04-07-2005, 06:08 AM
Modi visa episode and this Ripudaman episode has brought this aspect of terrorism and geopolitics into sharper focus. The fact that there is a proxy war being fought by enemies of India through their proxies in other goverments is understood but not as clearly as it should. India's media, public and strategists should take this threat seriously and expose it thoroughly. These b@stards use the cover of human rights and wheel-chair distribution business and inflict the most damage to India. This aint politics, this aint diplomacy either, these activities should be labelled as hostile acts and its perpetrators declared enemies of India. <!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo-->:
There should be a public website hosted by GOI that lists these people who indulge in anti-India activities.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050406/asp/...ory_4581318.asp
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> STRANGE ARE THE WAYS OF THE LAW
<i>The judge who acquitted the two accused in the Kanishka case was doing his duty by the law. It is the Canadian state whose role in the investigations is suspect, argues Jay Bhattacharjee</i>
Many Indians, who know something of Canada, either through personal contact or through books, literature and the media, have a largely positive image of that country and its institutions. Memories of the disgraceful Komagata Maru episode in the early years of the 20th century have either been forgotten or have been attributed to the British colonial heritage, of which Canada too has been a part.
For years, Canada has been viewed in these shores as a more genteel, equitable, stable and prosperous northern neighbour of the United States of America. It had a working social-democratic framework that did very well by its populace; more important, the Canadians had not been swayed by the jingoism and the great-power syndrome that characterized American posturings in the global arena over the last century.
This attractive image of Canada in Indian eyes might have been inexorably damaged because of the verdict handed out by a judge in the British Columbia supreme court in the trial of two persons charged with blowing up an Air-India plane, Kanishka, in 1985. The judge, Bruce Ian Josephson, in the landmark case, Her Majesty the Queen Against Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri (R v. Malik and Bagri, 2005 BCSC 350), acquitted both the accused of all charges brought against them by the Canadian state prosecutors. While the curtain came down on Canadaâs longest and most expensive trial, the denouement has raised a host of questions and doubts that need to be addressed.
Predictably, South Block and the mandarins in the Indian foreign services have reacted with silence. This can be partly explained as the usual genuflection of the Indian elite in its interactions with Europeans and North Americans. The standard explanation given for this low-key stance is that the Kanishka trial was Canadaâs internal affair and the victims were Canadian citizens, albeit of Indian origin. Both these contentions are wrong; the aircraft was the property of India and the crew, as well as a dozen passengers at least, were Indian citizens. Moreover, Canada was duty-bound, under a host of international treaties and conventions, to provide requisite security to an Indian aircraft operating legitimately from its soil. There is, thus, a clear locus standi for the republic of India and its government to voice their concerns about the trial and its conclusions.
Going back to the decision of the judge, it should be emphasized that it would be wrong of the people of this country to target him. For one, he repeatedly referred to the âunspeakable tragedyâ, its âterrible aftermathâ and the âhorrific nature of these cruel acts of terrorism, acts which cry out for justiceâ. Nevertheless, while handing out his verdict of acquittal, he also underlined that âjustice is not achieved, however, if persons are convicted on anything less than the requisite standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite what appear to have been the best and most earnest of efforts by the police and the Crown, the evidence has fallen markedly short of that standardâ. Josephson was doing his duty by the law and standards of justice of a civilized legal system; the Canadian state was not, irrespective of the judgeâs generous certificate.
The general legal principle applied in this trial is very similar to Indian norms. The judge was clear that the proof produced during the proceedings should be beyond âreasonable doubtâ. According to him, this âis the essence of the Rule of Law and cannot be applied any less vigorously in cases of horrific crimes than it is with respect to any other offence under the Criminal Codeâ. He went on to quote three judgments (in R. v. Burlingham, 1995, R. v. Kirkness, 1991, and R. v. Evans, 1991) of the supreme court of Canada which affirmed that the specific nature of a crime or facts of a particular case had no bearing on the requirement that an accused was entitled to the full protection of the law and that the prosecution must be held to the same standard of proof in all proceedings.
In R. v. Lifchus (1997), the Canadian supreme court had laid down the following principles: âThe accused enters these proceedings presumed to be innocent. That presumption of innocence remains throughout the case until such time as the Crown has on the evidence put before you satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The term âbeyond a reasonable doubtâ has been used for a very long time and is a part of our history and traditions of justice. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must not be based upon sympathy or prejudice.â
The judge also relied upon another important ingredient of Canadian law, namely the âVetrovec cautionâ. The essence of a Vetrovec caution is the recognition that witnesses, by their very nature, are suspect, and hence the search for independent confirmation or support for a witnessâs evidence. In other words, when there are doubts about the evidence of a prosecution witness, it may be necessary to find confirmatory evidence before relying on it.
It is on the basis of these sound principles that the judge acquitted the two accused. However, the judge has not exonerated the Canadian state and its two major agencies, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the equivalent of our CBI, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, an amalgam of our IB and RAW. For 16 years, these organizations prevaricated and conspired to let the guilty parties walk away. When they did bring the case to trial, as a result of sustained pressure from the Indo-Canadian community and international circles, they did so on the flimsiest of evidences. One senior Canadian official now says that Ottawa told investigators they were not âto touch Air Indiaâ.
The Canadian government was unduly influenced by a Pakistan-inspired campaign that harped on Indian civil rights failures and used them as an excuse to thwart investigation into terrorist activities among the Canadian Sikh diaspora, specifically in British Columbia. The CSIS was also responsible for destroying valuable evidence on tapes that contained interviews with suspects. And then there is the turf battle between the RCMP and CSIS.
Finally, what took the cake was the decision to base the entire prosecution case on the testimony of witnesses who were paid by the Canadian government to come forward. Josephson just did not buy the evidence of these tainted persons. What puts Ottawa in an even worse light is the latest revelation that India had officially warned Canada of a threat to Air India aircraft two months before the Kanishka explosion. Clearly, it is not the Canadian judicial system that has failed but the state machinery that has performed dismally, similar to our most venal ones. Bhagalpur has been replicated in Vancouver. There is a lesson here for citizens of both the countries.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There should be a public website hosted by GOI that lists these people who indulge in anti-India activities.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050406/asp/...ory_4581318.asp
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> STRANGE ARE THE WAYS OF THE LAW
<i>The judge who acquitted the two accused in the Kanishka case was doing his duty by the law. It is the Canadian state whose role in the investigations is suspect, argues Jay Bhattacharjee</i>
Many Indians, who know something of Canada, either through personal contact or through books, literature and the media, have a largely positive image of that country and its institutions. Memories of the disgraceful Komagata Maru episode in the early years of the 20th century have either been forgotten or have been attributed to the British colonial heritage, of which Canada too has been a part.
For years, Canada has been viewed in these shores as a more genteel, equitable, stable and prosperous northern neighbour of the United States of America. It had a working social-democratic framework that did very well by its populace; more important, the Canadians had not been swayed by the jingoism and the great-power syndrome that characterized American posturings in the global arena over the last century.
This attractive image of Canada in Indian eyes might have been inexorably damaged because of the verdict handed out by a judge in the British Columbia supreme court in the trial of two persons charged with blowing up an Air-India plane, Kanishka, in 1985. The judge, Bruce Ian Josephson, in the landmark case, Her Majesty the Queen Against Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri (R v. Malik and Bagri, 2005 BCSC 350), acquitted both the accused of all charges brought against them by the Canadian state prosecutors. While the curtain came down on Canadaâs longest and most expensive trial, the denouement has raised a host of questions and doubts that need to be addressed.
Predictably, South Block and the mandarins in the Indian foreign services have reacted with silence. This can be partly explained as the usual genuflection of the Indian elite in its interactions with Europeans and North Americans. The standard explanation given for this low-key stance is that the Kanishka trial was Canadaâs internal affair and the victims were Canadian citizens, albeit of Indian origin. Both these contentions are wrong; the aircraft was the property of India and the crew, as well as a dozen passengers at least, were Indian citizens. Moreover, Canada was duty-bound, under a host of international treaties and conventions, to provide requisite security to an Indian aircraft operating legitimately from its soil. There is, thus, a clear locus standi for the republic of India and its government to voice their concerns about the trial and its conclusions.
Going back to the decision of the judge, it should be emphasized that it would be wrong of the people of this country to target him. For one, he repeatedly referred to the âunspeakable tragedyâ, its âterrible aftermathâ and the âhorrific nature of these cruel acts of terrorism, acts which cry out for justiceâ. Nevertheless, while handing out his verdict of acquittal, he also underlined that âjustice is not achieved, however, if persons are convicted on anything less than the requisite standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite what appear to have been the best and most earnest of efforts by the police and the Crown, the evidence has fallen markedly short of that standardâ. Josephson was doing his duty by the law and standards of justice of a civilized legal system; the Canadian state was not, irrespective of the judgeâs generous certificate.
The general legal principle applied in this trial is very similar to Indian norms. The judge was clear that the proof produced during the proceedings should be beyond âreasonable doubtâ. According to him, this âis the essence of the Rule of Law and cannot be applied any less vigorously in cases of horrific crimes than it is with respect to any other offence under the Criminal Codeâ. He went on to quote three judgments (in R. v. Burlingham, 1995, R. v. Kirkness, 1991, and R. v. Evans, 1991) of the supreme court of Canada which affirmed that the specific nature of a crime or facts of a particular case had no bearing on the requirement that an accused was entitled to the full protection of the law and that the prosecution must be held to the same standard of proof in all proceedings.
In R. v. Lifchus (1997), the Canadian supreme court had laid down the following principles: âThe accused enters these proceedings presumed to be innocent. That presumption of innocence remains throughout the case until such time as the Crown has on the evidence put before you satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The term âbeyond a reasonable doubtâ has been used for a very long time and is a part of our history and traditions of justice. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must not be based upon sympathy or prejudice.â
The judge also relied upon another important ingredient of Canadian law, namely the âVetrovec cautionâ. The essence of a Vetrovec caution is the recognition that witnesses, by their very nature, are suspect, and hence the search for independent confirmation or support for a witnessâs evidence. In other words, when there are doubts about the evidence of a prosecution witness, it may be necessary to find confirmatory evidence before relying on it.
It is on the basis of these sound principles that the judge acquitted the two accused. However, the judge has not exonerated the Canadian state and its two major agencies, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the equivalent of our CBI, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, an amalgam of our IB and RAW. For 16 years, these organizations prevaricated and conspired to let the guilty parties walk away. When they did bring the case to trial, as a result of sustained pressure from the Indo-Canadian community and international circles, they did so on the flimsiest of evidences. One senior Canadian official now says that Ottawa told investigators they were not âto touch Air Indiaâ.
The Canadian government was unduly influenced by a Pakistan-inspired campaign that harped on Indian civil rights failures and used them as an excuse to thwart investigation into terrorist activities among the Canadian Sikh diaspora, specifically in British Columbia. The CSIS was also responsible for destroying valuable evidence on tapes that contained interviews with suspects. And then there is the turf battle between the RCMP and CSIS.
Finally, what took the cake was the decision to base the entire prosecution case on the testimony of witnesses who were paid by the Canadian government to come forward. Josephson just did not buy the evidence of these tainted persons. What puts Ottawa in an even worse light is the latest revelation that India had officially warned Canada of a threat to Air India aircraft two months before the Kanishka explosion. Clearly, it is not the Canadian judicial system that has failed but the state machinery that has performed dismally, similar to our most venal ones. Bhagalpur has been replicated in Vancouver. There is a lesson here for citizens of both the countries.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->