Guwahati, April 19
Raising doubt on the sincerity of the latest peace overture of group of intellectuals, the top boss of United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) today said the outfit is not going to hold any talks with the government unless its core demand of sovereignty is not included in the agenda

Notably, a group of prominent intellectuals in Assam, under the leadership of Dr Hiren Gohain, is all set to hold a state-level convention on April 24 to find a way to facilitate ULFA-government talks.

“The ULFA has serious doubt on any fruitful outcome of such a convention organised by a section of people, who are known for their blind loyalty to Indian Constitution,” said fugitive commander-in-chief of the outfit Paresh Barua.

“Sovereignty is not a demand, it is the birth right of Assamese people. The Assam-India conflict will come to an end only when the Union government will agree to restore the sovereignty of Assam. We are not going to allow the government to buy time in the name of peace talks for continuous exploitation of state’s resources, ” he added.

Responding to intellectuals’ call for holding talks to ensure peace in the state, the ULFA leader said, “We won’t succumb to any pressure. ULFA is not a merchant of peace. It was born with the sole objective to liberate Assam from the clutches of colonial Indian ruler.”

He added that the outfit was not going to accept any resolution of the proposed ‘national convention’ of intellectuals.

The ULFA commander’s statement has virtually negated the peace efforts of intellectuals even before it could take a concrete shape. It has also exposed differences within the ULFA leadership.

Notably, ULFA vice-chairman Pradip Gogoi, who was recently released on bail, had showed his interest for holding a dialogue and had even contacted some prominent citizens. Another senior ULFA leader Mithinga Daimary, who was also released on bail, had said the talks could be held even without Paresh Barua. His statement reflected the impatience of an ULFA section for going ahead with the dialogue process.

Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi has made it clear that the government was not going to wait indefinitely for Paresh Barua to come forward for talks and there were ‘positive signals’ from some other leaders of the outfit.

New Delhi, April 19
Families of victims, who took on influential accused in cases similar to ramp model Jessica Lal’s murder, on Monday said the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold life term for her killer has restored their faith in the judicial system.

“It is a reinforcement of faith in our criminal justice system. People did lose faith when the accused were acquitted in the lower court. But they were convicted by the high court and now by the apex court,” said Shekhar Krishnamoorthy, who lost his two children in the Uphaar cinema fire tragedy in June 1997.

“This landmark judgment shows that however mighty the accused is, the clutches of law get him,” he added. He was pitted against a real estate baron in the Uphaar case.

The Supreme Court Monday upheld the Delhi High Court judgment sentencing Manu Sharma to life imprisonment for killing Lal in April 1999. Sharma, the son of Congress leader Venod Sharma, is lodged in Tihar jail.

He had challenged the high court judgment on his conviction and life sentence delivered in December 2006.

Neelam Katara, who fought for justice against an influential politician’s son who killed her son Nitish Katara, said: “We were expecting this judgment. It is a win of the common man.”

“We are satisfied with the judgment, but it took 11 years... this should not take so long. If this is the case in Delhi, then one can imagine what would be happening in other states. Whatever reforms are required, we should immediately implement them,” she added.

A social group fighting for justice in the Priyadarshani Mattoo case called the judgment “historic in every sense”. Mattoo, a Delhi University law student, was raped and killed by a senior police officer's son in January 1996.

“It will set a very positive precedent for cases of similar nature in times to come. The guilt of the accused has been proved now beyond doubt,” said a representative of the group Justice for Priyadarshani.

“The verdict is the victory of the Indian judiciary as it restores the faith of the common man in the criminal justice delivery system. It reflects the neutral nature of the judiciary in spite of constant political pressure from the well-connected and powerful accused,” the representative added. — IANS

New Delhi, April 19
Union Home Minister P Chidambaram today announced a time frame for controlling the Naxal menace. He, however, ruled out the use of Army or the Air Force against them. He said the government was also examining whether the special forces should be used to support the trained paramilitary personnel.

Replying to a debate in the Rajya Sabha, he said, “We have not swerved from our path. Our policy remains the same. It is a serious law and order problem. We will talk, we will act, we will restore law and order and we will bring development in those areas.” The question was which of these priorities came first.

“We will be able to substantially contain and control this menace in about two-three years,” he announced.

The responsibility for the “terrible failure” of the command and control that led to the Dantewada massacre would be fixed. All those held responsible would be made answerable. Chidambaram said he had asked Ram Mohan, the inquiry officer “to fix responsibility right from the Assistant Commandant (CRPF) up to the minister in the Ministry of Home Affairs. ...Let him fix responsibility where this failure of command and control took place”. The probe report was expected by April 25.

Taking a dig at the NGOs and human rights organisations that empathised with the Maoists, the Home Minister said, he was willing “to be advised....if necessary, what course corrections” were needed. He also took on a section of his own party men saying....“it is a serious law and order problem”. A few days ago, Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh had raised a question on this. Chidambaram said he was following the AICC-2006 resolution that asked the government to accord “highest priority to this serious law and order issue”.

Responding to sarcasm by Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley on how the Home Minister would “tackle” his own party colleagues in his endeavour, Chidambaram said, “You should not make an attempt because you will not succeed in trying to divide my party.”

About different opinions in his party, he said, “We are a robust democracy. We must allow for shades of opinion. It is for the government to evolve a policy after listening to every shade of opinion.”

Apparently referring to Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee, CPM member Sitaram Yechury alleged an ally of the UPA and a Cabinet member had boycotted the meetings convened by West Bengal government as also the debates in both Houses of Parliament on the issue of Naxalites.

To this, Chidamabram said Yechury’s problem with an “unnamed antagonist” would be resolved in “12 months from now” politically, apparently referring to the assembly elections in West Bengal next year.

New Delhi, April 19
A major accident was averted at Mumbai’s CST International Airport today when a Kingfisher Airways flight, carrying 30 passengers and crew, was asked to abort take-off minutes before a GoAir plane was cleared to land.

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has ordered an investigation into the incident, DGCA chief SNA Zaidi said here.

The GoAir aircraft, coming from Delhi, was approaching for landing at the Mumbai’s airport minutes ahead of Kingfisher’s turbo-prop plane ATR 72-500 being cleared for take-off at 1336 hours, a Kingfisher spokesperson said.

As soon as Kingisher’s Mumbai-Bhavnagar flight IT-4123 started rolling to the active runway, the air traffic control asked it to abort take-off. The ATR plane, which was on its initial roll, immediately aborted the take-off and returned to the bay.

With reports that the air traffic control had also given clearance to the GoAir flight to land almost at the same time, sources said the flight data recorders of both the aircraft that records the pilot-ATC conversation would be sealed for DGCA investigations.

Sources said reports about a second Kingfisher plane, IT-308, from Delhi being cleared to land at Mumbai around the same time were not correct as it was almost eight nautical miles away from the airport when this incident had occured.

They also said IT-308, being operated by an Airbus A-320 family aircraft, made a normal landing and did not make a ‘go around’ or taking an extra round before coming in to land. — PTI

New Delhi, April 19
The Centre today informed the Supreme Court that another Public Prosecutor dealing with one of the Gujarat riots cases wanted to opt out, prompting the court to remark that “something is happening behind the scene.”

The state government also seized the opportunity to question the Centre’s role in the 2002 riots cases. Senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the state before the three-member Special Bench headed by Justice DK Jain, said he was “curious to know how the Central Government is involved in all this”.

Solicitor-General Gopal Subramanium said he had come to know through media reports that the Public Prosecutor had written to the apex court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) expressing his desire to quit the case and subsequently got the news confirmed from the Public Prosecutor.

The Bench, which included Justices P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam, said it was unfortunate that reports were being leaked to the media. “If the Public Prosecutor discloses to the media then he has no business to be it” and if the SIT had failed to convey the development to the court “we will deal with the SIT”.

The SG clarified that he was not holding a brief for the Public Prosecutor or the SIT and was merely conveying the development to the court as he felt it was his duty. Rohtagi wondered how the Centre “is privy to all this but not the state government. We are taken by surprise at every hearing that he is resigning or somebody else is resigning.”

At this, the Bench, which was hearing a plea for reconstituting the SIT, made it clear that the “Central Government has no role in this”. The court adjourned the hearing on the reconstitution plea as parties wanted to file additional documents. Some SIT members, headed by former CBI director RK Raghavan, are facing allegations of bias and deliberate inaction and omissions.

Special Public Prosecutor RK Shah had recently quit, citing non-cooperation from the trial judge as the reason.

New Delhi, April 19
Almost half a century after the Sino-India conflict of 1962, the government today, yet again, declined to make public the Henderson Brooks inquiry report which details the debacle suffered by the Indian Army at the hands of the Chinese.

The government does not propose to make public the report, Defence Minister AK Antony told Parliament.“…Report is a top-secret document, based on an internal study by the Army, contents of which are not only extremely sensitive but are of current operational value”, Antony said in reply to a written question posed by Ludhiana MP Manish Tewari.

The report was prepared by Lt-Gen Henderson Brooks and Brig PS Bhagat, the then commandant of the IMA, Dehradun, and was submitted to the then Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru in 1963. Since then repeated attempts, by academics, historian, research scholars, intellectuals and parliamentarian have met with strong “no” from the Ministry of Defence.

Not just the Sino-India conflict, the ministry, has so far, not made public any records related to the 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan. And also of the 1999 Kargil-conflict. Antony today said, “The compilation of other historical records has been taken up subsequently starting with the 1965 war.

Gen Henderson Brooks, an officer of Anglo-Indian decent, died in 1997 in Sydney. He had been asked to go through the official records and prepare a report on what went wrong in the Sino-China war.

Last year, the Central Information Commission (CIC), then headed by Wajahat Habibullah, in reply to a petition, had ruled that the report cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.

Separately, Neville Maxwell’s book ‘India’s China War’, published in 1970, is believed to be based on the Henderson Brooks report. Maxwell, in the past, has been quoted in the newspapers of having a copy in his possession.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence today informed Parliament that the matter of having Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) to over look all three services, was being discussed with political parties and a decision on this matter would be taken after completion of the ongoing consultations. It was one of the recommendations of the Kargil Review Committee.

Hyderabad, April 19
The Telangana turmoil has cast a shadow over the much-hyped Hyderabad Metro Rail Project, billed as the biggest such project in the country.The pre-qualified bidders for the Rs 12,132 crore project appear to have developed cold feet over taking it up in view of the political uncertainty triggered by the statehood movement. The uncertainty over the status of Hyderabad, which is part of Telangana region, in the event of the state’s bifurcation, is the major cause of worry for the investors.

Moreover, there are also apprehensions over the project’s financial viability and the real estate values in the city if Andhra Pradesh is divided.

None of the eight pre-qualified bidders came forward to submit their financial bids on April 9, the original deadline set by the state government. It was later extended to April 21. Since there has been no response from the shortlisted bidders, the deadline has been extended by three more months.

The Hyderabad Metro Rail Corporation Managing Director NVS Reddy said the date had been extended because most of the bidders were yet to complete traffic potential studies, financial modeling and other formalities.

The qualified bidders are Reliance (Anil Ambani) Group, L&T, Lanco-OHL consortium, GVK-Samsung consortium, GMR, Essar- Leighton-Gayatri- VNR consortium, Transstroy-OJSC and Soma Enterprise Ltd- Strabag SE consortium.

Hyderabad, April 19
The long ordeal has finally ended for Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Malik. After Andhra Pradesh police dropped all criminal charges against him and closed the case, the High Court today ordered that his passport be returned to him.This will clear the way for Shoaib’s return to his country along with his bride and Tennis star Sania Mirza. A grand reception awaits the newly-wed couple in Pakistan.

The police seized Shoaib’s passport on April 5 during investigations into a criminal complaint filed by Hyderabadi girl Ayesha Siddiqui who claimed to be his first wife.

Though Ayesha has since withdrawn her complaint after the cricketer divorced her, following a compromise brokered by the community elders, his ordeal did not end. A complex set of legal formalities had to be fulfilled to release the passport.

Justice CV Nagarjuna of the High Court directed a city criminal court to release the passport after the state Advocate General DV Sitaram Murthy informed the court that the police had filed its final report before a magistrate for closure of the case against Malik.

Earlier, the police had booked criminal case against the former Pakistani captain for cheating, intimidation and harassment and asked him not to leave the country till the investigation was completed.

After Ayesha withdrew her complaint, Shoaib and Sania tied the knot at a simple ceremony here on April 12.

The cricketer had filed a petition before the High Court, contending that since the dispute between him and Ayesha had been resolved amicably, the police had no reason to detain his passport.

The reception of Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Malik and Indian tennis star Sania Mirza will be held in Lahore on April 27. This was announced on Monday by Shoaib’s brother-in-law Imran Zafar Malik.

Chandigarh, April 19
The Army has been slapped a notice for Rs 1-crore damages by the wife of an officer for allegedly publishing a “baseless” official order pertaining to her divorce and for “fraudulently” showing her husband to be present in the unit on different occasions while he was stated to be at a different station.

In a notice issued under Section 80 of the CrPC, she has alleged that her husband, an EME officer, was shown present in his unit at Meerut in October, 2009, whereas he was in Natinal on that day.

The notice has also questioned the advice rendered in the case by the Judge Advocate General’s Department, the Army’s legal wing, and has contended that the department skipped vital evidence.According to her counsel, Brig Rajindar Kumar (retd), the officer was shown to be present in his unit and having drawn rations for two days when he was supposed to be in Vishakhapatnam, where he had got an affidavit attested and produced in the court.