The decision to handover all the cases registered against Chhota Rajan by the Mumbai police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has not gone down too well in certain quarters. There are many in the Mumbai police who feel that they have been let down and cases which they have painstakingly built have been transferred to the CBI. While there could be many reasons behind the decision to transfer the cases, one must remember that Rajan is a transnational criminal and with cases against him having both international and state-wide ramifications it was only fair for the CBI to probe the cases. Read more:
Kashmiri separatist, Syed Ali Shah Geelani was issued a passport by the Indian government. Read more: Terror funding: ED files chargesheet against separatist leader Geelani’s aides There was no doubt that Geelani would be issued with a passport and the Indian government had no grounds to deny him one either.
While a major debate rages on whether the passport issued to Geelani was necessary or not, Home Ministry officials tells OneIndia that there were no grounds to reject it. However the official also informed that there were other ways in dealing with Geelani and the first among them was to make him politically irrelevant. Geelani needs to be politically irrelevant: Rejecting a passport would have served no purpose the official informed. His application was valid and there were no grounds to reject it. The official also added that rejection of a passport does not serve any purpose. Instead it would have given him a talking point. Read more:
A passport for Syed Ali Shah Geelani is a subject of debate.
Should he be granted a passport or not has been debated at the Jammu and Kashmir state level and of course on television where bizarre comments such as throw away the Pakistan flag first and then take the passport have been made.
As childish as all this sounds, the real issue would be to make sure Geelani becomes politically irrelevant and punished for his crimes in India.
India’s primary concern where the Yemen conflict is concerned is evacuating the several thousand people who are stuck in the conflict zone. As preparations are on to airlift the Indians the Indian government is also planning to ship out its citizens who have been finding it impossible to get out of the war-torn nation. While the evacuation is the most important agenda for the Indian government, it is also to be seen what the government’s reaction to conflict as a whole would be.
The release of persons who have been red flagged by the security forces has caused much debate and heartburn among many. There is constant mud slinging over who is to be blamed over this issue and while that is one part of it the bigger question is the PDP honouring the coalition dharma.
The two parties- BJP and PDP had no option but to enter into an alliance says C D Sahay, former chief of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). However now it is time to run the government and not an agenda, says Sahay in this interview with oneindia.
Should those joining the ISIS be allowed to return to India? Should they be let off with counselling or should they be prosecuted for trying to join a banned terror outfit?
The ISIS ideology is growing and it is a grave threat that is here to stay for a very long time. In such a scenario questions are being raised in India over the manner in which some of the cases pertaining to the ISIS are being handled.
Just last week a group of nine were let off by the police after counselling. They were all deported from Turkey to Bengaluru after they were trying to join the ISIS.
A week before that, one girl from Hyderabad was deported from Qatar after she had shown interest in joining the ISIS. She too has been let off after counselling.
In this context, former Chief of the Research and Analysis Wing, C D Sahay speaks with Oneindia on the handling of these ISIS returnees and what the government and the security agencies should be doing.
The lengthy talk by President of the United States of America on Russia and Ukraine did take India by surprise, but many would chose to ignore it since it was a specific by an American journalist that was being answered.
The experts however say that while not a big deal should be made out of it, Obama could have still avoided speaking on the subject as this was not part of the bi-lateral between India and the US.
The meeting by Ved Pratap Vaidik has become a debating subject after he met Hafiz Saeed the mass murderer and Lashkar-e-Tayiba chief Hafiz Saeed in Pakistan earlier this month. Questions are being asked about the meeting and whether it was an agency sponsored one. Whether this was a meeting on his individual capacity or a staged one will never be known since both journalism and intelligence have one golden rule, ” never reveal your source who ever may ask.”
Rediff.com spoke with three former officials of the Research and Analysis Wing about this meeting and each one said a journalist has a right to meet anyone he wants.
C D Sahay, former chief of R and AW: Please tell me if you were in Pakistan and your friends had told you to meet Hafiz Saeed would you not have met him? What sense does it make to hold a journalist guilty for this meeting. Both journalists and intelligence bureau officials do a similar job and that is collecting information. Both are on the look out for information. I personally do not beleive that Vaidik was sent by the government. This is not a matter of public debate. Let us assume that he actually did get some information and has quietly passed it on to the agencies. Then this needs to be worked on. We should not make a mess out of this and politicians should not try to score points out of this issue.
V Balachandran, former R and AW officer: My personal view is that a journalist is free to meet anyone. He should not be compelled by India’s foreign policy. If a journalist is restrained by foreign policy how does he dig out the truth? Do you remember when Kuldeep Nair met with A Q Khan? He spoke to him and the entire world got to know Pakistan’s perception of the dirty bomb. He was criticised, but then the information he got for us helped all of us. You cannot restrain a journalist like the way you would do to a government official. Free press cannot depend on a country’s foriegn policy. I would also like to add that Vaidik was not meeting Saeed at the behest of the government or PMO.
R K Yadav, former R and AW officer: An unwanted issue. He has the right to meet anyone he wants. I do not rate Vaidik very highly and is a bit publicity crazy. I am given to understand that he has good relations in Pakistan. He has spoken about Kashmir with Saeed, but has not revealed the details to anyone. This is a meeting in his individual capacity and there is no PMO link to it.