle class (media consists of upper middle class)* for reacting only when a tragedy was affecting them and keeping mum when the same was badly hitting the poor and the masses of the nation.
In the words of Justice Reddy’: "Where were these protestors when the rivers were polluted by the effluents, when the rural poor children were dying even before reaching the age of five, when the criminal justice system systematically failed the poor?' He also said, ‘the recent reaction to the Mumbai terror attack was highly urban-centric, he wondered why these protests were not seen when similar terror strikes had hit places like Gokul Chat, Lumbini park, Mecca masjid and in Mumbai trains which were frequented by the lower middle class and the poor’.
My answer is: Media, Justice Reddy, did not show interest.
Most of these protesters are media created through their wonderful system of SMS polls.
By the way SMS polls also give the media money. Some one should come out with facts and figures about SMS polls and the money earned by the media.
Aziz Mirza was only peeping into the future of television when he made his film ‘ phir bhi dil hai Hindustani’. Understandably the film was just rated average by the media. I must say he was prophetic.
Media manufacture public opinion through their SMS polls. Great!
Their talk shows are really grrreat! Take Barkha Dutt. She wants to talk more, though there are guests who are experts. She takes her own time framing a question. Even before the guest completes his or her sentence she inturrupts and starts giving her version of the guest’s non-completed answer. Then she switches to another guest and repeats what she did with the first. Then she goes on. Often she becomes hysterical. She often says ‘paucity of time’ which does not apply in her case. After saying that she goes on to speak for at least a minute before the commercial break. I think she need not ask guests any questions, instead have a monologue giving the views of guests and occasionally turning to guests to get their nod. Afterall, as it appears, guests merely want to be seen on TV.
It was sad watching Barkha Dutt yelling hysterically and some other journalist lying on the floor and reporting on Mumbai terror attack.
Reference: Report in the Times of India of 28.12. 2008 ‘Growing apathy to woes of the poor, notes SC judge’
* mine.
And as Justice B Sudarshan Reddy of Supreme court criticised upper middle class (media consists of upper middle class)* for reacting only when a tragedy was affecting them and keeping mum when the same was badly hitting the poor and the masses of the nation.
In the words of Justice Reddy’: "Where were these protestors when the rivers were polluted by the effluents, when the rural poor children were dying even before reaching the age of five, when the criminal justice system systematically failed the poor?' He also said, ‘the recent reaction to the Mumbai terror attack was highly urban-centric, he wondered why these protests were not seen when similar terror strikes had hit places like Gokul Chat, Lumbini park, Mecca masjid and in Mumbai trains which were frequented by the lower middle class and the poor’.
My answer is: Media, Justice Reddy, did not show interest.
Most of these protesters are media created through their wonderful system of SMS polls.
By the way SMS polls also give the media money. Some one should come out with facts and figures about SMS polls and the money earned by the media.
Aziz Mirza was only peeping into the future of television when he made his film ‘ phir bhi dil hai Hindustani’. Understandably the film was just rated average by the media. I must say he was prophetic.
Media manufacture public opinion through their SMS polls. Great!
Their talk shows are really grrreat! Take Barkha Dutt. She wants to talk more, though there are guests who are experts. She takes her own time framing a question. Even before the guest completes his or her sentence she inturrupts and starts giving her version of the guest’s non-completed answer. Then she switches to another guest and repeats what she did with the first. Then she goes on. Often she becomes hysterical. She often says ‘paucity of time’ which does not apply in her case. After saying that she goes on to speak for at least a minute before the commercial break. I think she need not ask guests any questions, instead have a monologue giving the views of guests and occasionally turning to guests to get their nod. Afterall, as it appears, guests merely want to be seen on TV.
It was sad watching Barkha Dutt yelling hysterically and some other journalist lying on the floor and reporting on Mumbai terror attack.
Reference: Report in the Times of India of 28.12. 2008 ‘Growing apathy to woes of the poor, notes SC judge’
* mine.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Just?
This is further to my blog 'Justice' dated December 8, 2008. Today's head line in the Times of India 'HC declares second judgement null & void' is much more disturbing. It says'The division bench of Justice D S R Verma and Justice K C Bhanu, which had delivered the second judgment acquitting Hymad of murder, on Monday ordered the registrar general to conduct an enquiry into the entire episode and report the findings to a disciplinary committee'. This is passing the buck. If Sivraj Patil and Deshmukh can resign on moral grounds, why not the judges?
Another question that crops up is: which of the two bench reviews was correct?
May be the recalled judgement is correct!
Another question that crops up is: which of the two bench reviews was correct?
May be the recalled judgement is correct!
Monday, December 8, 2008
Justice
HC jails and frees man at same time
7 Dec 2008, 0254 hrs IST, TNN
HYDERABAD: In an unprecedented incident, the case of an Adilabad man charged with harassment for dowry and murder of his wife was heard by two
division Benches of the A P High Court almost concurrently. And while one of the Benches pronounced him guilty on both the counts, the second one acquitted him on the charge of murder and ordered that he be set free immediately.
The bizarre saga began when one Abdul Raheem went to the Bhainsa police station in Adilabad district on April 13, 2003, and lodged a complaint against his son-in-law, Hymad Pasha, accusing him of killing his daughter Rayeesa Begum. "I gave him my daughter, Rs 15,000 cash as dowry, some gold ornaments and household articles and performed the marriage on April 17, 2000," the father said in his complaint. But 15 days into the marriage, Hymad started harassing his wife to bring in more dowry. Two more demands of Rs 3,000 were met while the third one for Rs 10,000 could not be.
On April 13, 2003, the father said he received a call from the house of Hymad that Rayeesa was dead. After the inquest was over, a post mortem was conducted and Hymad was charged with dowry harassment and murder of his wife.
The trial court in Adilabad, after examination of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, held Hymad responsible for the death of his wife and in 2006, sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder along with Rs 1,000 as fine and imposed another three years imprisonment plus Rs 500 fine for harassing his wife for additional dowry.
The accused has been serving prison term since then. Meanwhile, the relatives of Hymad approached S Surendar Reddy, a lawyer in Hyderabad and through him, got a criminal appeal filed in 2006 in the AP High Court against the judgment of the trial court. Around the same time, Hymad too wrote a letter to the authorities of the high court seeking their help in engaging the services of an advocate for preferring an appeal over the trial court verdict. The high court, through its legal aid wing, allotted lady advocate Shanti Neelam to argue his case.
The criminal appeal by Hymad's relatives went to a two-member division bench comprising Justice A Gopal Reddy and Justice B Seshasayana Reddy while Hymad's own appeal went to another two two-member bench comprising Justice D S R Verma and Justice K C Bhanu. The judgment on the appeal by relatives holding the accused guilty on both counts was delivered on March 7, 2008, while the verdict on Hymad's appeal acquitting him on the charge of murder was given on September 29, 2008.
Click on the image to enlarge.
I presume High Court only reviews any judgement of a lower court when an appeal is filed. If I am correct in my thinking, here same judgement of lower court was reviewed by two different benches in the same High Court. I cannot say anything further lest I am charged with contempt of courts.
7 Dec 2008, 0254 hrs IST, TNN
HYDERABAD: In an unprecedented incident, the case of an Adilabad man charged with harassment for dowry and murder of his wife was heard by two
division Benches of the A P High Court almost concurrently. And while one of the Benches pronounced him guilty on both the counts, the second one acquitted him on the charge of murder and ordered that he be set free immediately.
The bizarre saga began when one Abdul Raheem went to the Bhainsa police station in Adilabad district on April 13, 2003, and lodged a complaint against his son-in-law, Hymad Pasha, accusing him of killing his daughter Rayeesa Begum. "I gave him my daughter, Rs 15,000 cash as dowry, some gold ornaments and household articles and performed the marriage on April 17, 2000," the father said in his complaint. But 15 days into the marriage, Hymad started harassing his wife to bring in more dowry. Two more demands of Rs 3,000 were met while the third one for Rs 10,000 could not be.
On April 13, 2003, the father said he received a call from the house of Hymad that Rayeesa was dead. After the inquest was over, a post mortem was conducted and Hymad was charged with dowry harassment and murder of his wife.
The trial court in Adilabad, after examination of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, held Hymad responsible for the death of his wife and in 2006, sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder along with Rs 1,000 as fine and imposed another three years imprisonment plus Rs 500 fine for harassing his wife for additional dowry.
The accused has been serving prison term since then. Meanwhile, the relatives of Hymad approached S Surendar Reddy, a lawyer in Hyderabad and through him, got a criminal appeal filed in 2006 in the AP High Court against the judgment of the trial court. Around the same time, Hymad too wrote a letter to the authorities of the high court seeking their help in engaging the services of an advocate for preferring an appeal over the trial court verdict. The high court, through its legal aid wing, allotted lady advocate Shanti Neelam to argue his case.
The criminal appeal by Hymad's relatives went to a two-member division bench comprising Justice A Gopal Reddy and Justice B Seshasayana Reddy while Hymad's own appeal went to another two two-member bench comprising Justice D S R Verma and Justice K C Bhanu. The judgment on the appeal by relatives holding the accused guilty on both counts was delivered on March 7, 2008, while the verdict on Hymad's appeal acquitting him on the charge of murder was given on September 29, 2008.
Click on the image to enlarge.
I presume High Court only reviews any judgement of a lower court when an appeal is filed. If I am correct in my thinking, here same judgement of lower court was reviewed by two different benches in the same High Court. I cannot say anything further lest I am charged with contempt of courts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)