Sopore violence: Case of murder filed against Army

Sopore, Feb 22: The Jammu and Kashmir police on Sunday filed a case of murder against the Army in connection with the death of two civilians in Sopore yesterday. The two youths were killed and another was critically injured when unidentified gunmen in combat uniform opened fire on a group of people in Sopore town of North Kashmir. The incident sparked violent street protests by residents in the area, with the government ordering a magisterial inquiry into it. An FIR was filed in Sopore police station on Sunday under Section 302 against troopers of the Rashtriya Rifles, official sources said. On its part, the Army has also ordered an inquiry into the incident. "An inquiry has been ordered into the incident to identify the facts," an Army spokesman said. While locals alleged Army personnel moving in a bullet-proof vehicle resorted to firing at a place near a local bus stand without any provocation, the Army said militants in combat dress opened fire to escape from security forces. An Army spokesman said in Srinagar that Army personnel were not present at all at the site of the incident but "we are checking who opened fire at the civilians". Police said two persons in combat dress opened fire on a group of youths in the main bazar near local bus stand. The deceased were identified as Mohammad Amin and Javid Ahmed and the seriously injured youth as Firdous Ahmed. Police said the situation in the town was "tense" but under control. Official sources said prohibitory orders under Section 144, promulgated last evening in the town, continue to be in force but locals allege that curfew has been imposed there and citizens are not being allowed to move out of their houses. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, who is currently on a three-day tour of the twin border districts of Rajouri and Poonch, ordered a magisterial enquiry into the incident and asked for the report to be submitted within 15 days.

Why were the police quick to file case against the Army even before an enquiry was ordered? This is a dangerous precedent. Probably part of a plot to evict the Army from patrolling in Kashmir. The Chief Minister Omar Abdullah must order an enquiry into the police over-enthusiasm in filing a case against the Army – otherwise he would be playing into the hands of the terrorists.

http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2009-02-22/509781news.html

Rediff News gets its act wrong

Are you for Valentine's Day or against it?
February 11, 2009

The chaddiwalas can do what they want and the sariwalas too can do what they want. India, after all, is a democratic country and everybody has a right to protest (obviously in a non-violent manner) what they think is harmful for India's youth and to her culture.
We at rediff.com have found a unique way (and it is totally non-violent) to register your protest. This is your chance to tell the world on which side of the divide you are: chaddiwalas or sariwalas.
Let us be clear that here Chaddiwalas are all those who think that events like Valentine's Day, pub-going, disco-dancing should be banned in India becasue they represent the decadent Western culture and so not good for Indians.
Sariwalas, on the other hand, believe in freedom of expression: Expressing their feelings, emotions, joys and sorrows by celebrating Valentine's Day, going to pubs, talking to people irrespective of their caste, gender or religion.
In other words, chaddiwalas are opposed to celebration of Valentine's Day and sariwala's support its celebration.
But in recent times, with the attack by Pramod Muthalik led Sri Ram Sene on pub-going women in Mangalore, this divide is yet again out in the open, getting starker by the day.
If given a chance -- and given the anonymity that the Internet provides -- which side of the divide would you stand for? Express yourself by giving a 'Thumbs Up' if you believe in Valentine's Day and are going to celebrate it this February 14th and a 'Thumbs Down' if you don't and oppose its celebration.

It is outrageous that Rediff News wants to call those who oppose Valentine’s day as chaddiwalas and those who are for it as sariwalas. The wearing of sari represents the Indian culture of modesty and the display of chaddis represents the culture of exposure imported from the West. Therefore, correctly, it is the sariwalas who are opposing Valentine's day symbolized by the chaddi and its permissive culture.

Rediff News – get your act correct.

Obama wants assurances from Pak on AQ Khan

Washington, Feb 07: US President Barack Obama wants assurances from Islamabad that released Pakistani scientist Abdul Qader Khan, accused of leaking atomic secrets, isn't involved in any of the activity that led to his arrest.

"Obviously the President and this government want assurances that Dr Khan is not engaged or involved in any of the activity that resulted in his house arrest earlier," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Friday.

A Pakistani court yesterday ordered the release of Khan, considered the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, who spent five years under house arrest after admitting selling nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

"We've seen the reports of the release but have yet to receive official word from the government," Gibbs said. "Obviously, this President has made clear many times the great concern that he has about nuclear proliferation."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also expressed concern about the release of Khan. In the House, Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Howard Berman suggested that US aid to Pakistan could suffer because of the development. Berman said he is "deeply concerned" that Pakistan may be giving Khan "license to resume, perhaps directly, his past actions to aid, abet and profit from the spread of nuclear weapons."

Congress, Berman said, will take Pakistan's refusal to allow US officials to interview Khan "into account as we review and create legislation on US-Pakistan relations and the circumstances under which US assistance is provided to Islamabad."

CIA spokesman George Little called Khan "one of the most dangerous proliferators in history" and praised the disruption of his smuggling network as "a genuine intelligence success."

Earlier, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid describing Khan as "a serious proliferation risk" said in US view "it would be unfortunate if the court released him."

"We believe AQ Khan remains a serious proliferation risk. The proliferation support that Khan and his associates provided to Iran and North Korea has had a harmful impact on international security, and will for years to come."

"The Pakistanis are well aware of our position on this," he said. "This is not a new position."

Asked if the US was anticipating Khan's release when it recently announced sanctions targeting him, the spokesman said: "The sanctions were announced to target the AQ Khan network, which we are actively pursuing and we are trying to roll up."

"And the United States and its international partners have done a good job in tracking down this network. That should have no effect or influence on whether or not Mr Khan is let out of his current status of detention," he said.

IANS

How funny. When has giving assurances ever been a problem for Pakistan? Have they not always been giving assurances to act against terrorism? I think Bush would have put a tougher condition against Pakistan than just seeking an assurance.