December 07, 2007

Quiz: multiple choice. Maybe not

Man is killed by the police, his wife raped and also killed. He is labelled a criminal and terrorist, which sets public minds at ease. But a court case later finds the concerned officials guilty of murder. The government files charges against the officials, files affidavits in court saying the man was captured and wrongly killed in cold blood.

Then the head of that same government addresses a public meeting and, speaking of this dead man, asks his audience: "What should have been done to a man from whom arms were recovered, whom the police were searching for, who attacked the police?" The audience bellows, "Kill him! Kill him!" And the same head of the same government replies: "Well, that's it, then."

Question: Who was this head of government, and where did this happen?

A. Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire

B. Idi Amin, Uganda

C. Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, Haiti

D. Augusto Pinochet, Chile

E. Hendrik Verwoerd, South Africa

F. Other

23 comments:

Does it matter at all said...

We need people like Modi..to root out the minortity appeasing mindset of you guys. Jai Modi. Have people like Dsouza and sure we will have shariat law governing us soon along with chinese army's help

Anu said...

Yes it certainly does matter. I don't understand how you can justify someone's murder and the acceptance of it by the head of the government since he is not "minority-appeasing". There is absolutely no danger of shariat law in a country with such a strong majority of Hindus -- we need to be protecting the rights of minorities here not trying to take them away. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Anonymous said...

Well, the BIg question to be asked is whether Sohrabuddin "carried arms/hid them" or not? If he did, then he deserved what he got.

I agree with 'Does it matter' in that we have to stop this molly-coddling of muslims/minorities just to propagate the pseudo-secularism so engrained in the DNA of this country.

If a muslim is jailed for a crime he committed, the judiciary is communal. If an islamic terrorist is killed, he becomes a martyr. The muslims in India, must be respected, but they must realize their place in society.

As to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, there was a certain Ghazni a millenium back, who looted and plundered India then. So its not a one-way street is it?

Radha Mani said...

no anonymouse, that's not the question. because nothing allows the killing of a guy as this guy was killed. this is not me saying so, this is modi himself, in his own government's affidavits and case in court.

then the same guy goes and rouses a crowd into "kill him!" chants.

hafta admire the advocate kst tulsi for withdrawing from the case.

Does it matter at all said...

Remember Nandigram ! Explicit state sponsored terrorism..does that find atleast a passing mention in the 'Red' media? Never..likes of Dsouza can easily pounch on Hindus (who retaliate so that their tribe doesnt vanish)...Can he write in the same vein on terrorists community as he writes about Modi? No never...Congress will then ban his website.. to appease the Reds and Mullahs....and the Xians Converts..
Jai Modi...Modi Jai..We need leaders like Modi to break the spine of the M M M who are the root cause of India's problems.

Nazim Khan said...

I admire your tireless spirit, Dilip.
Because such ceaseless efforts on your part to drill sense into the skewed mindsets of right-wingers who -- while in an argument -- go on to a different plane altogether invoking unseen ghosts like shariat law are indeed commendable. They call their country their own -- and all others who dont follow their ideology traiters -- without little realisation that their 'leader' showed little regard to the country's constitution whilst he was at genocide some years ago. But then, will they learn?

Does it matter at all said...

how far do you want to go in history to talk about genocide?
Mr Nazim..your forefathers were butchered and women raped so that they could convert to Islam..remember that. What genocide are you talking about of the past...both hindus and muslims were killed..dont blame the right wingeres..its the ISLAMIC Terrorism..your mullahs spew hatred..thats why your religion is a religion of terrorism..and we have Dsouzas to espouse your cause...muslims are better off in india..hindus in india are fighting so that muslims do not turn india into a saudi or a malaysia...hinduism by definition...respects all religion..but other religions are eating up hindus ...slowly but steady..

Radha Mani said...

> ... your religion is a religion of terrorism
> hinduism by definition...respects all religion

how does the same guy make both the above statements?? with a straight face??

as a hindu all i can hope for is for my great religion to be saved from these guys.

Does it matter at all said...

Radha Mani,
I think you do not get the point..because Hinduism respects all religion, Hindus all over the world are at receving end including in india itself..what do you do when your family is attacked..cowards like you might seek shelter instead of defending..you are still a hindu today because of those hindu defenders who keep the hatred spewing mullahs in check...

Radha Mani said...

> Hindus all over the world are at receving
> end including in india itself

what gives you the right to speak for me? im a hindu andd i am not at any "receving end". if you want to cower like a victim, you plese do it. dont speak for me.

and of course it is funny to see someone cowering like this calling others a "coward".

what hinduism needs are hindu defenders to keep hatred spewing people like you in check.

Dilip D'Souza said...

Nazim, thanks.

They call their country their own -- and all others who dont follow their ideology traiters...

Just remember: this country is yours every bit as much as anybody else's, and don't let anyone pretend any different, or give you stuff about "realize their place in society."

Jai_Choorakkot said...

1. "Labelled a terrorist"...

Needs more research. I believe a huge cache of AK47/ AK56 and other munitions were recovered from this guy and he had cases pending against him. I do wish the cops had tried to prosecute than 'encounter' him. But does anybody know that the whole thing was a frame-up?

I will definitely look into this a bit more.

2. IMHO the mistake here is to allow N.Modi to frame this question around the death of Sohrabuddin Sheikh. His was not the death that Modi is accused of merchandising.

Yes, that is also murder. But the uncomfortable truth is that his is a death that more people than you think likely will accept since they believe it saved lives (A Few Good Men?).

The high moral ground one can claim after incapacitating N.Modi from obstructing justice, by defeating him at the polls.

If one must focus on Sohrab at this time, one should likely avoid getting painted into a "protects terrorists" corner. Hard on Sohrab and Hindutva mobs.

regards,
Jai

Apologies, if Sohrab was an out-n-out victim totally framed. Some reading due here.

Jai_Choorakkot said...

Did some checking. Had thought that he was shot in a van with some guns recovered and all that.

That sure gave me a different picture:

American cops shooting people who didnt freeze fast enough, or had cellphones or other objects in 'tactical firing position', even shooting a Chinese guy holding a broomstick (watched too many Kungfu movies?), Ahmed Diallou etc.

ie. a mistake

I convinced myself that even a sincere cop would have shot a guy he knew / believed to be carrying arms at the slightest provocation, if he didnt absolutely comply with instruction.

ie. even justifiable possibly.

Instructions from on high that it would be good to have this guy "erased" would have only acted as further incentive.

ie. par for much of indian law enforcement :-(

But Sohrab was picked up from a bus two days prior, and held with the cops.

ie. cold-blooded murder.

Unanswered is why? There is something about Rajasthan marble traders ordering a hit. Or did some cops want to cultivate a heroic image?

I have no tears for Sohrab -the guy had several cases against him in 3 states and his crime career predates Modi- but there is something in here that is bigger than him.

Enough from me on this. Over and out.

regards,
Jai

Nikhil said...

Nazim Khan
They call their country their own -- and all others who dont follow their ideology traiters -- without little realisation that their 'leader' showed little regard to the country's constitution whilst he was at genocide some years ago. But then, will they learn?
Nice sentiment - but please tell this to your co-religionists for whom the Shariat is more important than the constitution.
Before pointing fingers at others, do you have anything to say to people who riot because a middle east despot is hanged or if a newspaper in Europe drew some offending cartoons or people who riot when George Bush visits India.
Now please go around saying that India is very much your country. At least from the incidents above some people consider themselves to be part of a worldwide /ummah with India being Dar ul harb.

One does not expect Dilip to write some tear drenched essays as his pet communities/minorities have not been hurt.
Maybe Modi should have tried this track
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Media-targets-me-because-Im-from-MBC-Ramadoss/248735/
After all Dilip - didnt you also support Shivam Vij when he claimed that Upper caste dominated media was giving only a one sided picture of the reservation story.

Dilip D'Souza said...

This was directed at Nazim:

Now please go around saying that India is very much your country. At least from the incidents above some people consider themselves to be part of a worldwide /ummah with India being Dar ul harb.

I'm unable to see why the actions of some people that a commenter doesn't like should be used to imply that Nazim doesn't belong to this country. Yet of course, as we've seen so often, that's precisely what many such commenters always do.

So I wonder: using his own reasoning, such as it is, should we assume that all those who belong to whatever faith this commenter professes are as distant from logic as he is?

Luckily, they aren't. And thank someone for that.

One does not expect Dilip to write some tear drenched essays...

About what would you like me to write "some tear drenched essays"?

didnt you also support Shivam Vij when he claimed that Upper caste dominated media was giving only a one sided picture of the reservation story.

I have no idea what the relevance of this statement is to the discussion at hand, but nevertheless. No, I don't recall any such support I gave. I realize it is futile to ask, but even so: please show me where I did so. The precise words, please, where I referred to Shivam, "upper caste dominated media" and this supposed "one sided picture." No handwaving. Thank you.

And now let's get back to the subject at hand.

Dilip D'Souza said...

Remember Nandigram ! Explicit state sponsored terrorism..does that find atleast a passing mention in the 'Red' media? Never..likes of Dsouza can easily pounch on Hindus (who retaliate so that their tribe doesnt vanish)...Can he write in the same vein on terrorists community

I'm not sure why I respond to this stuff, usually I don't. Because as soon as I do, the charter of demands will morph.

Anyway. Don't know about the "Red" media, whatever that beast might be. But me? On Nandigram, I wrote on March 30, November 15, November 15 again, November 20 (Ashok Mitra's article in full), and November 28.

I also have no idea what a "terrorists community" might be, but here are just two essays I've written after terrorism: Hyderabad blasts, Bombay train blasts (salon.com).

And this is the last time I do this.

Nazim Khan said...

Couldn't respond earlier because of my stupid browser.
@does it matter: Why don't you try and come up with some other innovative stuff rather than your "butchered and converted" crap. Seems very much like a template response ready to be dished out on all occasions, no?
Hindus are at the receiving end in India? You got to be friggin kidding me... they are -- but only to your warped sense of logic.
@jai: now that the matter of discussion has gone beyond sohrabuddin, let me make this simple point. if sohrabuddin was a criminal -- even a terrorist as modi would love to say -- it should've been better had he been arrested and tried and court. if you're justifying extra-judicial killings, well then, love.
@Nikhil: "please tell this to your co-religionists for whom the Shariat is more important than the constitution."
But then isn't Hindutva more important than the constitution for some - not that i'm justifying my co-religionists.

Michael Deibert said...

Reading some of the commentary that this post has elicited, I am left with only one question: What’s the Hindi word for straitjacket?

Jai_Choorakkot said...

Nazim,

A guy holding an AK47 is just that, and I dont care if his name is Sohrab Sheik, Milk Shake, or Ramaswamy.

I did believe in the original story of van-intercept shootout until I checked.

I have to admit, that in that scenario, if the cops shot even a non-resisting kidnapper- extortionist and alleged murderer they had just recovered AK47s from, a guy they knew they would get away free having gotten away in the past, I am not entirely unhappy.

The system needs to get better at putting away these people for me to be absolutely in sync with condemning extra-judicial killings of gangsters and terrorists.

It at least needs to do better at protecting you and me. I do realize the risk, of our guardians becoming the predators, but it is yet the better alternative in the far-from-ideal choices we have. Checks and balances on the uniformed criminals *are* stronger.

Sorry abt that. So I guess, love it is. Last comment from me.

Thanks,
Jai
PS- Once again, its IMHO a mistake to make "merchant of death" a death of Sohrab issue rather than death of so many in Guj 02 issue, exactly what Modi would want around poll-time, I would imagine.

Nazim Khan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nazim Khan said...

Last comment from me too.
What I am against is this whole business of extra-judicial killings. I may not possible know as much about Sohrabuddin as you would, but it is in general the cold blooded manner in which the police are known to 'execute justice' is what makes my spine chill.
What if the person killed is not a criminal -- how many Javed Fawdas are in there amongst the 100-odd encounters each of our encounter specialists claim so proudly to have done. Who'll police the police.
"It at least needs to do better at protecting you and me" The system needs stricter laws, you say.
I agree and add that, at the same time, it also needs to do some thing of ministers who not only turn a blind eye to -- but are also complicit in -- the genocide of the country's citizens. They are usually not even condemned.
And all of them — the Tytlers, Thackerays and Modis and others whose names i dont know.

Dilip D'Souza said...

Nazim:

What I am against is this whole business of extra-judicial killings.

On the dot. "Encounters" coarsen and corrupt our justice system and society as a whole. It should be like an alarm bell to us that there are people who approve of them, even to the extent that they see them as the lesser of various evils.

pankaj said...

I couldn't resist commenting after reading the writeup and comments.

looks like lot of assumptions and preumptions are clouding the minds.
Sohrabbuddin might have been a criminal or a terrorist. He was known to be driver of Abdul latif, the fellow involved in the Bombay blast case. Sohrabbuddin was also responsible for hiding cache of arms.He was notorious gangster and extortionist.

But all this does not give any one a right to kill him in cold blooded fake encounter.

His religion was Islam, but that is not a point to be argued either for or against killings. Both Congress and BJP are guilty of making sohrabbbuddin a hero or a terrorist on the basis of religion.

The simple fact is that Police has failed to do its duty, failed to investigate properly, do proper detective work. They believed this guy is a dangerous terrorist and if they can not prove it in a court of law , bump him off. Police officers have made their own choice(may be at the behest of their bosses and this needs to be investigated) and must be brought to justice.

Death of sohrabbuddin is a criminal matter and not political or religious matter.

In Caunnaught Place two businessmen were killed by police thinking they were gangester. Senior officers and others involved in that daylight encounter in Capital of India have been brought to justice recently.

There was a news that Police Killed innocent man claiming to have shot dead a criminal. The same criminal was shot dead recently, twice.

In these two cases and many more people who were shot dead were hindus.

Nazim rightly says that extra judicial killings can not be justified. In fact it is just a cover up for failure of police to do their job.

As for Nandigram, here also a writer, poet Chief Minister justifies the killings as tit for tat.Being a constitutional authority he has failed to do his job. Similarly when Rajiv Gandhi made his in famous speech of Large tree falling while referrring to anti sikh riots was equally wrong.

We are truly a very tolerant nation. We tolerate lot of nonsense, inefficiency and cover ups.Reasons attributed have no relevance to the events in question.

If we have to be a Civil Society, we have to respect the rule of Law, revamp the police, criminal justice system, ensure dignity and sanctity of human life, and yes we have to believe that Constitution is supreme, we all can come to consensus about Uniform civil code. Religion specific laws must be stopped.Citizens should be free to practice their religion but that should not get into his civilised way of interacting with others. I also don't think that proselytizing should be permitted. There should be standard education system which all students must undergo irrespective of their religion. All citizens should have equal access to resources, not like what manmohan singhji said few days ago.
Also we can not carry the past far too long but criminals and others responsible for riots in independent India must be brought to justice and dealt according to Law of the Land and not according to their own judgment.

This country has give shelter to many religions which have been destroyed in their Land of origins. So we must not forget this sow the seeds of hatred.