Monthly Archives: October 2013

The intelligence officers who briefed vital national security info to non-entity Raul Vinci must be shot for treason

Baffled, intelligence officials slam Rahul Gandhi

Bharti Jain & Deeptiman Tiwary,TNN | Oct 25, 2013, 02.54AM IST 

They are questioning how an intelligence official could brief the vice-president of a political party, who is not bound by the oath of secrecy.

NEW DELHI: Rahul Gandhi’s reference to his briefing by an “intelligence official” on the ISI having “contacted” 10-15 youth whose kin were killed in the Muzaffarnagar riots, for potential recruitment, has puzzled both retired and serving bureaucrats.

They are questioning how an intelligence official could brief the vice-president of a political party, who is not bound by the oath of secrecy. They also criticized the Gandhi scion for going public with information that should have ideally prompted a secret intelligence operation to identify the youth contacted and neutralize the ISI agents carrying out sabotage and subversion in the hinterland.

“A potential prime minister of the country should have had more sense of national security. ISI is a hostile foreign agency recruiting people in the hinterland for sabotage and subversion. Rahul’s response should have been more robust and decisive. He should have asked the intelligence official to go back to the Muslim boys contacted by ISI, lay a trap for these Pakistani agents and neutralize them,” said former Intelligence Bureau chief Ajit Kumar Doval.

A former home secretary, who did not wish to be identified, agreed that Rahul’s act of going public with the alleged intelligence input had compromised national security and only reflected his “immaturity”.

A serving officer of the intelligence establishment pointed out that the IB official who “briefed” the Congress vice-president had clearly exceeded his brief as an intelligence input could only be shared with a government functionary bound by the oath of secrecy.

Another ex-bureaucrat said the ideal response should have been to round up the youths supposedly contacted by the ISI, question them and launch a manhunt for the ISI agents involved. “Instead, he seems to be using this input to score with the minority community and target his political rivals,” he said.

“Going public with the crucial input, that should have ideally led to a major intelligence operation to neutralize the ISI networks working to recruit more such youth across the country, is a gross act of irresponsibility,” said Doval.

Rahul’s utterances on an IB officer briefing him about how victims of Muzaffarnagar riots were willing to go to Pakistan has created considerable curiosity in the agency itself. A senior intelligence officer told TOI that it may have to be found out which officer had met him and whether it was a casual interaction. “There can be no official briefing to Rahul Gandhi as he is not part of the government or the security establishment,”

Court admits BJP petition against Rahul Gandhi

BHOPAL: A day before AICC vice-president Rahul Gandhi comes to Madhya Pradesh for the second phase of his election campaigning, a court inBhopal on Wednesday admitted a complaint lodged by the BJP against the Congress leader’s alleged use of the word ‘rape’ before a gathering of tribals on October 17.

The court of first class judicial magistrate (atrocity) Bhopal Vishal Sharma, on Wednesday admitted a complaint petition lodged by BJP national vice-president Prabhat Jha against Rahul Gandhi under provisions of section 200 CrPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The sections deal with punishment for offences of atrocities against “whoever, not being a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of the scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe in any place within public view.”

First hearing of the case has been scheduled for November 19 when Prabhat Jha will have to be present before the court to record his statement in the case. After examination of the recorded statement, the court will decide whether or not to issue a notice to Rahul Gandhi for intentional humiliation of tribals while addressing an election campaign meeting in Shahdol district on October 17.

Rahul Gandhi was addressing his first election campaign meeting in tribal-dominated Shahdol district of Madhya Pradesh last Thursday. Speaking on the Shivraj Singh Chouhan BJP government, he said: “Do you think that the incumbent government for ten years has respected tribals? What do you feel? What do your women think, has this government respected you? They indulged in corruption,” Rahul said. Someone from the crowds interrupted and shouted back, “Balatkar kiya (indulged in rape)”. Rahul Gandhi, thereafter, corrected himself and repeated: “Balatkar, sorry balatkar.”

Speaking to TOI, complainant Prabhat Jha’s lawyer Om Shrivastava argued that under the provisions of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, one cannot even utter the word rape before tribals because it amounts to their humiliation. And Rahul Gandhi first asked the entire gathering of tribals, including the women if they had been respected. And thereafter, said they had been raped.

Prabhat Jha’s petition argued: “That, while addressing the gathering the accused with a motive to alienate the public from the state government uttered words which were not only humiliating but also obscene… That, the word ‘balatkar’ is taken for as a very derogatory and demeaning term. The words itself brings with it stigma, humiliation and most importantly inferiority complex. The accused uttered the wprd again and again in his speech only with the intention to humiliate the tribal population present in the said meeting.”

The petition further reasoned: “That, the Constitution of India mandates life of dignity of all the people of India irrespective of the class, creed or religion. The accused has not only insulted the tribals present in the meeting but all the tribals living in Madhya Pradesh, which has a sizeable tribal population.” Complainant Jha prayed before the court “to punish the accused in accordance to the law”.