Tag: Manish Tewari

Robert Vadra and DLF

Corruption, India
Comments

IAC has raised questions about Robert Vadra’s dealings with DLF and subsequent benefits to Robert Vadra and DLF. Congress members, UPA ministers and a governor have defended Robert Vadra. There is a question over ministers and a governor defending a private person. BJP and Left Front want an investigation in Robert Vadra’s dealings. Manish Tewari said IAC is B team of BJP. Sanjay Jha said Manish Tewari was extremely charitable; BJP is B team of IAC. Harish Salve is a lawyer of DLF.

IAC did what many people consider unspeakable; attacking Gandhi family. IAC did not do anything new. Economic Times had an article on Robert Vadra and DLF around 18 months back. Some people in BJP had accused Rahul Gandhi or Gandhi family of having money in Swiss banks. Sonia Gandhi denied it. L. K. Advani apologised. That embarrassed BJP members.

Many people appeared on TV discussions. Dushyant Dave said anyone related to a politician, bureaucrat or judge becomes a brilliant entrepreneur. Someone related to a former CJI earned 200 crore rupees. Shalini Singh said a business model where one starts with 50 lakh rupees and earns 300 crore rupees in two years is something she and Karan Thapar should explore. Salman Khurshid said we will teach Arvind Kejriwal a lesson. Arvind Kejriwal said Salman Khurshid is law minister of India and not law minister of Congress. Prashant Bhushan, Manish Sisodia, Anand Kumar, Yogendra Yadav and Preeti Menon appeared for IAC. Vinod Sharma referred to Arvind Kejriwal as a loose cannon.

There are discrepancies between DLF statements and Robert Vadra statements. Haryana government is under attack for some of its actions favouring DLF. What happened to Jaganmohan Reddy can happen to Robert Vadra.

Justice International

India
Comments

I announce the founding of Justice International. I am the founder and president.

The aim is to get justice to victims and their families. Those who wish to join can write to vincent@go4quiz.com

We will fight for death penalty in all countries for all cases of murder, attempted murder, abduction, acid throwing, hijacking, kidnapping, piracy and such high crimes. Death penalty should not be restricted to rarest of rare cases. It is immaterial how much time has passed after the crime. It is ridiculous to say a murderer should be hanged within one year but should not be hanged if a long time has passed. It is immaterial whether the criminal has reformed or not. We will see that death penalty is restored in Canada, European Union, Russia, Mexico, South Africa and such countries.

We will fight for consecutive sentences for crimes instead of concurrent sentences. If a person had committed ten murders the punishment should be ten death sentences. It is immaterial that a criminal can be hanged only once. If punishment for one case of cheating is one year imprisonment, for ten cases of cheating it should be ten years imprisonment, for 180 cases of cheating it should be 180 years imprisonment. If punishment for one rape is 25 years, punishment for 10 rapes should be 250 years.

We will fight for proportional punishment for crimes. If punishment for taking a bribe of 100 rupees is one day, punishment for taking a bribe of one crore rupees should be one lakh days.

We will fight for quick justice.

We will fight for abolition of parole and furlough. Many criminals who come out on parole and furlough do not return to prisons.

Courts are for justice. We will fight for punishment to lawyers who know their clients have committed crimes but try to prove otherwise.

It is a shame that victims cry and criminals laugh. It is a shame that Pratibha Patil commuted death sentences of 35 murderers to life. Her excuse that the decisions were of government does not work because when the home ministry wanted her to reject mercy petitions she refused to do so and home ministry agreed to commutation. It was well known long back and I had written to many MPs to impeach her but I did not have any success. She even refused to reject mercy petition of Afzal Guru. Now she should reverse her decisions or her successor should reverse her decisions. Rajendra Prasad had reversed a decision to grant clemency and the murderer was hanged.

It is a shame that journalists like Barkha Dutt manipulate TV programmes to oppose death penalty. The discussions have a large number of people who oppose death penalty and token presence of those who favour death penalty. May be she acts at the behest of Nira Radia or some other lobbyist.

Victims like Manish Tewari, Neelam Katara, Sangeeta Khanna, Ritu Mathur and Chamanlal Mattoo should speak in favour of death penalty. Manish Tewari should move a bill in Lok Sabha making death penalty obligatory in all cases of murder.

Meenakshi Lekhi should expose lobbyists who oppose death penalty. Pinky Anand should continue to defend death penalty. Arnab Goswami has defended death penalty.

When mercy petitions are decided family members of all who were murdered be asked their views. In Sriperumbadur blast 16 people died including Rajiv Gandhi. When deciding on Nalini’s mercy petition, Sonia Gandhi’s view was considered and death sentence was commuted to life but members of other 15 people were not consulted. This is against equality before law.

We will take on abolitionists and self-styled human rights activists who oppose death penalty. For them murderers are human beings, victims and their family members are not human beings. We will refute their arguments. We will refute their argument that life sentence is a greater punishment than death sentence. We will refute their argument that state has no right to take life.

There are different categories among people who oppose death penalty. Some do it because they think it is fashionable or politically correct. Some have heard others to say that so they repeat. Some are evil and we will unmask them.

Cheat the Nation

India, Media
Comments

Once I found Manish Tewari and Ajit Singh on CNN-IBN and Times Now at the same time on what were supposed to be live discussions. I wondered how it could be. I had heard or read about the saints having the gift of bilocation but it was more than that. It was bilocation plus bilocution. Not only people were present on two different places at the same time they were also saying different words at the same time.

Sometimes I found panelists on three channels at the same time. Finding on two channels had become common. It was obvious someone had recorded with some people before and using the footage. No channel disclosed someone was interviewed before the programme except once when Amitabh Revi on NDTV 24×7 said Kiran Bedi was interviewed before.

On 9/11/2011 on Face the Nation there were four panelists: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Arun Bhatia and two others. It was about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s anti-corruption yatra in Uttar Pradesh. The question was whether spiritual gurus should participate in the fight against corruption. Arun Bhatia criticized Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and said he had trivialized corruption. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar was unruffled at the criticism. He did not respond.

Next day came the shocker. At the end of Face the Nation Sagarika Ghose apologized to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. She admitted it was recorded a couple of hours earlier. Face the Nation is telecast at 10 p.m., so couple of hours earlier means at 8 p.m. The recording was around 3 p.m., seven hours earlier and not a couple of hours earlier.

Face the Nation exposed itself to be Cheat the Nation. How many times it had used pre-recorded material we do not know. It is probable that some had protested but that had not become public. Sometimes for factual errors anchors apologise as one there was an apology for putting Bangalore in Andhra Pradesh. It is rare for an anchor to apologize for misleading the viewers. It means not apologizing to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar was not an option.

There has to be action against news TV channels that mislead viewers. There has to be punishment for claiming an interview to be exclusive when it is not. If pre-recorded footage is used there has to be disclosure. Use of phrases like Breaking News or Just In should be restricted. Separate cameras should not be used for people sitting in the studio. For a start every channel that claimed it had exclusive interview of Anna Hazare some weeks back can apologise saying “We claimed we had exclusive interview of Anna Hazare. We were wrong. We were one of the 17 channels that had interviewed Anna Hazare. We apologise to our viewers for misleading.”