The Batla House Deception

Yesterday evening, after the Batla Encounter verdict, Congress spokie Abhishek Singhvi came out and stated the verdict should not be politicised. Ahem! He demonstrated the hypocrisy of his party like no one else could have done. For 5 years some Congressmen have done nothing but politicise it. Digvijaya Singh called the encounter fake many times and even visited Azamgarh to rake up the issue politically. Salman Khurshid during the UP 2012 campaign said there were tears in SoniaG’s eyes on seeing Batla House images. All of them thoughtlessly tarred the reputation of a police officer, Mohan Chand Sharma, who was killed in the encounter. This continued even after former Home Minister P. Chidambaram maintained the encounter was not fake and even NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) shared their agreement on it.

So let me lay out the story which I presume the hacktivists and professional agitators would have us believe. On the fine morning of September 19, 2008 Mohan Sharma and members of his Special Unit were at their station chatting over tea. For days they were idle with nothing much to do. One wiseguy suggested “why don’t we go kill some people, we need to test our guns”. Another guy said “we haven’t got medals for a long time it’s time we did something”. So they wrote the names of 5 localities with some addresses in pieces of paper and one of them picked the lucky draw. Well, the unlucky winner in the draw was ‘108 Batla House’. So the guys strapped their guns in the holsters and drove up to Batla and stared shooting and killed a few and some escaped. They were smart not to arouse suspicion this was a fake encounter. So Mohan Sharma took his gun, stretched and turned his arm 180 degrees and shot himself in the back; twice. This is the story the hacktivists would have you believe. The only change they offer is that another cop shot Sharma. So you have two options on how Sharma died.

I remember a scene from the movie “Analyse That” where the shrink asks the mafia wiseguy how he got out of jail and what happened to the strong witness. The wiseguy explains to him: “Oh the witness, he was frustrated… he stabbed himself in the back, twice, and then threw himself over a bridge into a river”. Yeah, frustrated people do stab themselves in their own back, not once but twice, and jump off a bridge. Quite plausible, isn’t it?

Arnab Goswami, in his usual style, let out a tirade against certain Human Rights hacktivists on their wrongful defence of potential and actual terrorists who shot dead a cop. On Times Now Ravi Shankar Prasad made an important and startling comment. He stated that some Delhi cops of the special unit mentioned to him that if Mohan Sharma hadn’t died they would have all been in jail because of the highly connected HR hacks claiming fake encounter and the Jamia Milia agitators. Does that shock anyone? It is probably true if you can see shades of the Ishrat case where the cops are in jail or on bail. Yes, if Mohan Sharma hadn’t died the cops would have been charged for a fake encounter by certain activists, bounty-hunting lawyers and political bitches. That is the level and reality of how the Congress-UPA has brought the country’s fight against terrorists. And they’ll scream “don’t politicise” when they have egg on their faces. It’s a very dangerous sign.

NDTV, true to their profession, were asking if encounters were justified and if the Batla verdict would impact other encounter cases pending in courts. This was a programme by Sunetra Chaudhury in the evening on July 25. What particular case could NDTV be referring to? Umm… Let’s see! If I were to make a wild guess I’d say the Ishrat case on which another political campaign of the Congress and assorted hacktivists rests heavily. The Ishrat verdict is not likely to come any time soon so Singhvi can hold the “don’t politicise” Ishrat verdict for the future. On TimesNow a certain Mrs. Ramalingam, another of those HR hacks, screamed “What about the rights of the common man”? Well, even if there are police raids I wonder if common men pull out guns and start shooting. I tweeted stating I would rather see people like Shahzad dead. They are not common by any stretch of imagination. If terrorists shoot and are caught the courts exist to deliver justice and it doesn’t go by the frivolous opinions of these HR morons.

Now, since the verdict held Shahzad, the lone captured terrorist, guilty of killing Sharma the hacktivists and his lawyers started a new tune. They claimed the court did not judge him as an IM (Indian Mujahideen) terrorist nor has it judged the encounter to be genuine. Okay, weeping venals, we will get to that part soon! There is something shocking that I learned only yesterday. It seems ANHAD (Act now for harmony & Democracy) the NGO run by Shabnam Hashmi and Harsh Mandar had filed a petition in the SC through lawyer Prashant Bhushan to seek a judicial probe as the Batla encounter was against a particular “Community”. Wow! So hate-engineer Shabnam Hashmi thought terrorists shouldn’t be countered if they are from a particular community. The SC naturally dismissed this bogus petition and even admonished the gang for trying to link the case to a particular community. They didn’t say it and the SC didn’t say it but ANHAD is clearly implying the Muslim community is being victimised. I call ANHAD: “Act now for hatred and disharmony” and I make no bones about it.

Now that the verdict is out the hacks, the defence lawyers and sundry agitators from Jamia Milia claim the court had neither judged Shahzad to be an IM terrorist nor has it called the encounter genuine. This is the deception that they are peddling to fool the nation. Here are a couple of tweets that @Spread_Law made on the case:

Mind you, I am only quoting SpreadLaw, a helpful handle which tweets on legal issues and provides clarity on judgements, and it is not part of any debate or controversy in the Batla case. So the question is why would a court pass a judgement on whether Shahzad is an IM, LeT or JuD terrorist when there was no such specific petition and no one asked the court for such a judgement? The case before the court was whether Shahzad killed Mohan Sharma in the encounter and the circumstances leading to it and not the flavour of his terrorist connections. Secondly, there was no petition in the court challenging the genuineness of the encounter except probably in the defence of Shahzad by his lawyers, so the court also did not have to adjudicate on that. The murder of the cop was the key issue in the prosecution. So the claims that the court did not pass judgement on these issues are frivolous and meant to deceive the public. Fact is there was no legal challenge on the encounter being genuine and therefore the court does not need to rule on it.

Courts usually rule on the petition before them. They don’t have to rule on petitions that were never made. And until someone specifically challenges Batla as fake, as the hacks have done in the Ishrat case, the encounter will stand as genuine. Period! As SpreadLaw points out, the court has made an “observation” which is substantial but even that was not necessary. Shahzad is indeed a terrorist of IM and the encounter is genuine unless someone legally challenges that position. If Digvijaya Singh felt the encounter was fake he and his gang should have challenged it in the courts. They did not because they too know there is no merit in their claim which is only for “political” gains.

The fake claims of the hacktivists are equivalent to claiming Al Capone was never a bootlegger and never a murderer because no court has ever pronounced him so. He was sentenced to prison for tax evasion which is the case the prosecution brought against him. That’s the nature of law. But everyone knows Capone was a mass murderer and a bootlegger. The campaign of lies and deception by the HR hacks and some politicians is not out of any sympathy for the likes of Shahzad. It is a larger design to weaken the country politically and compromise its security for enemy forces. These people and their deceptions are as dangerous as the terrorists themselves. 

The Hindu - Of Baggages & Queens

Guy even sold out on Jesus for 30 pieces. “Judas Iscariot agreed he would hand over Jesus to the priests for 30 pieces of silver”. Thus writes Jyoti Malhotra (JM) in The Hindu (TH) on October 23, a day after James Bevan, UK High Commissioner, met Narendra Modi to regularise ties between UK and Gujarat which were cut off since 2002 happened. JM quotes the New Testament. Nice! Except that JM won’t tell you that by records available the New Testament was written anywhere from 50 to 200+ years after Jesus died. Definitely not by actual witnesses. Not that it matters. In a different way the story of Gujarat 2002 is also written by many with extra-ordinarily fertile imagination. Given the corruptions in our history written by Commies, in 200 years you can expect to read how Modi himself chopped off the heads of Muslims and danced over their dead bodies. Far-fetched? Leave a note for your great grand-kids to check. They might be the ones to read the baggage of history of lies left behind.

TH, which carried JM’s article titled “Embracing the darkness”, and its editor S. Varadarajan (I fondly refer to him as Vardabhai) are not exactly great admirers of Modi. So TH, as with many other media dealers, goes way overboard in the crap they have peddled over a foreign govt’s decision to right a historic wrong. In ‘The Insider’, tobacco industry whistle-blower Jeffrey Wigand wonderfully describes a cigarette as a “delivery vehicle for nicotine”. You see, most of our MSM, including TH, are not very different from cigarettes. They are delivery vehicles for “nicotine of a different kind”. There will, hopefully, come a time when the MSM papers and TV channels will have to carry a ‘statutory warning’ on the toxic material they deliver like cigarette packs. JM first wrote on her anguish over UK’s ‘new best fraand’ in the Business Standard (BS). That had a lot to do with the UK’s economy, stats and so on. But when TH hired her to write on the same topic it soon turned to human rights and 2 UK muslims who were killed in the 2002 riots. Like a Bollywood masala TH probably laid out the formula: Human rights, emotions, Muslims killed, money over people and, of course, laced with the usual ‘pogrom’ classification. Vardabhai likes!  

Unlike the rants of JM and TH over human rights and their prejudices, nations act mostly on the basis of their national interest. This is what James Bevan said too, that UK’s dealings with Gujarat and therefore with Modi are purely in the interest of Britain’s national interest. Since JM, and many others, wail over human rights, killings and pogroms let us ask them a few questions. In the pic is MMS affectionately hugging Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (often joked about as Ahmed-in-a-Jihad). This is the guy who denies the holocaust which saw the death of millions of Jews. This is the guy who heads a govt that brutally kills opposition members and dissenters. Iran is a nation that doesn’t have any record of human rights worth the mention. So why should India even have relations with Iran? Can JM and TH explain? The UN approved a resolution condemning an alleged plot by Iran, to assassinate Saudi envoy to Washington. India abstained! Law? Human rights? In 2010 the same UN passed resolutions condemning human rights violations in Iran, North Korea and Myanmar. India abstained! What say Jyoti? What say Vardabhai? Should we believe that in the eyes of Jyoti and Vardabhai Iran is a paragon of human rights for India to deal with that country?

Let’s move on. Here’s a pic of MMS with the Saudi King Al Saud. Looks nice, doesn’t it? Of course, Saudi Arabia is another paragon of moral uprightness when it comes to human rights, religious freedoms, women’s rights. There is no way JM or Vardabhai can disagree with that. Can they? Er.. it’s just that very frequently they have this unusual practice of beheading people in public as punishments. Hmm! See the pic below MMS and the Saudi King and read this from the Indian Express (June 9, 2012):  “A Pakistani man convicted of drug trafficking has reportedly been beheaded in Saudi Arabia…. The latest beheading brings to 31 the total number of executions in the conservative kingdom so far this year… According to the report, nearly 76 people were beheaded in 2011, while rights group Amnesty International put the number of executions last year at 79”. I suppose this falls within the moral nonsense of JM and TH for India to have relations with Saudi Arabia. I guess it does!

Why exactly does India want relations with the Saudis? Surely, it can’t be money or national interests, eh? We love their human rights record, don’t we? We are fraands with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Tragically, unlike these nations who have a history of human rights abuse Gujarat 2002 is an unfortunate tragedy that is not an everyday feature. That apart, UK might have realised its decisions, on Gujarat in the past, may have been as influenced by writings and petitions of filthy minds that abound in our MSM. Their prejudice and hatred for Modi is bent upon making Gujarat appear to be a monster much larger than Libya even. And with no evidence, legal or moral, they will continue to scam Modi with their lies no matter what. JM argues in her article, with the help of a BBC report, that the Gujarat violence was state sponsored. Hard to refute, the BBC is the final word of God. Where Gujarat is concerned the BBC relies on as much evidence as their prejudiced ground reporters, made up of the JM types, who are persuaded by the same prejudices. They will not ever rely on our SITs or Judiciary. Who knows, this might even qualify JM and TH to write another testament.

But hey, what’s this got to do with Saudi Arabia and Iran? This is about UK, isn’t it? So let’s talk about UK instead. That should make our media morons more comfortable. Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was dragged through the streets and brutally killed by his own people. Britain didn’t have diplomatic relations with Libya since 1984 and then Gaddafi owned up to the Lockerbie Pan-Am bombing of 1988. Read the entire timeline of UK-Libya relations on this page by The Telegraph. (I recommend you do). In 2004 PM Tony Blair visited Tripoli to normalise relations with Libya. Nothing but pure “national interests” drove the Blair govt to normalise relations. I’m sure many in our MSM would love to see Modi being equated with Gaddafi and see him meet a similar fate. Unfortunately, that doesn’t hold the truth as they themselves would know. Modi, in contrast, is revered by a large population and his model of governance and corruption-free govt inspires many others in India as well as the world. The lies of our MSM weren’t meant to last forever. They never do!

As against the lies about Gujarat and Modi peddled by our MSM, especially some very motivated players, India does deal with many tyrannical countries in the world. We do so for our own national interests. We do not possess the power or the right to intervene in all of their problems. 

India refused to even vote against Burma’s human rights situation in the UN. So the trash that Jyoti Malhotra and Vardabhai peddle is just another episode in the long campaign of vilification of Modi and Gujarat. Our MSM may be dumb, the UK and many other govts aren’t so. UK had slipped to 7th in economic standings 2011 and by 2020 is expected to fall to 8. If the slide is not arrested UK may not even figure in the top 10 in the decade after 2020.

If justice were the only concern for the likes of Jyoti Malhotra then they ignore the fact that while our judiciary moves slowly it surely has brought many criminals of 2002 to justice. This is unparalleled in the history of communal riots in India. But it is not, and never was, about justice. It was and will always remain political and about hanging Narendra Modi. Those who started the vicious campaign against Modi can never get past their baggage. It has become a ball and chain at their ankle. Some people in our country can be fooled by our MSM. Govts too get fooled but recover sooner than later. JM and The Hindu can carry their lament to their graves. The world will neither lament nor stop for them. I know of a lady who likes to frequently borrow from Alice. Oh yeah! But in this case there are no Cabbages, the Walrus tells a different story. It’s about the The Hindu and their Baggages and Queens.