| |
 |
ARTICLE |
 |
When Japan comes calling
Opportunity for India to strengthen a lasting friendship
S. Nihal Singh
People holding Japanese national flags take part in an anti-China rally in Tokyo in this file photo. Both Japan and India are wary of an increasingly assertive and powerful China. Reuters
|
The
imminent state visit to India of the Emperor and Empress of Japan is more than a ceremonial occasion because it is the icing on the cake in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s vision of a close political, strategic and trade relationship with New Delhi that takes in other regional countries such as Australia. In essence, he has pleaded for a quadrilateral relationship to include the United States.It is well understood that India will shy away from a formal quadrilateral arrangement — Mr Abe’s dream — but the great goodwill New Delhi occupies in his world view should be seen for what it is: an asset for taking the bilateral relationship to a new peak. An officially unspoken thread is the two countries’ wariness of an increasingly assertive and powerful China, with the American “pivot” to Asia making the same point. It has become a truism to say that India and Japan are natural partners and although neither country can ignore the power and presence of China, the convergence of interests is striking. These range from Japanese investments in India, given the contrasting youth bulge and an ageing population, to New Delhi’s great need for modernisation, particularly in infrastructure, transfer of technology and breaking new ground on nuclear cooperation. There are indications that the nuclear file might be cleared soon, essential for receiving American nuclear material, which has a high Japanese content. Other major projects such as the Delhi-Mumbai freight rail corridor and further similar ventures in other regions are in various stages of negotiation. In the military and strategic fields, new areas of cooperation are being negotiated, with joint naval exercises a new feature. The functioning Delhi metro remains a testimonial to Tokyo’s largesse. India and Japan share territorial disputes with China, in one case an unresolved long border dispute which is sought to be managed and in the other China’s claims to an outcrop of islands in the East China Sea. Beijing has also territorial disputes with the Philippines and Vietnam, among others, and its aggressiveness in making claims varying to an extent with its diplomatic needs; on occasion it seems insensitive to the concerns of other countries. In South-East Asia and in China, Japan has the disadvantage of its record of occupation and pillage during the last World War and earlier. Japan, of course, has the anomaly of having its highly accomplished and hi-tech armed forces still called Self Defence Forces after its defeat in the war, having lived under American tutelage for years. Mr Abe would dearly like to change a clause in the constitution to assert his country’s right to be a normal country so many years after a devastating war, but he still has to convince a majority of his countrymen on this emotive point. As the only country in the world whose cities were devastated by atom bombs bringing harrowing deaths and unspeakable devastation to millions, Japanese are particularly sensitive to issues of nuclear energy and any attempt at militarising the nation. Japan has a longstanding military treaty relationship with the United States, which is still the main guarantor of its security, but the stationing of US troops in regions, particularly on Okinawa, has been a contentious matter for decades although the agreement to move the bulk of them out is still to be fully implemented. Inevitably, stray incidents involving rapes of Japanese women by American troops raise the hackles of the local population. But the Japanese authorities, fearful at one time of Washington losing interest in the strategic relationship, have been reassured by President Barrack Obama’s “pivot” to Asia and are on their part redoubling their efforts to bring in other countries such as India and Australia into the equation, obviously at a more informal level. There is one constant India cannot ignore. Mr Abe has been arguing constantly even out of office that his vision of Asia has a very special place for India although he has, perhaps reluctantly, come to the conclusion that New Delhi will continue to baulk at formal strategic arrangements. In a speech to Indian Parliament in August 2007, Mr Abe said the Pacific and Indian Oceans were “now bringing about a dynamic coupling as seas of freedom and prosperity”. What is evident is that India will not have a greater well-wisher in Tokyo than the present Prime Minister, and it is in New Delhi’s interest to make most of today’s propitious circumstances for strengthening a lasting friendship that benefits both countries. One area of immediate Indian interest would be a significant increase in Japanese manufacturing enterprises here. It is no secret that the increasingly strained relations with China, with its huge two-way trade with Japan, is making Japanese industrialists skittish and they are looking elsewhere in the region to move their ventures. India should prove to be an attractive site because, unlike South-east Asia and South Korea, there are no unpleasant memories stemming from events in the past. In fact, India’s dissent from the majority verdict in the Japanese war crimes trial stands out. Japan, of course, faces problems of its own. Apart from its ageing population, there is an inherent reluctance to integrating peoples of other ethnic origins and it will take a majority a long time to reconcile itself to living in a less homogeneous country. Despite the Meiji Revolution, Japanese history and folklore have been built over centuries round the feeling of being Japanese in the narrower sense of the term. Perhaps modern technology will help the people to take a less orthodox view of being Japanese. Despite the revolutionary changes brought about by Japan’s defeat in the last World War and the evolution of the institution of the Emperor from a ruler to a symbol, the Emperor and Empress occupy a revered position in the nation’s consciousness. Their state visit to India therefore must be seen as a manifestation of Japan’s eagerness to befriend India.
 |
| |
|
MIDDLE |
|
Blame it on the name
V.M. Wadhwa
 IT was more than four and a half decades ago, when on my promotion as Personal Assistant, I was posted with a senior Cabinet Minister. This was my first posting with a minister. Heretofore, I had the experience of working with bureaucrats, as is the practice in the Secretariat. Duties in the office of ministers are quite different from those with secretaries. While working with bureaucrats, one has normally to take dictation, connect phone calls, and to keep the boss abreast of official engagements, etc.But working directly with a minister one has to perform multifarious duties, such as attending to visitors at his residence before coming to office, even touring. Since I had never worked with any minister, the Private Secretary already working there gave me some important tips, and also apprised me of the requirements of the minister. He also told me that the latter, though soft-spoken, was strict and a disciplinarian. He cautioned me to remain vigilant and ensure that the orders were complied with meticulously and without delay. In the meanwhile, a newly recruited steno-typist joined our office. I apprised him of his duties, and also gave the necessary instructions. One day I received a message from the minister that three persons were coming to see him in the office at 11.30 am to discuss his constituency’s problems. Arrangements were to be made for their hassle free entry into the Secretariat. I asked Mr Steno to arrange for entry passes for the visitors and take necessary action in this regard. He contacted the receptionist on the phone, who was a woman, and asked her to issue entry passes for the visitors to enable them to meet the minister at the appointed hour. The receptionist asked him to send in a written request, duly signed by the competent authority, as is the procedure, for her to issue the passes. The steno, being new, did not know the procedure and tried to pressure her to send in the visitors without the requisition slip, telling her these were the minister’s orders, but she was reluctant to do so. A heated argument followed. Mr Steno warned her that she would be “taught a lesson” for not complying with the minister’s orders, and authoritatively asked for her name. The receptionist, who was only discharging her duty, gently told him she was Akashvani. On hearing the name, Mr Steno thought she was trying to pull fast one on him and trying to avoid giving out her name. Immediately thereafter she also asked Mr Steno for his name — so that in case the matter reached the minister she should be able to clear her position. Mr Steno thought for a while, and then said: “If you are Akashvani, then I am Vividh Bharati.” When I asked him about his agitation, Mr Steno narrated the whole story. I could not help but burst out laughing. The receptionist had given her correct name.
|
| |
|
OPED
Debate |
|
Beyond reasonable doubt?
Colin Rogers
A comparison of two high profile murder cases in India and the USA shows how a skewed focus on circumstantial evidence can affect court decisions. Did justice stray in the twilight of reason and doubt?
The conviction of Nupur Talwar and Rajesh Talwar recently in the twin murder case of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj has opened up several areas for debate. PTI Photo
|
The
recent special CBI trial court’s decision in the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case whereby the parents of Aarushi Talwar were found guilty of murdering her and their domestic help Hemraj, raises questions regarding the reliability of evidence in general, and the use of circumstantial evidence in particular, when considering the guilt or otherwise of accused persons. The prosecution case in this particular instance tended to rest upon a number of allegations and suppositions that were circumstantial in nature, and have led to the sentencing of Rajesh and Nupur Talwar to life imprisonment. Indeed, in the summation of this particular case, much justification for the sentence was drawn from various court decisions relating to circumstantial evidence in the absence of ‘real’ evidence connecting the two accused to the crime. The judicial decision in this case causes us to reflect upon similar cases from other countries that did not result in prosecution. One case from the USA, in particular, illustrates how a police investigation and subsequent follow up enquiries can be affected by such a focus, and be driven by circumstantial evidence for indictment. It is important to note at this juncture that the UK and India have similar judicial systems based upon the commonwealth model, whilst the American judicial system includes similar ideas concerning the concept of circumstantial evidence.  The case considered for comparison is the murder of JonBenet Ramsey in Colorado, USA. JonBenét Patricia Ramsey was an American child beauty pageant queen who was murdered in her home in Boulder, Colorado, in 1996. The six-year-old’s body was found in the basement of the family home about eight hours after she was reported missing. The police initially suspected JonBenét’s parents and her 9-year-old brother. At the time media coverage of the case focused on JonBenét’s participation in child beauty pageants, her parents' affluence and the unusual evidence in the case.
On the morning of December 26, 1996, it was alleged that Patsy Ramsey discovered her daughter was missing after finding on the kitchen staircase a two-and-a-half-page ransom letter demanding $118,000 for her safe return. Despite specific instructions in the ransom note that police and friends should not be contacted, she telephoned the police and called family and friends. The local police conducted a cursory search of the house, but did not find any obvious signs of a break-in or forced entry. However, a more thorough later examination of the house suggested that a small window in the basement area had indeed been broken and forced entry could have been made through this. The ransom note suggested that the collection would be monitored and JonBenét would be returned as soon as the money was obtained. John Ramsey made arrangements for the availability of the ransom, which a friend picked up that morning from a local bank. In the afternoon of the same day, the Boulder Police asked a friend of the Ramseys to take John Ramsey and search the house for anything unusual. After first searching the bathroom they went to a wine cellar room where Ramsey found his daughter’s body covered in her special white blanket. She was also found with a nylon cord around her neck, her wrists tied above her head, and duct tape covering her mouth. Critics of the investigation have claimed that officers did not sufficiently attempt to gather forensic evidence before or after JonBenét’s body was found, possibly because they immediately suspected the Ramseys in the killing. These suspicions were allegedly passed on to the local media, who began reporting that there was something suspicious regarding the story concerning the family and JonBenét’s death. Further, as the body of the girl was found in her own home this was considered, for some reason, highly suspicious by the investigating officers. The results of the autopsy revealed that JonBenét was killed by strangulation and a skull fracture and there was no evidence of conventional rape, although sexual assault could not be ruled out. The explanation regarding the movements of the parents during the time involved, the construction of the ransom note, which was written on similar note paper to that found in the house, and the apparent lack of evidence of a break in, all led to a suspicion that the parents were responsible for the death of their daughter. The focus of the investigation remained mostly upon the family, in particular the mother and the father, and there was suspicion that the mother killed the child following a bed-wetting incident. For the investigators the circumstances and explanations provided by the family suggested that it was obvious that the family was involved in the murder. However, a former detective skilled in investigations of such crimes, concluded later that the crime was most probably a kidnapping gone wrong, and that Ramseys were not involved in the murder. Douglas’s argument focused on the following points:
- There was no physical evidence linking John and Patsy to the homicide, and physical evidence found near JonBenét's body suggested the presence of an unidentified person in the Ramsey home.
- There was no plausible motive for the Ramseys to kill their daughter. Douglas regarded the bed-wetting hypothesis as so unprecedented as to verge on absurdity and furthermore inconsistent with Patsy's established behaviour.
- There was no evidence of physical abuse, neglect, sexual molestation, or serious personality disorders in the Ramsey household prior to the murder, some combination of which are associated with most cases of children killed by parents.
- The behaviour of John and Patsy Ramsey after the crime was consistent with that of the parents of other murdered children, and was inconsistent with known cases of parents who killed their children.
Despite there being enormous political and media pressure and despite the fact that the police concentrated their efforts in attempting to prove the parents were responsible in the murder of JonBenét, the district attorney at the time refused to indict them. The family was partially exonerated in 2003 when DNA taken from the victim’s clothes suggested they were not involved. However, her parents would not be completely cleared until July 2008. In February 2009, the Boulder Police Department took the case back from the district attorney to reopen the investigation On October 25, 2013, previously sealed court documents were released, showing that a Colorado grand jury had voted in 1999 to indict John and Patricia Ramsey in the murder of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey on charges of child abuse resulting in death and being accessories to a crime However, the then District Attorney decided not to sign the indictment, saying the evidence was insufficient, and in the main circumstantial. What the JonBenet case highlights is the fact that problems can occur when presumptions are included in any enquiry. Consequently, the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case decision opens up for debate several areas, including:
- There was an assumption of an inappropriate relationship between both the deceased, which was never proven, but introduced as a motive for the crime.
- An apparent lack of professional police action at the scene, including insufficient forensic examination and a thorough immediate search of the property.
- No ‘direct evidence’ of criminality on the part of the accused.
- A belief that a large amount of circumstantial evidence equates to real ‘evidence in chief’.
- Expert medical evidence allowed as evidence that did not have a scientific underpinning
- An assumption that close proximity of the parents must, in some way, mean they are responsible for the murders.
It is as well to remember perhaps the quote from the fictitious detective, Sherlock Holmes that ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’.
Key points that nailed Talwars
- The manner in which the murders were committed is not the handiwork of a single accused and rather the murders were committed and evidence destroyed by both the accused in furtherance of their common intention which is apparent from the facts and circumstances.
- The accused ‘cannot take advantage’ of negligence or defective investigation of I.O., and the prosecution case ‘cannot be thrown away or dubbed as untrue’ due to such negligence.
- The terrace door was locked from inside by the accused after taking away the body of Hemraj in the terrace and as such they were knowing well that dead body of Hemraj is lying in the terrace.
- No outsider(s) will dare to take Hemraj to the terrace in severely injured condition and thereafter search out a lock to be placed in the door of the terrace.
- Close proximity between the point of time when both the accused and the deceased persons were last seen together alive and as such the time is so small that possibility of any other person(s) other than the accused being the authors of the crime becomes impossible.
- The door of Aarushi's bedroom was fitted with automatic click-shut lock which could not be opened from outside without key but could be opened from inside without key.
- No explanation has been offered by the accused as to how the lock of Aarushi’'s room was opened and by whom.
- Evidence proved that the accused persons disposed off/destroyed the scalpel, blood stained clothes worn by them during the commission of the offence, dressed up the scene of crime, cleaned private parts of Aarushi, covered the dead body with a flannel blanket.
- The accused covered Hemraj’s body with a cooler panel, placed a bed-sheet on grill dividing two roofs, locked the door of terrace, concealed or destroyed the key of the terrace door which has not been found till yet.
- That pattern of head and neck injuries of both the accused persons are almost similar in nature and can be caused by golf club and scalpel respectively.
Timeline of the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case May 16, 2008: Aarushi Talwar, daughter of dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, found dead with her throat slit in the bedroom of her Noida home. Nepalese domestic help Hemraj suspected of murder. May 23:
Aarushi's father Rajesh Talwar arrested for double murder. Dec 29, 2010:
The CBI files closure report, stating Rajesh is the main suspect, but there is not enough evidence against him. Feb 9, 2011:
A special Ghaziabad court rejects CBI's closure report and orders that Rajesh and Nupur Talwar be tried for Aarushi’s murder. The couple also face allegations of destruction of evidence. May 25, 2012:
Rajesh and Nupur Talwar charged by Ghaziabad court with murder, destruction of evidence and conspiracy. April 2013:
CBI officer tells court that Aarushi and Hemraj were killed by the Talwars. CBI also tells court that Aarushi and Hemraj were found in an objectionable, compromising position. Oct 18:
CBI closes arguments, says Talwars "misled" investigators. Nov 25:
Talwar couple held guilty by CBI court. Nov 26: Talwar couple sentenced to life imprisonment.
The writer is visiting professor Charles Sturt
University, NSW. University of South Wales, (UK)
|
