India has an intense nationalism, is a greatest country on earth! India is multi cultural, pluralistic Nation. She has to arrive in economic, agriculture, social, educational, health and hygiene next to China. But, in reality corruption, religious chauvinism, pseudo politics, ignored minorities, industries employing not even one percent of the population is disturbing. Amity India strives to expose India’s anti secularist force , being detrimental to India’s progress and to the social justice.
Last Updated: 2011-04-12 20:37:00
Chennai: The Madras High Court on Tuesday ordered notice to DMDK president and actor Vijayakanth on a petition seeking a direction to the EC to conduct inquiry into his alleged remarks against the Indian Army and cancel the status of political party to his organisation.
A bench comprising Chief Justice M Y Eqbal and Justice T S Sivagnanam, before whom the matter came up on Tuesday, ordered notice to Vijayakanth which would be returnable within four weeks.
According to petitioner T S Rajan, editor and publisher of a magazine, Vijayakanth was asked to comment on what his strategy in the April 13 Tamil Nadu assembly polls was.
To this he reportedly replied that "even the Indian Army did not have a strategy" when they fought the Kargil war and other wars with Pakistan.
Rajan said that by equating the wars fought by the Indian Army with his lack of political strategy, Vijayakanth had "hurt the patriotic sentiments of the electorate of Tamil Nadu".
Rajan contended that through his adverse remarks and false allegations against the Indian Army, the DMDK chief had committed offences punishable under various sections of the IPC.
"These are very serious allegations and could not ignored as a pointless rhetoric from a politician," the petition argued, adding, "The leader of a recognized political party has demonstrated that he failed to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and has violated the provisions of the Representation of the People Act."
Rajan also claimed DMDK had lost the qualification to function as a registered political party.
He submitted that he has already sent a representation to the EC.
He also sought that pending a final decision on his complaint, directions be issued restraining the returning officers of 41 constituencies in which DMDK candidates are contesting from declaring the results if any of their candidates, is found to have secured the majority votes.
Washington: In a major embarrassment to Pakistan, David Headley aka Dawood Gilani and Tahawwur Hussain Rana have blamed the Pakistani government and ISI for the 26/11 attack. The two Pakistani expat foot soldiers allegedly planned and conducted the Mumbai recce before the 26/11 terrorist carnage. It may be recalled that large number of people died in that deadly attack.
Rana says his acts of providing material support to terrorists in the Mumbai attacks ``were done at the behest of the Pakistani government and the ISI, not the Lashkar terrorist organization.`` The documents also cite Rana invoking his friend David Headley`s Grand Jury testimony in which the latter too implicates ISI.
The disclosure that Rana and Headley are implicating the Pakistani government and its intelligence agency in the Mumbai attack came about indirectly when an Illinois district court rejected Rana`s attempt at what is known as a ``Public Authority Defense,`` in which the defendant essentially argues that he did something at the behest of a government or its official authority.
The startling disclosures came even as ISI chief Shuja Pasha is visiting Washington DC with a laundry list of demands as the US tries to repair ties which have been severely damaged by the Raymond Davis episode. The US effort comes despite growing disquiet about ISI`s role in fomenting terrorism. Still, the Obama administration is scrambling to control fallout from the court proceedings in an effort to save its ally from being publicly exposed as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Sources say that Rana told the Illinois court that ``he acted pursuant to his actual or believed exercise of public authority on behalf of the government of Pakistan and the ISI.``
While noting Rana`s argument ``that he is entitled to a public authority defense because he acted under the authority — whether actual or apparent — of the Pakistani government and the ISI,`` the court rejected the defense saying, ``Defendant cannot rely on the authority of a foreign government agency or official to authorize his violations of United States federal law.``
While the court rejected Rana`s attempted defense on technical grounds, his implicating of the Pakistani government and its intelligence agencies strengthens the widely held view in India and elsewhere that Islamabad`s reluctance to act against the perpetrators of attack points to official patronage of terrorism.