<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Genocide, my foot!
By Dasu Krishnamoorty
http://www.dasukrishnamoorty.com/minorit...ocide.html
The moment has now come to speak for India. There now seems to be a general consensus that Narendra Modi should take the rap for the events in Gujarat. It is the grand finale to his trial by the press that sent hordes of prosecutors to the home of Mahatma Gandhi to investigate and make out a case of genocide and ethnic cleansing against Modi. This exercise was rounded up by a visit of the editors themselves to see if their sleuths had done a neat job.
Together, they mopped up enough evidence for teams of diplomats to prepare the ground to deliver lessons to the host country on human rights. This scenario is very dangerously close to the one that generally precedes an international intervention. Almost all the countries these diplomats represented had pioneered a tradition of genocide, later emulated by the likes of Idi Amin. Our own media sought interviews with these diplomats asking them leading questions like 'what do you think about the genocide in Gujarat and do you think that the minorities in this country are safe.'
The press thus became a judge and a prosecutor. Mediamen became activists taking out processions and holding seminars to relate sob stories of how they had escaped death by a coat of paint. It should, however, be remembered that the debate on Modi had already broadcast a message showing that the objective of his critics is not his punishment but political mileage and a display of their secular credentials. However, what is of interest to the entire nation cannot be left to political parties and the press to resolve. This shortsightedness will certainly gladden the hearts of the country's enemies who know to what advantage they can use the word genocide. Far from absolving the role of a Congress leader in starting the fire, such political vocabulary will deliver the country, and not the ruling party, into the hands of its adversaries.Â
The genocide debate has already damaged social harmony and, more than all, the nation's intellectual equilibrium. Succeeding governments will find it hard to restore that balance. The lurking internal danger is one side of the story. The other side, a consequence of lack of national vision and pride and sense of false consciousness, concerns a treacherous essay to subordinate the country's sovereign status to international hegemony. The quest for political or ideological gains should not blind us to the repercussions of throwing the Gujarat issue into the international arena for a final judgement. This privilege to be judges of our own affairs is too precious to be jettisoned for fear of hurting a disoriented intelligentsia.Â
The country cannot own the guilt for what a party has failed to do. It was the duty of Modi's party and the federal government headed by his party to call him to account. If both of them have failed as they did, there are several domestic agencies that have the power and the jurisdiction to summon him suo moto for a trial. In the debate on censure motion, opposition parties concentrated on a single phrase: double failure, the failure of the Modi administration to protect the property and lives of the people and the failure of the federal government to ensure that Modi did what was necessary under such a situation. The emphasis was more on omission than on commission. Since this thesis sounds more like a defense of Modi, let us agree that it was a crime of commission if that is going to defuse the Gujarat situation.Â
Whoever uses the word genocide to refer to events in Gujarat belongs to the category of either political innocents or clowns. They preclude any alternative interpretation of the situation because the current norm of their discourse is 'if you are not with me you are against me.' To determine whether genocide had actually occurred in Gujarat, we will need a definition of that word. That word as defined in the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide has a history and context. It is the work of Raphael Lemkin, whose family was a victim of Hitler's Jewish repression in the Third Reich. He single handedly drafted and lobbied the convention at the UN. Lemkin had Nazis in mind. Allied powers had different and wider objectives to achieve through the convention.Â
It is important to remember that the convention was the work of the victors and that its legitimacy is closely linked to the fact of a victory in war. There is hardly any propriety in embracing this terminology for convenience in reporting or for scoring partisan gains. Such use demands substantiation and that in turn ends up in the reporter doing the job of a prosecutor, unearthing evidence to buttress a prior conviction. No school of journalism assigns this role of a prosecutor to a reporter.Â
Let us look at the implications of the word. First, genocide will attract the provisions of the 1948 convention and thus impart an international colour to the problem (remember the Kashmir albatross), even though the guilty men can be tried in a domestic court. Second, it provides a handle for anti-national forces to have the case heard outside the country. It is the use of this word that has put ideas into the heads of Gujaratis in Britain to sue Modi not in India but in the British High Court, the International Court of Justice at the Hague and in Belgian courts. The interest shown in the issue by countries like Canada, Switzerland, European Union and the United States is only a first step to a full-fledged trial of the country by global media and NGOs. It is essential to understand that though it is Mody who is the accused, for all purposes the name of India will figure at every stage of the trial. The world will try not Modi but India.Â
People who talk about genocide will have to decide whether what they want is punishment for Modi or humiliation of the country. Those who are too responsive to international opinion will do well to take a look at the genocide history of the European powers and their allies. Otherwise, there is no need for an outside court. Cannot the aggrieved approach the President of India who has the powers to dismiss a state government? There is also the Supreme Court in which all political parties and their communal constituencies constantly reiterate faith.Â
In my view, describing the Gujarat events as genocide is aimed at displacing national jurisdiction in the matter and inviting international intervention. If what we want is punishment for Modi, the Indian Penal Code or even POTO meets the needs. The hundreds of NGOs in the country and PIL lawyers can always drag the entire BJP government before a domestic court. Any other action would imply lack of confidence in our judicial system and an ardent desire to embarrass the country.Â
Once the case is before a domestic court, the latter will decide whether it is genocide or some other crime that can be tried under the law of the land.
True, Atal Behari Vajpayee and the External Affairs Ministry have overreacted to statements made by foreign diplomats. But that also seems a natural response to the high pitch hysteria that marks the Gujarat debate. There is no question of fear of transparency when thousands of print and TV media persons were allowed to cover the events.Â
It is an open secret that foreign media, when they operate outside their country, work as agents of the state departments of their countries and many a time as spies. Imagine how unwittingly we have fabricated all the evidence that the foreign diplomats needed to convince themselves of the fact of genocide. Those who talk of justice forget the principles of jurisprudence and journalism too. Jurisprudence treats everyone as innocent till his guilt is proved. Journalists know that trial by press violates the principles of journalism.
It is difficult to understand the reluctance of the BJP government to remove Modi and guarantee security to the minority community. Even if the intention to tarnish the BJP is laudable, that goal can be achieved without dragging the country into the marketplace of international justice. It is common knowledge that these world institutions and treaties are instruments devised by western powers to preserve their sway over third world countries even after the end of colonialism. Has Britain that is screaming about the Gujarat tragedy stood trial for the genocide in India during the freedom struggle or for the man-made Bengal famine of the early forties?Â
Are there no courts in the country, which have the jurisdiction to try Narendra Modi? India has not signed the convention on genocide because it believes that the convention should be based on the principles of complementary, state sovereignty and non-intervention in the in the internal affairs of the state. Though God is an antithesis of secularism, he alone can save this country from its politicians and, may I add, the press. I am reminded of an Oscar Wilde epigram: In the olden days you had the rack. Today, you have the press. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice spin.. You only get two choices. You can either criticise Modi (and hence the riots are engineered) or you can think that the riots were spontaneous. What morons !!
http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=298086
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Gujarat riots neither engineered nor a blot: Bhandari
BY K G SURESH NEW DELHI, MAY 14 (PTI)
Former Gujarat Governor Sunder Singh Bhandari, who had created a political flutter by criticising Chief Minister Narendra Modi and BJP leadership for failure to control the post-Godhra violence, today spoke in contradictory terms saying on the one hand that the riots were "neither engineered nor a blot" but at the same time suggested an inquiry into the events. He said the riots were a "spontaneous reaction" to the Godhra train incident in which 58 'Ram Sewaks' were killed and the "delay" in the administration's response was a "question of judgement" as "it was not deliberate". The 84-year-old BJP veteran, who was Governor during the riots, told PTI that the first day's "reaction could be understood as most of the corpses (of Godhra) were passing through Ahmedabad and there was a provocation". Asked about his demand for a "thorough" probe, he said,"it should be found out where the lacunae was. Whether the Administration was unprepared or there was lack of information or whether there was a time gap and whether pre-emptive steps could be taken". Seeking to defend the Chief Minister, he said, "Modi was in the midst of the whole thing, controlling the situation. The delay was a question of judgement. There was nothing deliberate. Even the delay could have been forethought. Without any evidence you cannot blame it on somebody. Only after an inquiry can it be said. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ramana Posted: May 13 2005, 12:34 AMÂ Â
Any breakdown as to how many were killed in law and order incidents? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Let us do some math using reports published
<b>The total killed for Gujarat is around :Â 900 </b>
<b>Hindus </b>                   : 250
Killed in Police Firing        : 80
Killed in riots             : 170
<b>Muslims </b>                  : 650
Killed in Police Firing       : 95
Killed in riots            : 555
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Genocide, my foot! </b>- (The Indian Reporter (USA), 31/05/2002)
-- <b>By Dasu Krishnamoorty</b>
The moment has now come to speak for India. There now seems to be a general consensus that Narendra Modi should take the rap for the events in Gujarat. It is the grand finale to his trial by the press that sent hordes of prosecutors to the home of Mahatma Gandhi to investigate and make out a case of genocide and ethnic cleansing against Modi. This exercise was rounded up by a visit of the editors themselves to see if their sleuths had done a neat job. Together, they mopped up enough evidence for teams of diplomats to prepare the ground to deliver lessons to the host country on human rights. This scenario is very dangerously close to the one that generally precedes an international intervention. Almost all the countries these diplomats represented had pioneered a tradition of genocide, later emulated by the likes of Idi Amin. Our own media sought interviews with these diplomats asking them leading questions like 'what do you think about the genocide in Gujarat and do you think that the minorities in this country are safe.'
The press thus became a judge and a prosecutor. Mediamen became activists taking out processions and holding seminars to relate sob stories of how they had escaped death by a coat of paint. It should, however, be remembered that the debate on Modi had already broadcast a message showing that the objective of his critics is not his punishment but political mileage and a display of their secular credentials. However, what is of interest to the entire nation cannot be left to political parties and the press to resolve. This shortsightedness will certainly gladden the hearts of the country's enemies who know to what advantage they can use the word genocide. Far from absolving the role of a Congress leader in starting the fire, such political vocabulary will deliver the country, and not the ruling party, into the hands of its adversaries.
The genocide debate has already damaged social harmony and, more than all, the nation's intellectual equilibrium. Succeeding governments will find it hard to restore that balance. The lurking internal danger is one side of the story. The other side, a consequence of lack of national vision and pride and sense of false consciousness, concerns a treacherous essay to subordinate the country's sovereign status to international hegemony. The quest for political or ideological gains should not blind us to the repercussions of throwing the Gujarat issue into the international arena for a final judgement. This privilege to be judges of our own affairs is too precious to be jettisoned for fear of hurting a disoriented intelligentsia.
The country cannot own the guilt for what a party has failed to do. It was the duty of Modi's party and the federal government headed by his party to call him to account. If both of them have failed as they did, there are several domestic agencies that have the power and the jurisdiction to summon him suo moto for a trial. In the debate on censure motion, opposition parties concentrated on a single phrase: double failure, the failure of the Modi administration to protect the property and lives of the people and the failure of the federal government to ensure that Modi did what was necessary under such a situation. The emphasis was more on omission than on commission. Since this thesis sounds more like a defense of Modi, let us agree that it was a crime of commission if that is going to defuse the Gujarat situation.
Whoever uses the word genocide to refer to events in Gujarat belongs to the category of either political innocents or clowns. They preclude any alternative interpretation of the situation because the current norm of their discourse is 'if you are not with me you are against me.' To determine whether genocide had actually occurred in Gujarat, we will need a definition of that word. That word as defined in the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide has a history and context. It is the work of Raphael Lemkin, whose family was a victim of Hitler's Jewish repression in the Third Reich. He single handedly drafted and lobbied the convention at the UN. Lemkin had Nazis in mind. Allied powers had different and wider objectives to achieve through the convention.
It is important to remember that the convention was the work of the victors and that its legitimacy is closely linked to the fact of a victory in war. There is hardly any propriety in embracing this terminology for convenience in reporting or for scoring partisan gains. Such use demands substantiation and that in turn ends up in the reporter doing the job of a prosecutor, unearthing evidence to buttress a prior conviction. No school of journalism assigns this role of a prosecutor to a reporter.
Let us look at the implications of the word. First, genocide will attract the provisions of the 1948 convention and thus impart an international colour to the problem (remember the Kashmir albatross), even though the guilty men can be tried in a domestic court. Second, it provides a handle for anti-national forces to have the case heard outside the country. It is the use of this word that has put ideas into the heads of Gujaratis in Britain to sue Modi not in India but in the British High Court, the International Court of Justice at the Hague and in Belgian courts. The interest shown in the issue by countries like Canada, Switzerland, European Union and the United States is only a first step to a full-fledged trial of the country by global media and NGOs. It is essential to understand that though it is Mody who is the accused, for all purposes the name of India will figure at every stage of the trial. The world will try not Modi but India.
People who talk about genocide will have to decide whether what they want is punishment for Modi or humiliation of the country. Those who are too responsive to international opinion will do well to take a look at the genocide history of the European powers and their allies. Otherwise, there is no need for an outside court. Cannot the aggrieved approach the President of India who has the powers to dismiss a state government? There is also the Supreme Court in which all political parties and their communal constituencies constantly reiterate faith.
In my view, describing the Gujarat events as genocide is aimed at displacing national jurisdiction in the matter and inviting international intervention. If what we want is punishment for Modi, the Indian Penal Code or even POTO meets the needs. The hundreds of NGOs in the country and PIL lawyers can always drag the entire BJP government before a domestic court. Any other action would imply lack of confidence in our judicial system and an ardent desire to embarrass the country.
Once the case is before a domestic court, the latter will decide whether it is genocide or some other crime that can be tried under the law of the land. True, Atal Behari Vajpayee and the External Affairs Ministry have overreacted to statements made by foreign diplomats. But that also seems a natural response to the high pitch hysteria that marks the Gujarat debate. There is no question of fear of transparency when thousands of print and TV media persons were allowed to cover the events.
It is an open secret that foreign media, when they operate outside their country, work as agents of the state departments of their countries and many a time as spies. Imagine how unwittingly we have fabricated all the evidence that the foreign diplomats needed to convince themselves of the fact of genocide. Those who talk of justice forget the principles of jurisprudence and journalism too. Jurisprudence treats everyone as innocent till his guilt is proved. Journalists know that trial by press violates the principles of journalism.
It is difficult to understand the reluctance of the BJP government to remove Modi and guarantee security to the minority community. Even if the intention to tarnish the BJP is laudable, that goal can be achieved without dragging the country into the marketplace of international justice. It is common knowledge that these world institutions and treaties are instruments devised by western powers to preserve their sway over third world countries even after the end of colonialism. Has Britain that is screaming about the Gujarat tragedy stood trial for the genocide in India during the freedom struggle or for the man-made Bengal famine of the early forties?
Are there no courts in the country, which have the jurisdiction to try Narendra Modi? India has not signed the convention on genocide because it believes that the convention should be based on the principles of complementary, state sovereignty and non-intervention in the in the internal affairs of the state. Though God is an antithesis of secularism, he alone can save this country from its politicians and, may I add, the press. I am reminded of an Oscar Wilde epigram: In the olden days you had the rack. Today, you have the press.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A compilation of Godhra Related Events by G.S. Asnani
x-post:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>When Lalu berated Congress </b>
Kanchan Gupta
It is the Congress that has engineered most of the riots... Rajiv Gandhi failed to protect Harijans and Muslims... Geographical boundaries of the country were jeopardised by the Congress and Rajiv Gandhi..."
On reading such harsh accusation, such pitiless pillorying of the Congress and its supreme leader, the last direct descendent of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty to sit on the masnad of Delhi, the image that comes to mind is that of an irascible foot soldier of the BJP or a malevolent journalist doing what foot soldiers and malevolent journalists do best: Shoot from the hip.
Think again, but it is unlikely that you will be able to guess the identity of the person who tore into the Congress so mercilessly while participating in a debate on the "Situation in the Country" in the Lok Sabha on December 29, 1989. The immediate backdrop to this debate was the series of communal riots in Congress-ruled Bihar - Hazaribagh, Darbhanga, and the horrendous bloodletting in Bhagalpur during the twilight days of Rajiv Gandhi's government in the autumn of that year.
<b>The official death count in Bhagalpur was 1,891, with thousands scarred for the rest of their lives. In Logain village, an entire Muslim mohalla was wiped out: the bodies of 120 Muslim men, women and children were dumped in a shallow pond</b>; when the stench became unbearable, the rotting corpses were fished out, buried in a field and planted over with cauliflower saplings.
<b>In Chanderi, another Muslim mohalla, 61 people were massacred</b>. Mallika, a 14-year-old girl, tried to flee the mob that had killed her parents and relatives. She stumbled and fell; the mob chopped off her legs and left her to bleed to death in a hyacinth covered pond. An army officer found her the next day, drawn by her pitiful sobs, and Mallika survived to live a traumatic life.
But we digress. From December 18 to 29, the newly elected Lok Sabha, with Prime Minister V P Singh and the Janata Dal occupying the Treasury benches and Rajiv Gandhi and the Congress sitting in the Opposition benches, witnessed a spirited debate over the customary address by the President. Either by design or by default, the President had failed to mention the riots in Bhagalpur.
Congress MPs seized on this omission to berate the government, alleging that the riots were not mentioned to spare embarrassment to its ally, the BJP, which was accused of fomenting the violence in Bhagalpur and elsewhere. As the debate became increasingly accusatory and the tone and tenor of the attack on the BJP sharpened, the Janata Dal MP from Chapra waded in to battle the Congress.
Responding to the allegation that BJP and VHP activists had provoked the violence, he said, "I would like to tell you that there are two groups of Muslims in Bhagalpur, ie, Ansaris and Sallans, who had started riots in the city. A bomb was thrown on the SP (of) Bhagalpur and 11 police personnel were injured. They had thrown that bomb on the occasion of Ram Shila Pujan but these people have not been yet rounded up."
That MP was Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav, now Minister for Railways in the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance Government and an ardent supporter of Ms Sonia Gandhi. Such is his admiration for Ms Gandhi, that even after losing his rule through conjugal proxy over Bihar thanks to Congress' dalliance with his arch enemy Ram Vilas Paswan, he is the first to jump to her defence every time the Opposition becomes particularly vituperative in its attack on the chairperson of the UPA.
But we digress again. On December 29, 1989, Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav was relentless in his assault on the Congress, more so on Rajiv Gandhi, and took vicarious pleasure by slyly mentioning Ms Sonia Gandhi by name now and then, in total disregard of House rules. "It is the Congress party which (has) engineered most of the riots, particularly in Bihar," he thundered to the thumping of tables. "We shall expose their role in inciting communal riots," he promised on behalf of the Mr VP Singh's Government.
Listing the failures of the previous regime, he said, "Rajiv Gandhi failed to fulfil the promises which he made in regard to the development, unity and security of the country and protection of the Harijans and Muslims. This resulted in creating a gloomy situation in the country...". And, hence, the people voted for change.
"Change had become necessary because the responsibility of protecting the geographical boundaries of the country (sic)... was jeopardised by the Congress and Rajiv Gandhi," Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav explained, adding with a rhetorical flourish, "If we fail to safeguard the unity, integrity and the principle of secularism of our country, we cannot save the country from disintegration...".
And then came the full assault.
"Satyendra Narain Sinha became chief minister of Bihar, he failed to quell the riots in Hazaribagh... the procession of Ram Navami had passed off peacefully in front of the Jama Masjid of Hazaribagh. No Muslim had opposed the procession," Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav said, recalling the sequence of event, "Ram shila procession and Ram Navami procession passed off from there, but neither there was any riot nor anybody raised provocative slogans on that day. But later on an incident took place in Hazaribagh which triggered off disturbances in the entire State."
So who or what was to blame? Read on. "Rajiv Gandhi, accompanied by his wife Sonia Gandhi, went to participate in the Vaishali festival. <b>They had put on bulletproof vests... Shri Rajiv Gandhi told Sonia Gandhi that he himself would drive the jeep to see the celebrations," </b>Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav explained with dramatic flourish, before coming to the consequences of that drive from Patna to Vaishali by the former Prime Minister and his wife.
"An announcement was made in regard to their security... Full security force was required all along the 60 km route from Patna to the place of celebrations. Wireless message was sent to the DM of Hazaribagh, wireless message was sent to the collector also to send all the forces to Vaishali as Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi were coming to attend the celebrations," he recounted, "Forces were picked up from Hazaribagh and sent to Vaishali. <b>After three days riots took place between Hindus and Muslims. But no security forces were there to control the situation</b>."
And what about Darbhanga? <b>"They (the Congress) have spared no effort to put Bhagalpur, BJP, RSS and Janata Dal to disrepute," Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav said, charging the Congress, whose MPs were by then on their feet, with criminal subterfuge, "One thousand workers belonging to the Congress Party were called to Bahera (an assembly constituency in Darbhanga) by Maithili Brahmins (a snide reference to Jagannath Mishra and what was then the Congress' core constituency in Bihar) and were asked to wear caps bearing slogans 'Garv say kaho hum Hindu hain' and 'Radhe Shyam Baba ki Jai'."</b>
After a pause, he added with a condescending flourish, "You try to understand the actual position in Bhagalpur... Shiv Chander Jha, who was the speaker, was deadly against Bhagwat Jha Azad (another Congress leader). It was due to them and a few of their men that these riots... (interruptions)... they were behind these riots."
Such illuminating discourse by Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav becomes relevant not only to expose turncoat politicians who adorn our Parliament and occupy India's political space, but also to highlight how some riots are conveniently forgotten because political expediency demands so.
And to highlight the absurdity that only 10 persons have been punished so far for the deaths of more than 1,000 people.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rakesh sharma the filmmaker who has minted money from his film on the Gujarat riots is in trouble with .........<span style='color:#FF6600'><b>NYPD</b>
</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Rakesh Sharma
 Date: May 16, 2005 2:11 PM
 Subject: NYPD harasses Indian film-maker : Formal complaint
 To: ambassador@..., indembwash@..., sr2140@..., AppadurA@..., daniels@...,
 director@..., Jsp.inb@..., kadidal@..., rohan@..., tony@...
 I am a film-maker from India, currently on a screening tour across US  universities with my film Final Solution. The film has won over a dozen international awards ( at filmfests in Berlin, HongKong, Zanzibar, Nantes in France, Munich, Karachi, Bangkok and USA). In March 2005, the film won the prestigious Freedom Of Expression award given by Index on Censorship, a UK-based organisation that monitors instances of censorship worldwide. The New York based Center for Constitutional Rights won the same award in the "legal" category.
 Please find enclosed a complaint against harassment and intimidation by NYPD that I faced while taking some random city shots in Manhattan on May 13. <b>Briefly put, NYPD's officer(s) not just 'detained' me for nearly 3 hours but also assaulted me physically and verbally and violated my artistic and civil rights.</b> The attachment contains a letter to the Civilian Complaint Review Board, the body which monitors instances of rights abuses by NYPD. The letter is copied to several others including the Indian Ambassador to USA, NYPD, the Center for Constitutional Rights and ACLU. <span style='color:#FF6600'><b>While details of the incident are contained in the attached letter, among other things, an NYPD detective snatched my camera, 'detained' me and said to me - " We know how to deal with you guys, asshole".</b> </span><!--emo&:guitar--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/guitar.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='guitar.gif' /><!--endemo-->
 I am deeply outraged and request you for help to ensure that appropriate action is taken against NYPD officer(s) responsible for the abuse of my rights.
 Yours Sincerely
 Rakesh Sharma
 US cell : 201 920 0537
 India cell : +91 98203 43103
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:thumbsup--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbup.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbup.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:rock--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rock.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rock.gif' /><!--endemo-->
WTF are they now targetting "NY finest" <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> What exactly happened? Please, don't skimp on details <!--emo&:eager--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Made my day three cheers to NYPD. <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now he can make movie on NYPD <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Please find enclosed a complaint against harassment and intimidation by NYPD that I faced <b>while taking some random city shots in Manhattan on May 13</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did this asshole took permission? He may be taking shot for future terrorist attack.
Good job by NYPD.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am deeply outraged and request you for help to ensure that appropriate action is taken against NYPD officer(s) responsible for the abuse of my rights<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Terrorist don't have rights.
<b>Best Bakery case: Zaheera re-examined</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The film shows presence of Zaheera's family members at the bakery on the day of the incident, which is in sharp contrast to her statement in the court.
Zaheera had denied the presence of some of her family members at the site on that day<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another set of Godhra Related Events
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An APPEAL From CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE & PEACE
Join us in our effort to build peace with justice in our country
As a concerned citizen, you must have heard of the Citizens for Justice & Peace (CJP), the legal action group that has been constantly in the news in the last three years.
CJP is today universally recognised as the legal action group responsible for the Supreme Court's historic verdict of April 2004, ordering the retrial of the Best Bakery massacre case outside Gujarat.
We invite you to join us in our effort to build peace with justice in our country by enlisting yourself as a member of `Friends of CJP'.
Genesis: Citizens for Justice and Peace, a registered society, was born on April 1, 2002 in the backdrop of the genocide in Gujarat.
Aims & Objects: "To promote values that will encourage the development of peace, justice and reconciliation, by all means, in every place, among all peoples of India and in every sphere of society".
Goal: `A hate- free, violence-free India'.
Calendar of activities (April 2002-March 2005)
CJP's activities in the last 3 years have been focussed on legal interventions to ensure justice for the victims and punishment for the perpetrators of the Gujarat genocide.
Success stories so far:
1. Relief measures
Action: Petition in Gujarat High Court (April 2002) to make the state government provide and pay for adequate relief to the 1.7 lakh people rendered homeless and destitute; petitions against government officials coercing relief camp managers into closing their camps even when the victims had nowhere to go.
Result: High Court orders ensure that many relief camps stay open until September-October 2002; a highly reluctant state government made to spend several additional crores on relief measures.
2. Citizens probe
Action: Setting up of a Concerned Citizens Tribunal headed by three retired Supreme Court and Mumbai High Court judges for a citizens' probe into the carnage (May 2002).
Result: The 3-volume Tribunal's report, `Crime Against Humanity' (November 2002) is to date the most authentic and incisive documentation of the genocidal violence in Gujarat. Its recommendations have triggered a national campaign for ensuring institutional reform to prevent mass crimes in future.
3. No votes over dead bodies
Action: CJP submits a detailed and a well-documented memorandum and leads delegation of victims to the Chief Election Commissioner, Lyngdoh, challenging the Gujarat government's claim that the situation in Gujarat was normal to ensure a free and fair trial. (August 2002).
Result: CEC rejects the Gujarat government's claim of normalcy and orders postponement of polls.
4. Transfer and retrial of Best Bakery Case Action: CJP petitions the Supreme Court of India along with Zahira Shaikh, asking for a retrial of the Best Bakery massacre case outside Gujarat (August 2003).
Result: (i) In a historic and unprecedented judgment (April 2004), the Supreme Court orders retrial of the Best Bakery case outside Gujarat (in Maharashtra).
(ii) The Supreme Court has decided to monitor the progress of all the carnage related cases in Gujarat and has appointed an amicus curae.
(iii) In course of hearing of the Best Bakery case, the then Chief Justice AN Khare enunciated the fundamental democratic principle: "A government that fails to protect the life of its citizens (Raj Dharm) has no right to rule".
(iv) In related matters, the Supreme Court directed the DGP of Gujarat to reopen and review the over 2,000 incidents of violence that had been closed by the state police.
5. Godhra victims approach CJP
Action: Inspired by CJP's commitment to justice and fair play, four families from Ahmedabad, each of whom had lost one or more family member in coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express train tragedy at Godhra, approach CJP for legal assistance. CJP files an application in the Supreme Court (October 2003) for a retrial of the Godhra train fire case outside Gujarat as the affected families did not expect to get justice in the state.
Result: The Godhra trial was stayed by the Supreme Court on November 21, 2003. The plea for re-investigation and transfer is pending.
6. Punish, don't promote, guilty policemen
Action: CJP petitions the Supreme Court, challenging the NDA government's malafide promotion and transfer of former Ahmedabad Police Commissioner, PC Pandey, as Deputy Director, CBI. A CJP petition (May 2002) for the investigation by the CBI of major incidents of massacre in Gujarat in 2002, is pending before the Supreme Court. Pandey's own role during the carnage needs investigation.
Result: The Union government moves PC Pandey out of the CBI.
7. Compensation to victims of terrorism in J&K
Action: On the request of the families concerned, CJP pursues with the J&K government, asking for expeditious payment of compensation to the Mumbai-based Chandrakant Shah and Nirav Vakharia whose family members were killed or
seriously injured in the bomb blast in a hotel in Pahalgam, Kashmir (June 2004).
Result: The affected families receive timely compensation.
The future
While CJP is happy with what it has been able to achieve in the 3 short years of its existence, it is also conscious of the fact that the campaign for a `Riot Free' India where the Rule of Law prevails is going to be long drawn.
Pending Cases:
1. Supreme Court stays major carnage cases CJP filed a petition in the Supreme Court (May 2002) asking for direction that, as recommended by the NHRC, major massacre cases be investigated afresh by the CBI. Pending a hearing of this petition, the Apex Court has ordered a stay on the trial of all these cases. CJP is presently handling the case of the victims of the Gulberg massacre, the Naroda Patiya and Naroda Gaon carnages and the Sardarpura and Ode massacres. The Supreme Court has stayed these trials on November 21, 2003 due to the detailed facts put on affidavit by the victim eye-witnesses with the legal aid of CJP.
2. Hate speech
The use of hate speech to incite violence was used to unfortunate perfection in Gujarat. Even after the mass violence, the chief minister Narendra Modi used
objectionable language during his pre-December 2002 election campaign supported by international president of the VHP, Ashok Singhal. The CJP has petitioned the Supreme Court in both instances since not even an FIR has been filed against the offenders. The case is pending. CJP is also part of a nationwide campaign against hate speech.
3. Compensation case
An inadequate compensation scheme coupled with a non-remorseful government has made the issue of compensation particularly problematic for the victims in Gujarat. The CJP collected over 700 affidavits from victims that show non-receipt of compensation and has also conducted district wide surveys. An alternate compensation scheme is being drawn up by CJP to put up before the Gujarat government following state-wide surveys by CJP.
4. Civil suit for compensation for massacre CJP has helped family members of those who were killed in the massacre at Gulberg Society file a civil compensation suit against organisations who called a Gujarat Bandh on February 28, 2002 during which mass mob violence took place. (March 2005).
5. Systemic issues
Due to CJP's interventions the issue of time-bound trials, structural and administrative police reform, a comprehensive witness protection programme and accountability in the Public Prosecutor's Office are now receiving national attention.
Other legal initiaives
Legal action against gender violence Systemic gender violence in different parts of India will be taken up by CJP
Legal action against Dalit atrocities
Legal Action against Dalit Atrocities, especially the failure of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 will also be taken up by CJP.
<b>CJP's Expenditure:
</b><b>In the last three years, CJP has spent about Rs. 2 lakh per month on an average. </b>This despite the fact that top lawyers from the country have appeared for the CJP in the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court free of charge. The major items of expenditure involved so far have been:
Legal research, documentation and preparation of cases, translation (case papers from Gujarati to English), photocopying, court fees; Relief and rehabilitation expenses;
<span style='color:#FF6600'><b>Witness Protection (Best Bakery case);</b></span> Telephone, fax, mobile phone expenses;
Travel; Field office expenses (Ahmedabad).
CJP's accounts for the financial years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 were audited and submitted with the appropriate authorities within the stipulated time. Audit of accounts for the current financial year, too, should be completed by May 31, 2005.
<b>The Founding Members of CJP are the following:
Alyque Padamsee (Communications/Advertising)
Anil Dharkar (Columnist)
Arvind Krishnaswamy (DGM, Bharat Petroleum)
Cyrus Guzder (Chairman, Airfeight)
Gulam Mohammed (Businessman)
Nandan Maluste (Finance, Kotak Mahindra)
I.M. Kadri (Senior Architect)
Javed Akhtar (Poet, lyricist)
Javed Anand (Communalism Combat)
Teesta Setalvad (KHOJ, Communalism Combat)
Titoo Ahluwalia (ORG-Marg)
Vijay Tendulkar (Playwright)</b>
<b>CJP's Secretary is Teesta Setalvad</b>
Contributions can be sent to:
CJP, "Nirant", Juhu-Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai - 400049
Phone: 2660-3927 and 2660-2288
Email: cjp02in@...
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->retrial of the Godhra train fire case <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Godhra they are just calling 'train fire' and rest they are calling 'genocide' or 'massacre'. <!--emo&:mad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:thumbdown--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hey, Isn't that address of Communalism Combat published by Teesta and hubby Javed ?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->CJP, "Nirant", Juhu-Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai - 400049
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And how come they aren't listing expenses such as - hiring goons to intimidate minority citizens like Zaheera and family?
- expenditure for running a international ring of professional liars for hire
- money towards creating all those movies and infomercials pertaining to hate crimes which for a strange reason is hit with charities(?) like AID, SINGH and ASHA during it's fundraisers
Here is the complete Rakesh Sharma Story, as narrated by the film-maker himself.
http://www.rakeshfilm.com/NYPD/index.htm
Posting in full:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->May 15, 2005
Civilian Complaint Review Board,
40 Rector St.
New York, NY 10006
                  Sub : Harassment and Intimidation by NYPD
Dear Sir,
I am a film-maker from India, on a screening tour through USA since March 22 with my latest film across several universities including NYU, Ann Arbor (Michigan), University of Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Wyoming, Georgetown, Vermont to name a few. The film â Final Solution â has won over a dozen international awards at various prestigious international film festivals in Berlin, Hongkong, Zanzibar and at the Three Continents film festival ( France) and Big MiniDV film festival (New York; Long Island University). The UK-based Index on Censorship ( which monitors instances of censorship worldwide) felicitated the film in March 2005 by giving it the Freedom of Expression award (Best film). I enclose some information about the film in the annexure titled "A note about the film".
I write to you to lodge a formal protest and a complaint about my harassment by NYPD on May 13 while I was taking some candid shots with my tourist-grade Sony palmcorder (PDX 10P). For nearly 3 hours, I was 'detained' for no apparent reason, physically and verbally assaulted by a plainclothes detective and harassed and questioned by several others. Since I am not a US citizen, I am not totally familiar with nuances of US police procedures and laws safeguarding against abuse but it appears to me that several of my rights were wilfully compromised. I enclose details of the harrowing episode as an annexure titled "sequence of events'.
As is apparent from the detailed account, I was subjected to needless mental and physical anguish in spite of my co-operation with your officers. I not only promptly identified myself, showed them my papers and answered all their questions but also repeatedly suggested several ways to establish my antecedents as an internationally reputed film-maker. Though I am sure you would take appropriate action, I am deeply perturbed about a few issues, which I'd like you to respond to as well:
1. Do visitors to New York need police permission to click photographs and take random, candid shots on the streets of Manhattan? If not, was I deliberately misinformed and misled by one of NYPD detectives? Further, what should a visitor do when accosted by a seemingly 'off-duty' police officer and falsely accused of taking shots of "sensitive buildings"? Is the Metlife building a sensitive building and if yes, why are there no signs prohibiting photography? Did the officer have justifiable cause to detain and interrogate me for a prolonged period and cause my humiliation in front of hundreds of passers-by and customers at the local Starbucks outlet? Was the officer right in confiscating my passport? Though I was never arrested formally, I was not free to leave, not allowed to use my cellphone, not even allowed to buy water from Starbucks, right outside which I stood 'detained' on the sidewalk for nearly two hours!
2. Does the application for a visa to visit USA imply the suspension of all rights while the visitor is in USA? I specifically suggest that during my 'detention' and 'interrogation', several of my rights were violated including but not limited to my personal right to free speech as well as my right to freedom of expression as a film-maker. Additionally, my individual civil liberty rights were violated repeatedly during the 'interrogation' by 3 different sets of officers - the detective who detained me, the Seargent and the two senior detectives who finally 'released' me. I further suggest that my right to privacy was violated repeatedly and my artistic rights were violated through a scrutiny of the footage shot by me, especially since it was done at the 17th precinct after my identity had firmly and formally been established. May I also point out to you that though this specific tape contained no interviews of any kind, an illegal preview by your detectives would invade the privacy of any of the subjects interviewed by a film-maker! What follows then - harassment and raids for those who consented to be interviewed?
3. I was physically and verbally assaulted by an NYPD detective even after I had clearly identified myself, produced my passport and offered to put him in touch with my hosts - Professors at Columbia University as well as the New School. I felt his entire tone and tenor to be racist in nature and found him to be intimidatory. It was my impression that the officer's hostility towards me was driven at least in part by the fact that I am brown-skinned and have a beard. To quote him - âWe know how to deal with you guys, assholeâ. Though later he did offer me a conditional apology "if I was all clear", the question that begs to be asked is - even if I weren't "all clear", does the officer have a right to abuse me physically and verbally, intimidate me and violate my rights?
Sir, I have been under the impression that USA is a democracy. Since I come from India, the largest democracy in the world and a country which has lived under a threat of terrorism for decades, I have been deeply distressed to notice through various newspaper reports the ease with which peoples' fundamental rights and civil liberties can be violated in USA in the name of War on Terror. Now, I have my own personal experience to cite. Sir, may I suggest that such intimidation by your officers clearly do not win your department, the city and the country a deep appreciation of the concept of liberty and freedom of expression enshrined in your Constitution.
I request you to order an enquiry into my harassment by NYPD and take punitive action against officer(s) responsible for it. I expect a written apology as well as your assurance that formal steps would be taken to ensure that visitors to your city are not harassed and intimidated by NYPD. Since I am leaving USA on May 16, may I offer to respond by email to any questions that your investigators may have to further clarify, if necessary, the nature and degree of intimidation I was personally subjected to and extent of violation of my rights. Though I am sure you'd examine the issues involved in detail, please advise me whether I need to seek legal assistance for prompt redressal of my complaint and to ensure that I am appropriately compensated for the physical and mental anguish I have suffered as a result of humiliation and intimidation by your officer(s). I have stopped shooting in New York (even though I had plans to do so) due to the consequent anxiety and apprehension of further intimidation by NYPD.
I have copied this mail to several people and agencies. Over the next few weeks, I am also approaching friends and colleagues in the film-making community worldwide for their help and support; they are far too numerous to be individually copied. I look forward to an early and comprehensive response.
Kind Regards
Rakesh Sharma
Email : actindia@vsnl.com; US cellphone : 201 920 0537; India cellphone : +91 98203 43103
PO Box 12023, Azad Nagar post office, Mumbai 400061, India
cc :Â Â Â Â 1. Sanjay Ruparelia, Columbia University
      2. Prof Arjun Appadurai, New School, NY
      3. Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi
      4. Ambassador Ronen Sen, Indian Embassy, Washington DC
      5. The Mayor, New York city
      6. Chief of Department, NYPD
      7. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), NYC
      8. The Centre for Constitutional Rights, NY
      9. Index on Censorship, UK
A note about the film : Final Solution (India; 2004; shown at 60 international film festivals). Awards :
Wolfgang Staudte award (Best film at the International Forum for New Cinema) and
Special Jury Award (Netpac), Berlin International filmfest (2004).
Montgolfiere d'Or for Best Documentary and Le Prix Fip/Pil' du Public â (Audience award), 26th Festival des 3 Continents at Nantes (France; 2004).
Humanitarian Award for Outstanding Documentary, HongKong International filmfest(2004)
Best Film, Freedom of Expression awards (2005) by Index on Censorship
Best Feature -length Documentary, Big MiniDV (USA; 2004)
Silver Dhow, Zanzibar International film festival (2004)
Special Jury Mention, Munich Dokfest (2004)
Nominated for the prestigious Grierson Awards (UK; 2004)
Special Jury Award, Karafilmfest (Pakistan; 2004)
Special Mention, Bangkok International film festival (2005)
Special Award by NRIs for a Secular and Harmonious India (NRI-SAHI), NY-NJ, USA.
Special award by AFMI (North America)
Final Solution is a study of the politics of hate. Set in Gujarat during the period Feb/March 2002 - July 2003, the film graphically documents the changing face of right-wing politics in India through a study of the 2002 ethnic violence in Gujarat. Final Solution is anti-hate/ violence as " those who forget history are condemned to relive it".
At Berlin, the jury citation said : "...An epic documentary focussing on a culture of hatred and indifference. The directness, clarity and accuracy of the film enables the viewer to both reflect on the universality of the subject matter and relate this to his or her own human attitudes..."
The Durban International filmfest called it "A powerful and articulate plea for tolerance" while Fribourg International film festival said it is "A brilliant documentary which imposes itself like a work of reference in political documentary cinema."
Sequence of Events : May 12 ; approx 3 pm -Â 6:20 pm
Locations : Corner of 39th St and Park Ave and 17th precinct, Manhattan
On May 12, a screening of the film was scheduled at New School, NY ( 66W 12th st.) , co-organised by the school and Columbia University. I arrived in New York from LA where I held my previous screening. On May 12 and 13, I was staying at Hotel Bedford (118 E, 40th St., between Lexington and Park Ave).
On May 13, I left my hotel around 2.30 pm to walk around the city and shoot some cityscapes, which I normally do in various prominent cities worldwide in the course of my travel to film festivals. I walked around the block and found an interesting visual â yellow cabs emerging from the underpass and receding against the backdrop of tall buildings. I took several shots and started walking to the next block, en route to Times Square (Broadway) when I was approached by a gentleman wearing a pair of jeans and a shirt, who flashed or rather rapidly flipped a badge and identified himself as Detective Elimeyer of NYPD. He asked me to identify myself and accompany him back to the corner of 39th St. and Park Avenue. I complied and gave him my passport. I also told him I was a film-maker visiting the city, had a screening the previous evening attended by over 100 people and was staying at the Bedford hotel. He asked me why I was taking shots of the Metlife building for over half an hour, to which I responded by telling him that I had no specific interest in the building; I was primarily shooting traffic and had tilted up to the only well lit building getting direct sunlight among a cluster of other buildings in shadows. I also told him that I was working on a multi-country film that involved seeing a city through the eyes of a taxi driver; that these shots might form exterior shots for my conversations with them as they drove around. The detective told me that he found me suspicious because I had been shooting at the spot for half an hour; he happened to be parked there as his car had broken down. I thought I had allayed his apprehensions by promptly identifying myself and even offering to even put him in touch over cellphone with my hosts in New York city - professors at the two universities responsible for the screening of my film the previous evening. He asked me to wait while he summoned two patrolmen from across the street to watch over me while he made some calls. As soon as he finished, I asked him whether there was a continuing problem.
He then told me that I needed to be investigated further. He insisted that I was shooting a "sensitive" building. He said " it was okay if you were walking and shooting for a minute or two", at which point I asked him whether there was a law I had broken or if I needed police permission to take candid shots on the streets of Manhattan or whether there was indeed a ceiling on the number of minutes I could shoot at a spot. He said less than 5 minutes was fine but when I asked what about 15 or 20 or more, he said - "buddy, thatâs going to be a big problem". I told him I was going to be in NY for another couple of days and may take more shots, especially at the WTC memorial as well as visit several spots immortalized by Woody Allen in his film Manhattan, esp the Brooklyn bridge. The detective advised me to take prior permission from every precinct before I took a shot. Since it sounded preposterous to me, I asked him whether it was really a law and whether NYPD handed formal permissions centrally. He asked me to " go to One, Police Plaza" for such permissions like people who shoot films on streetcorners/ public spots with actors and heavy equipment. I reminded him I was a tourist and a documentary film-maker; not making a big budget Hollywood film! He continued to insist that by virtue of standing at one spot and taking shots for half an hour, I had indulged in "suspicious behaviour". I suggested to him to ask anyone at his precinct to do a google search with my name and the title of the film - they'd find hundreds of webpages, details about me and even my photographs online, clicked at various filmfests worldwide.
He then told me he wanted to look into my shoulder bag ( which has no flaps; it is open anyway). When I asked him whether that was legal, he said - âI am asking you for your permission. Are you denying me your permission? What are you hiding anyway? Do you have something to hide? And what is in your pockets?". Even though I felt that it was illegal, but, since the detective had already been intimidatory, had seized my passport and I wanted the situation to be quickly resolved, I allowed him a peak into my bag which contained an umbrella, a banana, a copy of the New York Times cityguide and a copy of Time Out, NY. He walked a few paces away to speak to one of the patrolmen when I turned the player mode âonâ and was in the middle of offering to playback the shot to him to set his apprehensions totally at rest when he charged at me, shoved me, snatched my camera and said to me â âWe know how to deal with you guys, assholeâ. He said he was "authorised to punch me if necessary". I was stunned and as I tried to speak to him, he told me âstay right thereâ ; I told him to at least switch the camera/ player off so the battery did not get drained. He further told me â âDon't move, you are lucky it is me or else you would be down there (pointing to the ground) with hands cuffed behind your back.â He accused me of trying to erase my footage, an allegation I found shocking. I denied it firmly.
He then walked away and made some more calls from his cellphone. As I had found his aggression to be near-brutal and completely unwarranted, I asked the patrolmen why the detective misbehaved; they said "they didnât know". Since I was apprehensive about my physical safety at the hands of an abusive police officer, I asked the patrolmen whether I could use my cellphone to make some calls ( basically to call up my hosts and some journalist friends in the city). The patrolman said he didnât have any problem but I shouldnât as the detective seemed to have a problem with me.
For nearly two hours, I was made to stand on the sidewalk outside Starbucks, with my camera and passport in the detectiveâs possession, not allowed even to move, not allowed to use my phone. During this time Sgt McCann arrived and questioned me, asked me for any other professional ID, which I furnished. I repeated most of the information to him as well. I asked him whether I could at least buy water from the Starbucks outlet; he refused and asked a patrolman to take the money from me and get me a water bottle. At this point, I asked Det. Elimeyer whether we were waiting for anything further, he informed me that more experienced detectives were on the way. He said to me in the presence of the two patrolmen - "no hard feelings". I interjected with - " But you did call me an asshole". First he denied it and when I pointed out that the patrolman had heard him too, he said - "when this is over and you are in the clear, I'd be the first to apologise a hundred times, even buy you a beer". He then shook my hand even as I continued to be under 'detention'.
At this point, two detectives in black suits in an unmarked car arrived and though they both identified themselves, I only remember one name - Det. Daniel D'Alessandro ( who later, while finally 'releasing me' gave me his contact details : Cold case squad, phone : 718 834 4580). Det. Elimeyer and Sgat McCann briefed the two detectives and handed over my camera and passport to Det D'Alessandro's and his partner. They asked me all the standard questions - date of entry, my travel schedule within the US. I answered each query. They finally asked me whether I'd accompany them to the precinct. Since I had been given no other options, treated like a "suspect", made to stand at one spot for nearly two hours (and humiliated in front of hundreds of passers-by and onlookers), physically and verbally assaulted by Det Elimeyer and the situation seemed to be getting out of hand, I agreed under duress. Both detectives repeatedly expressed their appreciation of my compliance, drove me to the 17th precinct and returned my passport but kept my camera in their possession. In the car, I told them that about Det. Elimeyer's conduct, specifically about the way he snatched my camera and called me an "asshole". Det. D'Alessandro apologised and said - "we have some young detectives who aren't so experienced".
At the precinct, Det D'Alessandro brought in a laptop within the first 5 minutes at about 5:27 pm into the room where I was placed. In presence of both the detectives, I did a google search, which showed them hundreds of webpages about me. The BBC 4 website showed details about my film (screened by them in March 2005), an interview and my photograph. Det. D'Alessanrdro expressed his apologies and told me - " It shouldn't have come to this. We are sorry for this. I appreciate your coming to the precinct as it helped sort out things faster, things would have taken much longer if were still at the street corner, it spares you the embarrassment and humiliation". I told him it was a humiliating enough experience thus far and that such a thing had never happenned to me before in any city anywhere the world. I said - " I'd undertand if someone has a question, however, once you respond and your credentials are clear, it is okay. But Det Elimeyer misbehaved with me and was abusive." He said - "The problem is many senior detectives have been moved and the younger ones aren't trained and don't benefit from training under a senior detective". He once again offerred to apologise on behalf of the detective.
My camera had been in his partner's possession and when I asked for it, he said - " you don't mind if I take a look". I asked him - "do we need to do this" and when he insisted politely yet firmly, I offered to playback the last few shots but Det D'Alessandro told me his partner was an "expert with cameras", who started to rewind the tape. I told him that the first 30-odd minutes of the tape were shot in Disneyland in Los Angeles and weren't relevant, he told me he was going to take a look anyway. When he started watching the footage, I protested. He then fast forwarded a bit, cued it to the shots I had taken in NY the previous day and specifically asked my where I had shot those; I told him these were taken from the office building at the New School, while I waited for my screening to end, before I went back to the auditorium for a Q and A.
Both detectives then left the room with my camera. Det D'alessandro peeped in twice to say his partner was "showing the footage to his supervisor" and "it'll take only a little while more". Very specifically, I did not authorise the detective to either look through all my footage or show it to anyone else or indeed even watch it himself. At the street corner and at the precinct, under duress, I had only offered to personally playback the last few shots, if necessary, to allay any suspicions that I was a potential terrorist recci-ing potential 'targets'. It took a further 29 minutes before the detectives returned. I was able to note this timeline because of the laptop; I wear no watch and use the cellphone to check time (at the street location where I was 'detained', I wasn't allowed to put my hands in my pocket to even take out my cellphone to check time, let alone make a call!). I was finally 'released' and escorted back to the street outside the precinct by the two detectives. Det. D'Alessandro apologised again on behalf of NYPD and told me his colleague complimented me on my photographic skills.
I then proceeded on the subway to a book release event at 7 pm on West St. - a book about the cab industry in New York called "Taxi". I later noticed that the back of the LCD screen flap on my camera was scratched and a crack developed in the display window on the back of the flap. I can not pinpoint the detective responsible for the damage, but it is more than likely that the damage was inflicted when Det Elimeyer snatched my camera.
Note : I am not quite sure whether Det. Elimeyer spells his name this way. I am phonetically reproducing the name he told me; when he flipped his badge for 5 seconds, I could not read his name or rank. I only saw the shield.
Witnesses :Â Det. Elimeyer, Cold case squad detectives ( Det. D'Alessandro and his partner), Sgt McCann, two patrolmen ( who'd been on duty across the street at the corner of Park Ave and 40th St. and then stood guard), hundreds of passers-by, Cutomers and employees at Starbucks at the corner of 39th St and Park Ave.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about sending a congrats and good job note to NYPD and rest on list except Ambassador and ACLU.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> He continued to insist that by virtue of standing at one spot and taking shots for half an hour, I had indulged in "suspicious behaviour". I suggested to him to ask anyone at his precinct to do a google search with my name and the title of the film - they'd find hundreds of webpages, details about me and even my photographs online, clicked at various filmfests worldwide.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why Police need to do goggle search when some with suspicious behavior? He is thinking himself in India and a big shot. <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Actually police did the Google search and found him making movies sympathetic to militant Islam. Therefore even more suspicious <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since I come from <b>India, the largest democracy in the world</b> and a country which has lived under a threat of terrorism for decades, I have been deeply distressed to notice through various newspaper reports the ease with which peoples' fundamental rights and civil liberties can be violated in USA in the name of War on Terror.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm.. suddenly he remembers.. But I am sure if probed further - he will squeal -> after may 04 onlee..
|
