Prof R K Gupta (email ID: cityju@rediffmail.com) writes:

The fun of law in Courts and violations

What is going on in Delhi is pure mockery of law and logic.First
the Supreme court orders sealing of buldings violating master plan
and urban land use laws which are based on certain well defined
principles of urbanisation. People who stay in these violated
colonies and who are law abiding did buy such plots believing that
it is a residential area.Unscrupulous elements bought such
residential properties and converted these for business.No where
in civilised countries this can be seen or is permitted.
The government and bureaucrats who first helped such encroachments
laughed in face of court and Constitution by drafting a new Master
plan and changed original land use.Thus by back door they made
mockery of lacs of law abiding residents of Delhi and of
Constitution of India and the well defined system of urban
planning.
The helpless court exonerated them and stayed proceedings.
Is it not a joke and fun which a court and government babus and
politicians are playing with people ,morality and ethics?
Why people should be allowed to use residential plots for
business? It is not only a nuisance and pollution but has also
inflated property prices thus making it beyond reach of common
citizen.It is sheer disgusting that a residential plot of small
size should cost Rs 50 lacs or 1 crore for making a 2 bed room
house in Delhi,where per capita income is under Rs 80,000 per
year.Who can afford this except corrupt businessmen and
politicians? For whom master plan is changed.
This nonsense and fun with people of India must stop
immediately. Supreme court should act firmly and convict all
violaters of urban laws and also those inspectors in whose
jurisdiction houses were converted.Huge penalties running into
lacs should be put on each violater.
It is not at all logical that government draws out a plan to
circumvent law and allow violations in name of new Master plan.New
plan should impropve the things and not regularise past defaults
and crimes.I would urge Supreme court to stick to norms of urban
planning and disallow all past violations,with firm hand.
Law has to act firmly in letter and spirit both.
Tomorrow if these corrupt government will show a temple area for
toilet use in a so called new plan would court or citizens allow
this?
The principles are very clear- No commercial activities should be
allowed in residential colonies, particularly in those plots which
were meant for housing.
There is always a small provision made for essential shops and
welfare centres in all colonies.
Markets should be separately planned.
In fact Supreme court will be encouraging encroachments and wrong
acts by retrospectively allowing criminal acts of a large number
of greedy shop keepers,estate developers and businessmen.
It is these same people who opposed implementation of Model rent
control act in Delhi so they could keep occupying shops and houses
of helpless people at ridiculously outdated and miniscule rents
which also they don’t pay.
To give rights and protection to some one you do injustice with
other.What kind is this law?
This is another reason why huge property available is not released
for rental at reasonable prices as people fear to rent out due to
blackmail and refusal to vacate by tenants.And our absurd,idiotic
and slow paced judicial system and procedures don’t pass orders
for decades.Even if these are pased no one obeys it and they
helplessly look away.Is it not a judicial fraud going on in country
as such huge expenditure and wastage of time,money and health of
litigants?
We are not only a corrupt society but a wily and greedy unethical
lot ! It is sad that courts also play tune to such acts!

In this article published in The Pioneer, G Parthasarthy- an ex-diplomat and ex-ambassador to Pakistan- analyses Kashmir situation.

Stop pandering to separatists
— G. Parthasarathy

The Manmohan Singh Government appears to believe that
separatists, armed, financed and trained across our
borders, can be won over by a policy of appeasement.
This was evident in the approach to ULFA in Assam,
which was let off the hook by an ill-advised ceasefire
when the Army had its cadre on the run. There is a
similar approach to the separatists of the “moderate”
All Parties Hurriyat Conference in Jammu & Kashmir.

The All Parties Hurriyat Conference was established on
March 10, 1993, with Pakistani support, to give
political content to a demoralised and failing armed
uprising in Jammu & Kashmir. The Hurriyat leadership
supports Pakistan’s efforts to pursue its “unfinished
agenda of Partition” in Jammu & Kashmir. Its
Constitution, adopted in March 1993, says the Hurriyat
is committed to a “peaceful struggle” to obtain the
“right to self-determination” under UN Resolutions for
the people of Jammu & Kashmir.

Members of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference have
remained close to terrorist groups that are members of
the ISI-sponsored United Jihad Council in
Muzaffarabad. If Syed Ali Shah Geelani uses the
Hizb-ul Mujahideen to enforce his writ through
terrorist violence, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq is familiar
with Al Umar Mujahideen led by Mushtaq Zargar – a
serial killer released during the infamous Kandahar
hijacking. The Hurriyat Conference is derogatorily
referred to as the “Hartal Conference” because, duly
backed by the guns of terrorists, it regularly calls
for hartals and bandhs.

The Hurriyat, which describes itself the “sole” and
“authentic” voice of the aspirations of the people of
Jammu & Kashmir, has primarily served as the
mouthpiece for the Pakistan Government and as the
political arm of the terrorists sponsored by ISI.
Pakistan has obtained an “Observer” status for the
Hurriyat in the Organisation of Islamic Conference,
providing the Hurriyat leadership access to leaders of
Islamic countries. Knowing its limited electoral
support and given the disunity in its ranks, the
Hurriyat has never contested elections.

Apologists of the Hurriyat claim that the organisation
split, with the Mirwaiz leading the “moderates” and
Geelani the “hardliners” because of differences over
their responses to Gen Pervez Musharraf’s four-point
proposal on Jammu & Kashmir. The real reasons for the
split, however, lie in developments in Pakistan when
Gen Musharraf and Amir of the Jamat-e-Islami Qazi
Hussain Ahmed fell apart. Geelani toed the line
advocated by the Qazi, who opposed Gen Musharraf’s
proposals. While the General has been the mentor of
the “moderates” led by the Mirwaiz, Geelani has chosen
to regard the Qazi as his mentor. The main “threat”
that the Mirwaiz faces is from the cadre of the
Hizb-ul Mujahideen in Muzaffarabad.

When Mirwaiz Farooq left for Islamabad, he assumed
pretensions of being the “bridge” between New Delhi
and Islamabad and also between people in Jammu &
Kashmir on both sides of the LoC. He echoed Gen
Musharraf’s proposals and let the cat out of the bag
by revealing that these proposals were for an
“interim” and not “final” resolution of the issue of
Jammu & Kashmir. He was evidently advised by Gen
Musharraf to set the stage for a “ceasefire” in Jammu
& Kashmir by calling on the militants to end their
armed struggle. Those in Pakistan backing Qazi Hussain
Ahmad’s approach called Mirwaiz a “traitor” and the
“Hamid Karzai of Kashmir”. Feeling the political heat,
Pakistan’s Foreign Office distanced itself from the
Mirwaiz, claiming that what he had said constituted
his personal views and not the views of the Pakistan
Government.

Desperate to avoid the wrath of the jihadis who could
threaten his life, the Mirwaiz met Mushtaq Zargar –
the one terrorist leader on whom he could rely. This
could not have happened without ISI facilitation, as
Pakistan has officially claimed that it is not aware
of Zargar’s whereabouts. At this meeting, he also met
“area commanders” of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and the
Jaish-e-Mohammed – terrorist organisations banned
internationally under UN Security Council Resolution
1373. Mirwaiz Farooq has remained ambiguous about
these meetings; he, however, did not deny they took
place. Thus, despite Gen Musharraf’s protestations, it
is obvious that the infrastructure of terrorism is
alive and kicking in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK)
and that the ISI is actively assisting these terrorist
outfits.

The Hurriyat delegation met political leaders in PoK,
but avoided meeting with leaders from the
Shia-dominated Northern Areas as they would have
spoken differently about the repression they face. The
Mirwaiz also assumed the role of organising meetings
between political leaders in Jammu & Kashmir and those
in PoK, after his meeting with Sardar Atique Ahmad
Khan the “Prime Minister” of PoK. All such meetings
will inevitably be under the patronage of the
Government of Pakistan and the ISI. Gen Musharraf
obviously wishes to use his protégés to play the
leading role in promoting an intra-Kashmiri dialogue,
which can then proceed on terms set by him. New Delhi
seems to have given the impression that it would not
be averse to the All Parties Hurriyat Conference
playing such a role.

While the leaders of mainstream political parties like
the National Conference have watched from the
sidelines, the Hurriyat has assumed such airs of
importance that it will not condescend to meet anyone
other than the Prime Minister. The Hurriyat has to be
formally told that before it seeks political level
meetings, it should first seek to interact with the
Union Government’s interlocutor for Jammu & Kashmir,
Mr NN Vohra. Second, it should be made clear to the
Hurriyat that there can be no high-level political
contacts in New Delhi till it participates in the
roundtable discussion that has been initiated by the
Prime Minister with a wide cross-section of political
and public opinion in Jammu & Kashmir.

New Delhi should also firmly inform the Hurriyat
leadership that it will not allow the separatists to
assume any role in inviting people like Sardar Atique
Ahmad and other political leaders from PoK and the
Northern Areas across the LoC. This is a role that has
to be played at an appropriate time by the Chief
Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, in consultation with
political leaders in the State Assembly, with due
clearance from the Union Government.

Finally, there can be no question of any “ceasefire”
in Jammu & Kashmir till the infrastructure of
terrorism across the LoC is dismantled and militants
who have crossed the border lay down their arms. The
nation paid a heavy price for the ill-advised “Ramzan
Ceasefire” in November 2000.

In this article, Jagmohan analyses the consequences of vote bank politics vis-a-vis Assam. This article was published in The Statesman this week.

Carnage in Assam- part II
Paying For The Sins Of Vote-Bank Politics

By Jagmohan
Exasperated by the attitude of the Central and the state governments, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by Sarbananda Sonowal, former president of All Assam Students Union, challenging the validity of the IMDT Act. In its order of 15 July 2005, the court declared the Act unconstitutional.
What is no less significant than the declaration of unconstitutionality of the IMDT Act is what the Supreme Court said about the motivation of the framers of this law and also about the attitude of the Central government to the problems of internal security. The court noted: “How one-sided the provisions of the IMDT Act are. They have been so made that they only result in giving advantage and benefits to an illegal migrant and not for achieving the real objective of the enactment, namely, of detection and deportation of a Bangladeshi national who has illegally crossed the border on or after 25 March 1971. It was underlined: “Though inquiries were initiated in 310,759 cases under the IMDT Act but out of this only 10,015 persons were declared as illegal migrants and finally only 1,481 illegal migrants were physically expelled up to 30 April 2000. This comes to less than half per cent of the cases initiated.”

Alternative route

Drawing attention to the hard facts in the knowledge of the Central government, the court lamented: “The disinclination of the government, for political reasons, to wholeheartedly embark upon identification and deportation of Bangladeshis from Assam.” The court also directed that all cases relating to illegal “migrants should be decided in the manner provided in the Foreigners Act. Even after the clear ruling and direction of the Supreme Court, the nihilist and negative forces refused to change their ways. They proceeded to carve out an alternative route to serve their ends of power. Through a devious act of subordinate legislation, the Central government amended the Rules under the Foreigners Act, and virtually introduced the same procedures of detection, declaration and deportation as were laid down under the IMDT Act.
The above amendments were also challenged by Sarbananda Sonowal through another writ petition. In its judgment, given on 5 December 2006, the Supreme Court not only declared these amendments as “unreasonable, arbitrary and invalid” but also left no one in any doubt how poorly it thought of the intentions of the Central government. It observed: “Though we would normally desist from commenting, when the security of the nation is the issue as highlighted in Sonowal I, we have to say that the bonafides of the action leaves something to be desired.”
The court’s observations, though polite, are pertinent and point to the depth to which our vote-bank politics could descend. For our brand of democracy, petty ends of power and short-term gains and more important than the security of the nation and its long-term well-being. The management of about 4,000-km-long porous border with Bangladesh, which has a vast riverine area in the West and a hilly terrain on the North-east and East and has as many as 162 enclaves, is, undoubtedly, difficult. But it is largely the impaired national vision, selfish politics, exploitative democracy and division-prone social structure that has resulted in the emergence of a huge vicious circle of inter-connected problems.
During all these intervening periods, the Ulfa had tasted blood, accumulated huge funds and weapons, changed its stance with insistence on having a sovereign Assam, and even established friendly contacts with the ISI of Pakistan and Bangladeshi forces hostile to India. It also used the period of ceasefire and negotiations through interlocutors to regroup and strengthen itself. Now a situation has emerged in which a parallel economy, rooted in terrorism and subversion, has come to stay. A potent network of extortion, intimidation and protection-money now operates at the ground level. It is placing a substantial portion of central and state government’s funds in the hands of the militants.
The continuing infiltration of Bangladeshis in Assam and the vote-bank politics that is associated with it have already resulted in the emergence of several political outfits with pronounced communal and parochial tilt. These outfits include the Muslim United Liberation Front of Assam, Muslim United Liberation Tigers, Liberation Islamic Tiger Force, Muslim Volunteer Force, Student Islamic Movement of India and the Islamic Liberation Army. The cross-border contacts of the extremist elements within these organisations with the fundamentalist political parties in Bangladesh have the potential of further undermining the peace and integrity of Assam and other parts of India.
Of late, Bangladesh has become a cocoon of terrorism and beehive of fundamentalist organisations. Three of these organisations ~ the Jamaat-e-Islami, the Islamic Oikyo Jote and the Jaito Party(M) ~ were partners in the ruling alliance led by Khaleda Zia. Under their influence and patronage, the fundamentalist elements have penetrated not only in the power structure of the state but also in the educational institutions and other layers of the society. The agents of the ISI and Al-Qaeda are now able to strike a sympathetic chord in quite a few sections of the Bangladeshi society and the state’s power structure. This has enabled them to establish a number of training camps for the militants, provide safe-havens to them and, taking advantage of the porous border, send them to different parts of India to carry out acts of terrorism.
To retrieve the prevailing agonising conditions, I have a few suggestions to make. The Supreme Court, in its order of December 2006, in Sonowal II, has already directed that the new arrangements under the Foreigners Act should be put in force within four months. The Centre and the state government should carry out this direction and effectively enforce the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. If this is not done, Sonowal or some other public-spirited person should again move the Supreme Court and request it to set up a monitoring committee to ensure that the court’s directions are complied with. Such a monitoring committee was appointed by the Supreme Court in what is known as the Delhi “Sealing Case’, and its impact has been decisive.
All the Bangladeshi migrants who are detected and declared as illegal foreigners under the Foreigners Act but whose physical deportation causes practical problems should be given temporary work-permits for specified items till they return to the native place. In any case, their names should be deleted from the electoral rolls and they should be prohibited to participate in any other national activity.

No negotiation

Currently, Ulfa’s top leaders are directing their operations from Bangladesh. They are doing so in close cooperation with the ISI and Bangladesh and other outfits. They have developed strong vested interests in the huge funds that flow to them. To register their presence, they do not hesitate even to blow up innocent Assamese children gathering for independence parade or for buying vegetables from the market. To talk to such leaders, either directly or through interlocutors, amounts to nothing but feeding the evil. The government must, therefore, declare in no uncertain terms that no negotiation or any kind would be held with Ulfa unless it abjures violence and gives up its demand for sovereignty state of Assam.
The blood-chilling incidents of the last few days in Assam once again remind us that “India can be governed firmly or not at all”. The national leadership of all hues and colours must realise that the country’s integrity and well-being can be ensured only by principled and effective governance and not by creating vote-banks or appeasing negative and nihilist forces. The leadership will also do well to keep in mind what Paul Wilkinson, a noted scholar of terrorism and subversion, has underlined: “Rebellions do not generally fade away; they have to be put down firmly and ruthlessly, if normal life and business are to be restored”.