Nation Wants to Know Why Tanvi Seth was Issued Passport in Tearing Hurry?

Can anyone be converted from one religion to the other within five minutes of heated exchange of words? This is well-nigh impossible, but it is what a couple Tanvi Seth and her husband Anas Siddiqui make us believe, that too, after 12 years of their marriage. The lady Tanvi Seth has alleged that an official of the Lucknow’s Regional Passport Office has humiliated her by asking humiliating questions about her Hindu name and wanted her husband to Hinduism. Anybody will say in the first blush that it is not only absurd but also smacks of the blackmailing by the lady and her husband. 
Lo and behold! what is even more disturbing is that within 24 hours of her raising the communal hue and cry, the Passport Officer called the couple, offered them tea and handed over her passport with all humility and respect. This has been done because she tweeted the External Affairs Minister narrating the story of her predicament.
But if there is even a shred of truth in what she has told about the issuing of the Passport, then the MEA owes an explanation to the country as to why she was given the passport without comprehensive enquiry into her allegations? And if any enquiry, at all, was done, then why it was not made known to the country because it is highly sensitive matter in the communally fragile atmosphere?
Does this lady want the passport officials to be so naive as not to ask any questions about the discrepancies in her application form? The couple had shown the NOIDA address as the proof of their residence then why did she seek passport from the Lucknow office? The way this lady and her husband took the sky on their heads speaks about their criminal bent of mind. Anybody could see through that there was total black at the bottom of their statements. If the lady wanted to retain her Hindu name, she would not have used her Muslim name at other places, where she had worked.
There are many instances where women and men have not changed their names even after their conversion from one religion to the other but in this case, the story is altogether different which reeks to the high heaven. What explanation does she have to apply for the passport in the name of Tanvi Seth when her name in the voter id card is Tanvi Anas, in the Aadhar Card she is Tanvi Anas Siddiqui and in the Nikahnama her name is Sadia Anas Siddiqui? Does it not amply expose her disingenuousness for fraud and cheating?
What is even more disturbing is that this lady works with a multinational company Dell and earlier she had applied for H1 VISA to work in the US. In her old passport, her name is Sadia Anas Siddiqui and that perhaps the reason that Visa was rejected. After 9/11 the United States and other western countries have become very sensitive towards the Muslims in the granting VISA because they (Muslims) do not believe in assimilation and adjustment. They try to maintain their distinct identity and create problems for the host country. This has been vouchsafed in the books of the famous writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali that Muslims all over the world tell lies and give false statements for availing the VISA and refugee status in all countries of Europe, America, Australia and Canada.
The conduct and the behaviour of this lady and her husband are reprehensible. She left no stone unturned to vitiate the social atmosphere by injecting the toxic of communalism through her tweets by playing the victim card. She and her husband both are well educated and there is no reason to believe that they have done it innocently. It was obviously done with a deliberate design and mischief for blackmailing. Therefore, this case must be thoroughly enquired into to reach to the bottom of the truth. External Affairs Minister also tell the country if it was not succumbing to the intimidation of the fraud couple, then why there was tearing hurry in issuing her passport within 24 hours, that too, without enquiring the matter? and telling the country the truth? This is a serious matter and its gravity demands that the Government of India must inquire into it and tell the truth to the nation.

Eyebrows Raised on Justice Thipsay Joining the Congress Party

Former High Court Judge Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay has joined the Congress party within a year of his retirement. Had Justice Thipsay been a non-descript judge, the eyebrows would not have been raised. During his judgeship, he had handled many high-profile cases, but the pattern of his judgements was almost the same and similar. Most of the cases decided by him have thrown him in the bad light as they indicate towards his unethical conduct, the perversity of thought process and skewed mentality. The track record of his judgments conclusively proves that the Judge has been hostile to a particular Political Party and its leaders. He used all tools in his armoury to give farfetched logic in his orders to embarrass that Party and its dispensation in Gujrat. Now when he has joined the Congress Party, the apprehensions get substantiated and fortified.
In the Shohrabuddin encounter case, he jailed Amit Shah, the present BJP president. While granting bail to Gujrat police officers DG Vanjara and Narendra Amin, he had made the most uncharitable observation by saying that he was granting them bail because of the rulings of the Supreme Court although he did not believe in their innocence. In the Best Bakery case, he convicted the members of the various Hindutva group for participating in the pogrom of 2002 Gujrat riots. In Kabir Kala Manch case he acquitted all persons charged of Naxalism without giving even a shred of any convincing logic.
There is nothing new in the Judges joining politics after their retirements or after resigning from their posts. Justice Subba Rao resigned from the post of the CJI to contest the election to the high office of the President of India. Justice Barhul Islam of the Supreme Court also resigned to contest the Lok Sabha election and he became the MP, although before becoming the High Court he was two times member of the Rajya Sabha from Assam. The former CJI Rangnath Mishra, Justice KS Hegde, Justice Vijay Bahuguna, Justice M Rama Jois also joined the politics, but nobody raised any accusing figure on the impartiality and impeccability of their judgments. But in the case of Justice Thipsay allegations are made thick and fast that he was he driven by a particular political ideology and not the principles of law. Justice VR Krishna Iyer was a minister in Kerala’s communist party government and he went on to become the Supreme Court judge but he had won all-around applause and laurels for his path-breaking judgements. His integrity was always above board like Ceasar's wife. His judgments speak volumes about his social commitment without having any trace of the party politics.
Judges have been taking up assignments after their retirements and it is considered very common. In fact, there are certain statutory bodies, which can be headed only by the serving or retired judges of the High Courts or the Supreme Cout. but the way, Justice Thipsay conducted himself on the bench corroborates the fact that he often jettisoned the rule of law in his judgements and given way to his political leanings. In fact, that is what is disturbing because that will hesitatingly erode the public’s faith in the judiciary and it will be a sad day if the judiciary loses the faith of the public.

‘Infidel’ stresses Islam to come out of mental cage

By and large, all religions are repressive. Some religions, however, provide more space and freedom for agreements or disagreements and debates and discussions but Islam is the one such religion that does not yield even an inch of disagreement. There is no room for any debate or discussion in it. You must blindly follow what has been ordained to you. The punishment for apostasy in Islam is death and nothing less. This is the crux of the ‘Infidel’, the unputdownable autobiography of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which is an international bestseller. Hirsi Ali, now 48-year-old was born in Somalia, the most poverty-ridden country in the world. She is the first daughter of her father’s second wife. Her father left her mother in the lurch, with three children, to marry a Kenyan woman. Her mother was deserted by her first husband also but then she was then issueless which qualified her to marry her father, who was a political activist and living in exile for fear of being persecuted by the authoritarian regime of Somalia. Hirsi Ali has had to live in Islamic countries like Somalia, Yemen, Ethiopia and in Christian/Muslim country Kenya. She had to undergo the most barbaric practice of vaginal excision, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), to ensure the virginity until her marriage.
Her first marriage with her cousin was a flop which lasted only for a few days. The second marriage was arranged by her father with Kenyan Canadian, which also did not last for more than a week. She became a refugee in Holland, contested election to win to become the member of the Dutch Parliament. Now she lives in the USA and is married to Niall Ferguson, a British historian.
Hirsi Ali was a devout Muslim but when she read the philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Spinoza, Leibnitz and political thinkers like Voltaire, her eyes and brain got opened and she found to her utter dismay that how Islam has mentally caged nearly two billion people across the world. She says in her famous book ‘Infidel” that ‘Islam is like a mental cage. At first, when you open the door, the caged bird stays inside: it is frightened. It has internalised its imprisonment. It takes time for the bird to escape, even after someone has opened the doors to its cage.’
The fear of Islam is visible even in the most developed countries of the world particularly after the horrible incident of 9/11 in America and now the entire civilised world is face to face with the menace of Islamists. The ISIS and other Wahabi Islamic outfits have posed the greatest threat and danger to the humanity and civilisation. It has made the situation explosive even in a country like Holland, where even prostitution and soft drugs are licit. Where euthanasia and abortion are practised, where men cry on T.V. and naked people walk on the beach and the Pope is joked about. But people are afraid of speaking against Islam which, in her words, epitomises barbarianism. She further says that ‘Islam is the only religion which divides the society into ‘US’ and ‘THEM’-if you do not accept Islam you should perish, which further says that if you do not go out and fight against ‘THEM’, God will punish you severely and put others in your place’. Therefore, ‘whenever you meet the polytheists, kill them, besiege them and ambush them. Whenever you meet unbelievers, strike them in the neck’.
She has quoted Osama Bin Laden, who declared that ‘do not take Jews and Christians as friends; they are allies only to each other. Anyone who takes them as an ally becomes one of them.’ The Hadith says, ‘the hour of judgement will not come until the Muslim fight the Jews or kill them.’ Hirsi Ali avers that a religion which is so intolerant towards others can never be the religion of peace and brotherhood. In Islam, the relationship of an individual to God is one of total submission like that of a slave to master. To Muslims worship of God means total obedience to Allah and total abstinence from the thoughts and deeds that HE has declared forbidden in Quran. Hirsi Ali is intrigued that Allah is constantly referred in the Quran as the ‘most compassionate and most merciful’ but why does HE not allow a little debate?
There is no freedom to the woman in Islam as she has been declared to be the ‘tillage’ of man. She has to remain veiled as the skin of her body if seen to a man, brings Satanic tendencies in him. Therefore, she must ensure that the man is not consumed by the Satanic forces by seeing any part of the woman’s body. And that is why; Muslim women are supposed to have no faces. Women should cover their bodies even in front of a blind man, even in their own houses, that women must have to remain in the care of men, that women should obey their husbands, that women are worth half a man, that to abjure her faith is the worst kind of disobedience to God; because she comes from the lowest, most impure element in society. A Muslim woman must obey her husband, that if you refuse your husband and he rapes you, that is your fault. Allah says that husbands should beat their wives if they misbehave; it is in Quran. (page244 of her Infidel). Here Hirsi Ali becomes pensive with thought and says that the societies which do not respect the rise of the women are bound to remain poor and disturbed.
This is why, the societies, which have belief in equality of man and woman find themselves paralysed with pain at such state of affairs in Islamic countries. Hirsi Ali has told many things about Prophet Mohammad in the book. For instance; he remained in monogamy until the age of 50, when his first wife, who was 15 years senior to him died. He married his adopted son’s widow and also to his friends six-year-old Aisha but consummated the marriage when she became nine. He had many wives, at least nine or ten.
Hirsi is of the view that with the development of science and technology and spread of modern education among women, their shackles will get broken as only the educated women can be the harbinger of freedom.
The book is absorbing and must be read by the Muslims intelligentsia. As a matter of fact, the Muslims from the democratic countries like India should come forward to see that the equality of men and women are respected, and primitive religious laws are done away with. And only then the society will leapfrog from fossilized time zone to the most vibrant and dynamic space. Modern education gives wings to fly and it should not be clipped. Will Muslims hearken her plaintive call?

Exterminate the Jinnah- mentality to save India

It is shocking beyond words to find such people, and that too in a large number, who shamelessly defend the portrait of MA Jinnah in AMU, a person who was responsible for the vivisection of India, killings of more than two million people, large rape and rapine and displacement of many millions in the name of an Islamic country, Pakistan.
      Way back in 1940 MA Jinnah had said, ‘The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs. They neither intermarry nor inter-dine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Musalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other hand, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.’
       Again in 1944 Jinnah said, ‘We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportions, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, and aptitude and ambitions. In short, we have our own outlook on life and of life’. Although the seeds of the partition of India were sown by Allama Iqbal in 1930 itself, Jinnah was the person who translated their dreams into reality by playing with the passions of illiterate and dogmatic Muslims'.
        It is strange that some people, due to their hatred for Veer Savarkar, try to lay blame on him for two nation theory, but nothing can be farther from the truth. In his famous speech in the Calcutta conference of Hindu Mahasabha in 1939 Veer Savarkar had said, ‘India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution.
       Dr. BR Ambedkar in his book ‘Pakistan or Partition of India’ has said that ‘he (Savarkar) does not propose to suppress the Muslim nation. On the contrary, he is nursing and feeding it by allowing it to retain its religion, language, and culture, elements which go to sustain the soul of a nation. At the same time, he does not consent to divide the country so as to allow the two nations to become separate, autonomous states, each sovereign in its own territory. 

      Another preposterous logic is put forward that Jinnah belonged to undivided India; therefore, there is nothing wrong to have his portrait. But will such people tell that if there is any university in Pakistan which adorns the portrait of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel or Bose? The reply will be emphatic ‘no’. Then why should any Indian university have the photograph of a megalomaniac like Jinnah on its walls?

      Those, who say that Jinnah was a freedom fighter, are either knaves or fools or an amalgam of both. Jinnah never went to jail even for a day and never participated in the freedom struggle as he was in the good books of Britishers and was used to get all facilities and comforts from the Raj. This is an altogether different matter that by raising the passions of foolish and dogmatic Muslims, he had dwarfed the stature of the likes of Abul Kalam Azad, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai, Zakir Hussain and others. The problem, with these Congress leaders, was that they tried to prove themselves to be more Muslim by their conduct than Pakistan supporting Muslims. Jinnah, on the contrary, was never a practicing Muslim and yet he had a tremendous spell over the Muslims.

    The sooner it is removed from the AMU the better. Those who are opposing it must be crushed with iron hands otherwise such elements will snowball into the disease of cancer, the emperor of maladies, leading to unimaginable catastrophe for India. Jinnah is not a person, it is a mentality. Need is to exterminate this mentality, as ruthlessly as possible, to keep India united.

SC Must Stem Rot Before It Stinks

The Supreme Court of India is beset with galore of controversies. At the beginning of this year, four of its senior most judges- Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph- held a Press Conference saying that ‘all is not well’ in the Supreme Court of India. This triggered the opposition parties to move for the impeachment of the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. However, the impeachment proceedings could not be carried forward because the entire last session of both houses was washed out due to the ruckus and pandemonium inside the house by one or the other opposition party. Thereafter two of its judges sent missives to the CJI requesting him to take immediate measures to set right the Court’s functioning.

Adding fuel to fire the former Law Minister and very senior advocate Shanti Bhushan and his son Prashant Bhushan, also a celebrated advocate, filed Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court for the constitution a five-judge bench to decide as to which case was to be heard by which bench. They further asked the Registrar General of the court not to list the matter before the Chief Justice of India. This part of their prayer virtually amounts to no confidence in the Chief Justice, which many consider being inappropriate. Prashant Bhushan mentioned this issue before Justice Chelameswar on 12^th April 12, 2018, for early hearing but it was rejected by him with a sarcastic tinge that he would not like his order to be reversed by the larger bench in 24 hours. Assigning of the cases has been the main cause of contention. In their letter of 12^th January 2018 to the Chief Justice, the four senior-most judges had said ‘there have been instances when cases having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution have been assigned by the CJI selectively to Benches of their preference without any rational basis for such assignment.’

In the meantime Justice Kurian  also wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India with copy to all other 22 judges of the Supreme Court saying that, ‘the very existence of the Supreme Court is under threat and history will not pardon us, if the court does not respond to the government’s unprecedented act  of sitting on the collegium recommendation to elevate a judge and a senior advocate to the apex court’. He urged the Chief Justice to establish a bench of seven judges to suo motu take up the matter government sitting on the two names.  If this demand is accepted, it would effectively mean an open court hearing by the judges who could pass orders asking the government to decide on the pending recommendations of the Collegium. They could even direct the government to issue the warrants for appointments of judges within a stipulated time frame and failure to do so make the government liable for contempt of court. Justice Kurian even suggested that following the precedent in Justice Karnan’s case, the Supreme Court should take up the mater on the judicial side. Most remarkably, he added, that while Justice Karnan’s case was a threat to the ‘dignity of the court’, the present one is a threat to the ‘very life and existence’ of the institution.

What has, however, taken the cake is that a petition of a lawyer Ashok Pande, who is credited to have filed more than two hundred PILs on various issues, mostly in the Allahabad High Court. He filed his PIL within four days of the press conference of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. Shri Pande in his petition besides asking for transparency in the allocation of cases also suggested for a pattern to be adopted by the Supreme Court for constituting and assigning the cases to the benches. His all suggestions were disdainfully dismissed by the Bench of CJI Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar, and DY Chandrachud. The author of the judgment Justice Chandrachud said, ‘the relief which the petitioner seeks is manifestly misconceived. For one thing, it is a well-settled principle that no mandamus can be issued to direct a body or authority which is vested with a rulemaking power to make rules in a particular manner. The Supreme Court has been authorized under Article 145 to frame rules of procedure. A mandamus of nature sought cannot be issued. Similarly, the petitioner is not entitled to seek a direction that Benches of this Court should be constituted in a particular manner or, as he seeks, that there should be separate divisions of this Court. The former lies exclusively in the domain of the prerogative powers of the Chief Justice’.

The Court further said that ‘apart from the fact that the relief sought is contrary to legal and constitutional principle, there is a fundamental fallacy in the approach of the petitioner, which must be set at rest. The petitioner seeks the establishment of a binding precept under which a three-judge Bench in the Court of the Chief Justice must consist of the Chief Justice and his two senior-most colleagues. While the Constitution Bench should consist of five senior-most judges (or, as he suggests, three ‘senior-most’ and two ‘junior-most’ judges). There is no constitutional foundation on the basis of which such a suggestion can be accepted. This would intrude into the exclusive duty and authority of the Chief Justice to constitute benches and to allocate cases to them. The petitioner seems to harbour a misconception that certain categories of cases or certain courts must consist only of the senior-most in terms of appointment. Every Judge appointed to this Court under Article 124 of the Constitution is invested with the equal duty of adjudicating cases which come to the Court and are assigned by the Chief Justice. Seniority in terms of appointment has no bearing on which cases a Judge should hear. It is a settled position that a judgment delivered by a Judge speaks for the court (except in the case of a concurring or dissenting opinion). The Constitution makes a stipulation in Article 124(3) for the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court from the High Courts, from the Bar and from amongst distinguished jurists. Appointment to the Supreme Court is conditioned upon the fulfilment of the qualifications prescribed for the holding of that office under Article 124(3). Once appointed, every Judge of the Court is entitled to and in fact, duty bound, to hear such cases as are assigned by the Chief Justice. Judges drawn from the High Courts are appointed to this Court after long years of service. Members of the Bar who are elevated to this Court similarly are possessed of wide and diverse experience gathered during the course of the years of practice at the Bar. To suggest that any Judge would be more capable of deciding particular cases or that certain categories of cases should be assigned only to the senior-most among the Judges of the Supreme Court has no foundation in principle or precedent. To hold otherwise would be to cast a reflection on the competence and ability of other judges to deal with all cases assigned by the Chief Justice notwithstanding the fact that they have fulfilled the qualifications mandated by the Constitution for appointment to the office.’

Thus, now it has become abundantly clear that the CJI is the master of the roster. The Court elucidated that the constitution of Benches and the allocation of cases by the Chief Justice must be regulated by a procedure cast in iron is the apprehension that in absence of such a procedure the power will be exercised arbitrarily. In his capacity as a Judge, the Chief Justice is primus inter pares: the first among equals. In the discharge of his other functions, the Chief Justice of India occupies a position which is sui generis. From an institutional perspective, the Chief Justice is placed at the helm of the Supreme Court. In the allocation of cases and the constitution of benches, the Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative. As a repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution in himself. The authority which is conferred upon the Chief Justice, it must be remembered, is vested in a high constitutional functionary. The authority is entrusted to the Chief Justice because such an entrustment of functions is necessary for the efficient transaction of the administrative and judicial work of the Court. The ultimate purpose behind the entrustment of authority to the Chief Justice is to ensure that the Supreme Court is able to fulfil and discharge the constitutional obligations which govern and provide the rationale for its existence.’

 In view of this imprimatur, the authority of Chief Justice of India as the Master of Roster is firmly established. But it appears that the imbroglio is not going to die down soon. Many eminent former judges have criticised the CJI for hearing the case which pertains to him and thus has violated the principle of natural justice nemo judex causa sua (nobody can be a judge in one’s own case). Such spats certainly erode the faith in the institution and therefore must be stemmed before it rots and stinks.

Appeasement Policy is Counterproductive

It is a historical fact that before independence the Congress Party was identified with Hindus and Muslims were with the Muslim League. Only a few Muslim leaders like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Rafi Ahmad Kidwai were with the Congress Party .They were sarcastically called the ‘show pieces’ of the Congress Party by M.A. Jinnah. It was more or less true also because they did not have any hold over Muslims of India. What is, however, very surprising is that immediately after the partition of the country; Indian Muslims switched sides and became the ardent supporters of the Congress Party. Ordinary Muslims of India were used as sentimental cannon fodders by the feudal and rich Muslims, who spearheaded the movement for creation of Pakistan. What an irony that Muslims fought for the creation of Pakistan with MA Jinnah but stayed back in India, which kept alive the communal problems of the country.

The myopic Indian leadership not only failed to handle the communal problems but kept the embers of Muslims communalism burning for vote banks. The initial beneficiary was the Congress Party but later other semi-literate politicians of regional parties fueled the fire of Muslim Communalism for the same vote banks. These short-sighted leaders got the Hindus divided in the name of castes and creeds, again; for serving their own ends.

During previous ten years of UPA regime another dirty game was played by Chidambarams and Shindes at the instance eminence grise (this French word is pronounced as emino griz, which means a person who does not hold any post but wields much power), like Sonia Gandhi for maligning the Hindus by branding them as communal and Hindu terrorists. That is how many false cases were slapped on them in Malegaon, Samjhauta Express, and Mecca Masjid terrorists’ incidents. Their nefarious game of painting the Hindus with black brushes is now becoming clearer as all the cases are falling flat in the courts of law. Their malicious designs have done much harm to the country that real culprits have never been caught. The way the Kathua rape case is being handled by implicating Hindus is a matter of serious concern, which is clear from the charge sheet and the lopsided investigation. Lest the real culprits slip away from the noose of the law is very disquieting.

Lest Rapist of Kathua Girl Go Scot-free

Rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl Asifa in Jammu’s Kathua district are so horrendous that it can make anybody restless. Only a devil or monster in the human form could have done it. But look at those, who are most vociferously asking for justice to Asifa? They are those, who have been stone pelters and their sympathizers, rapists of Kashmiri women and killers of innocents, who are the loudest in their demand for justice to the poor girl.
It is a well-known fact that nomadic Bakerwal community is very loyal to India. This community has been giving vital information to the Indian army from time to time about the infiltration of the cross-border terrorists. This community, of cattle grazers, mostly remains mobile in the rough terrains and jungles. Bakerwals do not stay permanently at any particular place giving them the advantage of knowing the movements of suspicious the people. That is why; they succeed in identifying the enemies where even the Indian military intelligence fails. Bakerwals were the first to inform the Indian army about the base camps of Pakistani regulars in Kargil area some two decades ago. They have never been at loggerheads with the Hindus, who are in majority in the Jammu region.The incident has put the humanity to shame and sooner the culprits are brought to book the better. However, there are some gaping holes in the charge sheet that has been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kathua, which has been published verbatim in the Firstpost. It is for the prosecution and the defense to prove their case in the court of law. Nevertheless, one cannot resist asking a question why Rohingya factor has not been looked into? One cannot lose sight of the fact that for the last five-six years after the large-scale settlement of Rohingyas, with the active support of the government, in the Jammu region crimes and clashes have gone up manifold. So if the local populace is asking to inquire into the role of the illegal settlers, there appears to be nothing wrong in it
The incident took place more than three months ago, but nobody of any significance bothered about it. The charge sheet was prepared by an officer of dubious integrity. The former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, the tweet master, who was very boisterous on this issue or, for that matter, any opposition leader never visited the place. People of the area have been simply demanding that inquiry should be done by the CBI, which certainly enjoys more credibility than the local police, known for the communal virulence.Again there is nothing wrong with this demand.
What was done with that innocent girl was abominable, diabolic and so chilling as to cause goosebumps but if, after shoddy and botched up inquiry, some more innocents are punished and real culprits go scot-free, then it will be an enormous travesty of justice with the departed soul of Asifa.May she rest in peace but the demons of perpetrators of crime on her must get the harshest and exemplary punishment.