Communal Violence Bill – issues under discussion

Communal Violence Bill – issues under discussion

As government is preparing to table the modified Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, the following issues are under discussion.

According to one lobby, instead of empowering the government, it has to be made accountable. There is also an opposition to declare an area as communally disturbed as it providess an opportunity for the government to acquire powers which entitles it to conduct combing operations, search and seizure exercises, etc.

There is also a demand to include crimes of sexual assault added as offences, and also the definition of sexual crimes broadened. Cases of stripping of women in public, pushing iron rods into their bodies, etc are also suggested to be included along with traditional provision of rape.

There is a demand to make both public servants and non-state actors criminally responsible for “their acts of omission and commission.”

Some provisions of the bill, is expected to affect the state-center relationship and are likely to be opposed by the states.

Uighurs flee China after riots

Uighurs flee China after riots

Police came looking for Vali days after bloody ethnic riots broke out in the far west last year, saying they had video footage of him among fleeing protesters and later shouting at an officer.

The 22-year-old man was not home, and his father called to tell him to stay away. Vali hid for weeks before escaping to the Netherlands to join an estimated 150 other Uighurs – a Muslim minority group from China’s Xinjiang region – seeking refugee status.

“Once I got off the plane, I told the police that I need political asylum,” Vali said in a phone interview. “I told them everything that I had been through and said I can no longer live in China. If I have to go back, I am 100 percent sure that I will be dead.”

Nearly a year after the worst riots in China’s far west in more than a decade, his story and that of another asylum seeker interviewed by the Associated Press are among the few accounts to emerge of how some Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gurs) got out amid a government crackdown.

At least 300 Uighurs are thought to have fled China since the July unrest, according to the World Uyghur Congress. Some slipped illegally into neighboring countries in Central Asia, which regularly extradite Uighurs back to China. Others with more money, such as Vali, paid thousands of dollars to criminal gangs and smugglers for plane tickets and visas.

China says some Uighurs are terrorists or criminals who pose a threat to the region’s safety, and it has insisted that Uighur refugees be extradited back. Foreign governments weary of immigrants and wary of offending China often are unwelcoming or play down the presence of Uighurs.

Cambodia sent 20 Uighur refugees back to China in December despite international protests. Turkey, which has strong ethnic and linguistic ties to the group, has eased entry requirements, but its government is reluctant to talk about the influx of dozens of Uighurs.

The Netherlands is home to what is believed to be the largest group in Europe because many international flights pass through Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport.

The two Uighurs in Holland told AP of the fear of being ensnared by a crackdown that has detained hundreds, often unaccounted for months later. Chinese media reports say at least 25 people, mostly Uighurs, have been tried and sentenced to death for crimes related to the riots.

The Uighurs told their stories on condition that only their last names be used, citing fears of retaliation against their families. Now they wait to see if they will be granted asylum – or sent home.

On July 5, 2009, Vali was driving home when he stopped to let about 2,000 Uighur protesters pass as they marched southward in the city of Urumqi.

Armed police officers swarming in front of him suddenly opened fire in the direction of the protesters, sending them fleeing, he says. He panicked and drove through the crowd to get out. In the midst of the commotion, he says, his car was videotaped by state security.

Vali sped to his aunt’s house, where he spent the night huddled with her family on the living room floor, listening to the sounds of gunfire and explosions. “I was terrified,” he said. “None of us slept at all that night.”

As long-simmering tensions between the Uighurs and the Han Chinese majority exploded into violence, Uighurs smashed windows, torched cars and attacked Han. Uighurs say security forces fired at them.

Two days later, Han vigilantes stormed into Uighur neighborhoods to take revenge. Vali said he saw a group of Han Chinese paramilitary police beating about a dozen unarmed Uighurs just outside his house. When the Uighur men fell to the ground, Han protesters ran over and stomped on their bodies and faces, he said.

Vali’s father paid for his escape through the sale of their home. With 100,000 yuan ($14,700) in hand, Vali took a train from Urumqi to the southern city of Guangzhou. There he stayed for another two months while waiting for travel documents he had paid a Chinese gang 90,000 yuan ($13,200) to obtain on his behalf.

It was November by the time his escape route – a flight to Dubai, transiting in Amsterdam – was ready. A Chinese man dropped him off at the Guangzhou border control, but police detained and interrogated him for four hours before finally letting him go. He caught a bus to Hong Kong’s airport and made the flight.

“It was only after I arrived in Holland that I finally felt safe,” he said. “I thought the government would protect me.”

However, Vali soon discovered that the Dutch government was less sympathetic than he had hoped. The Dutch immigration service rejected his application, saying his account of problems with Chinese authorities following the unrest was not credible, and pointed to his ability to travel legally out of the country.

“If the police believe I didn’t take part in the protest, why would they come and look for me?” said Vali, who has filed an appeal. “Just for trying to seek political asylum, I will be in big trouble. It’s a big crime.”

Patiguli, 29, hid at home during the riots, fearing for her boyfriend, who had called to say he was joining the demonstrations, as well as her grandmother, who was outside.

When police found her boyfriend at her home a few days after the unrest, they also detained Patiguli and her brother, holding them in separate locations and interrogating them for six days. Her mother, a businesswoman, had to bribe officials to secure the release of the siblings.

Patiguli never saw or heard from her boyfriend again.

Patiguli and her brother went into hiding for eight months while her mother paid traffickers to help Patiguli escape. Patiguli flew out of Shanghai on a flight that transited in a European destination she did not disclose, where she was picked up by a Chinese man and

Govt opposes Afzal’s mercy plea, wary of Prez’s decision

Govt opposes Afzal’s mercy plea, wary of Prez’s decision

The government has opposed the mercy petition for Afzal Guru, but President Pratibha Patil may not accept its recommendation to carry out the death sentence of the Parliament attack convict. President Patil is known to have serious reservations, possibly because of her religious beliefs, about death penalty. Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorist was convicted of one of the most audacious crimes.

The home ministry had sent its response, rejecting their mercy petitions, to the President House on June 22, 2005. Referring to the Afzal Guru’s file which has been with the home ministry for nearly two weeks, sources said the relevant file was expected to be sent to the Prime Minister’s Office shortly from where it will be sent to Rashtrapati Bhavan.

The mercy petition was filed by Guru’s wife Tabassum four years ago. The petition was referred by the ministry to the Delhi government which sat on it for nearly four years. Delhi’s lieutenant governor Tejinder Khanna had sent the file on Guru to the home ministry early this month after 16 reminders to the Sheila Dikshit government.

Guru was sentenced to death by a sessions court on December 18, 2002 for the December 13, 2001 militant attack on Parliament House. The verdict was upheld by the Delhi High Court on October 29, 2003 and by the Supreme Court on August 4, 2005. Subsequently, the sessions court set October 20, 2006 as the date for hanging Guru but his wife filed the mercy petition.

Apart from this case, a list of 24 pending mercy petitions, attached to the President Secretariat’s response, shows how Rashtrapati Bhavan, under two successive Presidents — APJ Abdul Kalam and the incumbent — has for five years been sitting over the recommendation of the home ministry for the execution of death sentence given to three persons convicted of Rajiv Gandhi assassination — T Suthethiraja alias Santhan, Sriharan alias Murugan and G Pasarivalan alias Arivu.

Karnataka Lokayukta Santosh Hegde, known for his crusade against corruption and the mining lobby, announced his resignation from the post and criticised the BJP government for its indifference to Lokayukta institution on 23rd June 2010. “There is no doubt that this (Yeddyurappa) government wanted me to go. ‘If you don’t go, we would oust you,’ was their attitude. They must have clapped to hear the news of my resignation,” said Lokayukta Justice N Santosh Hegde.