[The second piece below is a reasoned analysis of the facts of the case by Ms Brinda Karat, a senior CPI (M) leader.]
I/II. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kin-of-snoopgate-victim-derived-power-from-Modi/articleshow/26171834.cms Kin of snoopgate victim derived power from ModiTNN | Nov 22, 2013, 03.17 AM IST AHMEDABAD: "Many many happy returns of the day to Shri Narendra Modisirji. Look forward to see you leader of India. P.M. God bless you," writes Pranlal Soni on his Facebook page on September 17. Soni, 65, is defending Modi in the allegedly illegal snooping on his daughter ordered by former Gujarat home minister Amit Shah<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Amit-Shah> at the behest of his 'saheb'. Soni's posts on social media as well as his letters - first circulated by Delhi BJP <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Bharatiya-Janata-Party> and then to the National <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/The-National> Commission for Women <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Women> - clearly shows he is a Modi supporter. Born to a jewellers' family in Bhuj, Soni, a mechanical engineer who studied in Bangalore, took the family business set up by his father to newer heights, making their outlet Hem Jewellers a market leader in the Kutch city. RSS sources say Soni was never an active member of the Sangh Parivaar or close to Modi as implied in his letters. Sharma in his petition before the Supreme Court has alleged that he was victimized by the chief minister because of his proximity to Soni's daughter. The father's letter, where he claims it was he who had requested Modi to protect his daughter, came as a handy defence when snoop-gate broke out last week. The story goes that during the rebuilding of Bhuj, which was devastated by a killer earthquake in 2001, Soni, also an active Rotarian, came in contact with the then district collector Pradeep Sharma. He played a key role in persuading other shop-keepers to agree to a complete demolition and rebuilding of the core area of Bhuj. Sharma's association with Soni grew and led to him to roping in his Bangalore-based architect daughter for hill landscaping facelift project which was inaugurated by chief minister Narendra Modi<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Narendra-Modi> in 2009. It was at the inaugural event that Sharma first introduced the woman to the chief minister. The family's fortunes started to soar around this time. Ecolibrium Energy Pvt Ltd <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Ecolibrium-Energy-Pvt-Ltd>., a company promoted by Soni's daughter and two sons, Chintan and Harit, bagged the smart-grid pilot project in partnership with Gujarat Energy Development Agency in 2010. The company also implemented project of installing solar units on nine government building including the secretariat in Gandhinagar. Incubated by Center for Innovation, Incubation, and Entrepreneurship<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Entrepreneurship>(CIIE) at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) and supported by Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), under Renewable Energy Search program, the company is rolling out its first pilot project in Gandhinagar<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Gandhinagar>, to showcase how consumers will be able to access and manage power consumption real time. It also includes 130KV of rooftop solar installation, one of the largest in India, as part of the pilot. The Soni family shifted to Ahmedabad and lives in a posh locality, though they went underground when the scame broke out. Sources say Soni's daughter got married in 2009 to an Ahmedabad-based entrepreneur who ran a tea lounge in the posh Navrangpura area. Things went sour, however, when Modi started suspecting that she was spying for former IPS officer Kuldip Sharma, brother of Pradeep Sharma and a sworn adversary of Modi who is presently an advisor to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. II. http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/26164649.cms Is this Modi's Watergate?Nov 22, 2013, 12.07AM IST [ BRINDA KARAT ] *Surveillance and stalking raise serious questions about much-vaunted Gujarat model.* The release of taped conversations between then home minister of Gujarat Amit Shah and superintendent of the Gujarat anti-terrorist squad (ATS), GL Singhal, relating to surveillance of phone calls and movements of a young woman during August and September 2009, raise serious questions about the state of civil liberties and the model of governance in Gujarat. BJP's explanations lack credibility. It is not disputed that there was surveillance, nor is it disputed that the 'sahib' referred to in the tape is the chief minister. In most such cases, the players identified usually deny such conversations ever took place, or else claim that the tapes have been doctored. That hasn't happened in this case. The Gujarat government itself has made available to the press a statement made by the father of the woman concerned. He has said that it was on his request to the chief minister, 'an old family friend, a father to his daughter', that the surveillance was mounted since he was concerned about the security of his daughter. Subsequently, in a letter to the National and the State Commissions of Women, he has claimed that his daughter was also aware of the surveillance. One of the lessons taught to us in moral science classes in school was that an initial lie will lead to enmeshing oneself in a web of lies. This is what is happening in the present case. The tapes which are available on the website of the organisation which first broke the story show clearly that the young woman had no idea that she was being snooped on. Here is a small sample: A man identified as being Amit Shah by those who released the tapes and not so far denied by him, says, "She is travelling Indigo from Bangalore to Ahmedabad... the people with placard ask him in advance the hotel's name...In case she escapes we can keep a vigil at the hotel." Subsequent conversations identify the hotel and details of her movements. Does this sound like surveillance of a person who has asked to be watched? The tapes are full of such sickening examples. The high stakes involved, which need no spelling out, have now led to a situation where, to cover up an operation ethically repugnant and in violation of the law, powerful men claim the license to force a young woman to become their "protector" to defend them against their deeds which had made her their target, invaded her privacy and reported every move she made. In such a situation it is difficult to imagine any woman seemingly betrayed by her own family, pressured by them, to speak a language different from what they would like her to speak. BJP claims that this is a private matter. It would indeed be a private matter if it was just a question of the playing out of consensual relationships, whatever their nature and regardless of who is involved. But this is not a private matter precisely because the most sensitive wing of government, the anti-terrorist squad under the Gujarat government, was involved in the snooping. One of the participants in the taped conversations was then a senior officer in the ATS. Is this what ATS was set up for? What can remain of its credibility, when its machinery is misused to track a private individual? If this can happen in one case, what is to prevent the ATS from being a handmaiden to be used against any individual merely on the request of a family friend of a chief minister, even if one were to believe the story being put out? There are laws and procedures in this country on phone tapping. Section 5.2 of the Indian Telegraph Act permits phone call interceptions on grounds of public emergency, national security and sovereignty, public safety, matters concerning friendly relations between countries and so on. In the present case none of these conditions apply. In the 1997 PUCL case asking for striking down Section 5.2 as it was being constantly misused, the apex court, while upholding the principle that the right to privacy is part of Article 21 of the Constitution protecting life and liberty, had laid down further conditions for the use of 5.2. These included written instructions from the home secretary, recorded reasons on "strong grounds" for such surveillance and so on. Clearly none of these conditions were followed in the present case. Thus it appears to be a clear violation of the Indian Telegraph Act for which those involved should be prosecuted. The newly amended Indian Penal Code in relation to sexual offences against women includes the crime of stalking which includes "to follow a woman", "to monitor the use by a woman of the internet, mail or any other means of electronic communication". The punishment for such a crime is "not less than one year but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine". This is the first known case of state-sponsored stalking of a young woman reportedly on the orders of top government leaders. Would this case come under the relevant section of the IPC? *The writer is a politburo member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).* -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
