By reading out the Portuguese Foreign Minister's speech for 'three to five minutes' at the UN Security Council, External Affairs Minister SM Krishna has once again invited the barbs he has so long tried to avoid. He says his mistake is no big deal, but the rest of the country is having a field day lampooning India's favourite 78-year-old scapegoat.
SM Krishna moments after realising his gaffe at the UNSC.
Sample this from social networking site Twitter: One tweet says, "Hahaha! Epic comedy this". "It was the best ever speech he ever made," another says.
And here's more: "Maybe Portugal has outsourced its speech to Bangalore," read one Tweet; "Look at the bright side. We can now lay claim to Cristiano Ronaldo," tweeted another; a third wondered if SM Krishna should be shown the door, like his Pakistani counterpart SM Qureshi, who was sidelined in a cabinet reshuffle on Thursday.
And the most scathing of all: "A mistake? Why do we have a mistake like him in the government?"
Krishna's aides dismissed the critisicism, saying the mistake "could have happened to anyone", insisting that Krishna was only reading out the opening pleasantries, which are, for the most part, common in all speeches.
But for those present at the the debate on security and development, Krishna was well past the welcomes and thank yous when he was saved further blushes by India's envoy to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri. During his five minutes of fame, Krishna said, "On a more personal note, allow me to express my profound satisfaction regarding the happy coincidence of having two members of the Portuguese Speaking Countries, Brazil and Portugal, together here today."
Strangely, even while reading out these lines, Krishna did not realise that these exact words were spoken by his Portuguese counterpart Luis Amado just minutes earlier.
It was then that Puri interrupted Krishna and told him politely, "You can start again."
SM Krishna has since downplayed the incident: "There was nothing wrong in it. There were so many papers spread in front of me, so by mistake the wrong speech was taken out."
He says the boo-boo was minor, but the feedback has been far from it.
Meanwhile, the official explanation did not cut much ice with chief opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which said in New Delhi that the faux pas had embarrassed India at an international forum.
"This is bound to happen when we have people who read speeches rather then deliver them," BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said in Delhi.
Sitharaman added that Krishna's gaffe has embarrassed India at an international forum. "Today, the level of incompetence has reached its optimum," she said.
One tweeter sums it up: Next time he should write his speech in Kannada.
Kohima, Feb 13 : Nagaland State Chief Secretary Lalthara today stressed on the importance of accurate census and appealed everyone to provide accurate information.
He was enumerated today at his official residence here.
The chief secretary said that the ongoing Census Operation 2011 is being taken up very seriously by the Census department as well as the Nagaland government as the last Census 2001 was inaccurate.
He, therefore, called everyone to be collectively responsible and count oneself accurately to have a meaningful planning for the development in future, sources said.
The Chief Secretary also expressed his happiness that the NGOs are associating themselves in the Civil Society Monitoring Group and congratulated all the people involved in Census Operation for their works so far and further hoped that this time Nagaland will have an acceptable accurate Census, the sources added.
The government told the Supreme Court on Friday that clearances were granted to the company in good faith and with the involvement of local people
By Nikhil Kanekal
New Delhi, Feb 13 : While accepting that the project site for Lafarge’s limestone mining in Meghalaya’s East Khasi hills was a forest, the union government told the apex court on Friday that clearances were granted to the company in good faith and with the involvement of local people.
The government responded to the Supreme Court’s questions on the question of whether or not the project area was a forest. Earlier, amicus curiae Harish Salve told the court that Lafarge had obtained the mining license by concealing information that the area was in fact a forest, thereby implying that the environment ministry had wrongly granted the company clearances.
Lafarge Surma is a cement manufacturing joint venture project in Bangladesh for which limestone is supplied from Meghalaya through a 17-kilometre conveyor belt across the Indo-Bangla border.
The union government has showed its support for the Lafarge project from the start due to diplomatic ties with Bangladesh.
The project is financed by four international institutions, led by the International Finance Corporation.
Aizawl, Feb 12 : The Centre has sanctioned Rs 9.7 crore for resumption of repatriation of Bru refugees from Tripura relief camps but the money was yet to be credited in Mizoram government's account, official sources said here today.
The Union Finance Ministry had sanctioned the money on February 2, they said.
Non-availability of funds had stalled the resumption of repatriation of Bru refugees even as Shambu Singh, Joint Secretary (North East) of Union Home Ministry had asked the Mizoram government to resume the repatriation process by February 10.
Authorities of Mamit district, which lies on Mizoram-Tripura border, said the repatriation could be resumed as soon as funds were made available.
"We have already completed the identification process in all the six relief camps in North Tripura and we are waiting for the fund," Mamit district official said.
New Delhi, Feb 12 : ULFA Foreign Secretary Sashadhar Choudhury has said his outfit is still outlawed according to the Indian Constitution and it was upto the Government of India whether it wanted to remove the tag or not.
Addressing a press conference after meeting the Union Home Minister, P Chidambaram and Home Secretary Gopal Krishna Pillai, Choudhury said: "As far as the Indian Constitution is concerned, ULFA is still banned means I am also and I am still an outlaw. You will have to understand so we are here to be a good citizens like you."
Choudhary said that the leaders were here after an underground life of 27 years with the sole objective to resolve various issues through dialogue.
Choudhary said the meeting was held in a very cordial atmosphere and without any conditions from either side.
He also laid emphasis that Chidambaram made it very clear that he was personally very keen on resolving the long-standing issue in the best possible manner so that the dignity, honour and self-respect of the people of Assam were not at all affected.
He described the meeting of ULFA with the Home Minister and the Home Secretary as cordial.
Home Minister, he said, has stated that he is keen to solve this problem," said Chaudhary.
Responding to a question whether ULFA would participate in the coming Assembly elections in Assam, Choudhary said ULFA would have zero involvement in the elections.
"We have been stating time and again that our involvement in this election...is zero involvement," added Choudhary.
Answering a query whether opposition from Paresh Baruah, the self-styled Commander in Chief would have any effect on the dialogues with the Government, Choudhary said that his opposition would have 'absolutely no effect'.
Choudhary also informed that the delegation would meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on February 14 and apprise him of the developments in the talks.
'If India thinks we are Indians because we are now using Indian passports, that will not work'
India and Nagalim will exist side by side and have joint defence structure
For the past six months, 76-year-old Thuingaleng Muivah, General Secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland, the NSCN(IM), has been flitting in and out of India in search of a solution to the decades-old Nagaland issue. On 14 August 1947, the Nagas declared themselves independent under the leadership of then Naga leader AZ Phizo. Since then, they have been fighting what they perceive as an Indian invasion. At the moment, Muivah is in India for talks with the Centre. Until now, New Delhi and the NSCN(IM) have been talking in locations outside India. Now, Muivah has agreed to talks within India. This is being seen as a positive sign. Also, NSCN(IM) Chairman Isak Chishi Swu has recently accepted an Indian passport. So, what’s cooking? In this interview in New Delhi, his first in over a year, Muivah tells Avalok Langer that the Nagas are open to a compromise solution to end the protracted battle. Edited excerpts of the interview:
On 23 January, on his return from Bangkok, Chairman Swu accepted an Indian passport for the first time. Is this a sign of a breakthrough? Well, passports are not the number one issue on our agenda. Our main focus is the political problem and how to solve it. For Swu and myself, travelling in and out of the country on any other passport is not a problem and we have previously rejected Indian passports. But there is the question of expediency and respecting the sentiments of India. So the last time, on Swu’s return, we told them we won’t hesitate to use an Indian passport, but only under certain conditions. For example, allegiance to the Indian Constitution or to the Indian Government is not applicable in our case.
But doesn’t holding an Indian passport, directly or indirectly, signify that you are an Indian? Every passport has a section labelled ‘Nationality’. Doesn’t yours say Indian? In our case it is ‘not applicable’. If India thinks we are Indians because we are now using Indian passports, that will not work. It is good that we respect each other; that is required for talks to progress. If the agenda is to show us as Indians, we will reject the passports even now. Sometimes, such confusion from a legal or political point of view can develop into something else. But this is not the issue. The main issue is how much we can appreciate each other. If there is a rational approach, it must be respected. That is number one and that should be the way to talk and handle the issue.
Starting in 1920, the Naga political struggle has had many milestones and demands, but today 13 years into ceasefire and talks with the Centre, what are the Naga demands at present? It was made clear upfront that the Nagas are not demanding anything from India. Our history is clear, and right at the start of the talks we insisted on the recognition of the facts of Naga history by the Government of India because we cannot have talks without any basis. It will amount to us demanding from India, our independence and our sovereignty. But our independence and our sovereignty would be according to the facts of Naga history. Naga history is unique. It cannot be changed, it cannot be distorted.
No country is totally independent, and no nation is totally sovereign. Interdependence has become critical
The Nagas greatly respect Mahatma Gandhi because he respected the history of the Nagas. The father of the Indian nation had made it clear, “Nagas have the right to be independent. Why should you force the Nagas? I don’t believe in the use of force and the Nagas should have their independence.” We respect his wisdom. He knew that use of force solves nothing. But, unfortunately, after the untimely demise of Mahatma Gandhi the leadership changed, and so did the rules.
Nehru had no patience for Naga history. He proclaimed, “It would be a matter of only a few days for the Indian forces to crush the Nagas. Even if blood flows and the sky falls I will not let Nagas be independent”. Why? Nehru or his family, or the Gandhi family, did not make Nagalim. How can Indians think that the Nagas are subject to the whims of a family. That is not possible, we don’t accept that kind of philosophy. This attitude hurt us in the past, and it still hurts us. Until Indians, particularly the Indian leadership, understand the objective reality of the Nagas, there will be no solution.
It was only after five years of heated discussion, that the Government of India recognised the uniqueness of Naga history and the Naga situation. From there, we started respecting them. We live in a world where right to self-determination is an international practice and the Nagas are not an exception. So, to answer your question, we are demanding nothing from India. But if the term ‘demand’ is to be used, the Nagas are demanding that the Government of India be more rational in its approach to Naga politics.
Previously, the NSCN(IM) had suggested a federal structure as a solution. Could you please elaborate? In this century, we know that no country is totally independent, and no nation is totally sovereign. interdependence has become critical. If this is so, the Nagas will also try to understand the needs of India. The Nagas should have a position from where they decide what is best for them and it should be the same for India. If federalism is preferable to India and the Nagas, it will be a federation of India on one side and Nagalim on the other. While the terms of relations will have to be worked out, under no circumstance should Nagalim be treated as a state in India. That, we cannot accept.
You are talking of a federal structure between two sovereigns, India and Nagalim. Won’t that lead to a clash of sovereignties? Who will compromise? Sovereignty belongs to the people. Both sides have to accept this. Sovereignty of Nagalim belongs to the Naga people. Sovereignty of India belongs to the Indian people. this must be accepted, but in what way. When we say negotiations, it naturally involves sacrifices from both sides. But if India says we are so mighty and starts dismissing the Nagas, thinking that we will be satisfied with a political handout, that will not be acceptable.
So we have given in our proposals. One of them is this – according to the uniqueness of Naga history, Nagas must have the right to exercise what is best for them, but taking into consideration the necessity of India. That is the only way some kind of special relationship can be worked out.
The NSCN(IM) often talks of achieving an honourable solution. What do you mean by that? I would say that when we talk of the type of solution we have been sitting for, we say politically we cannot subjugate ourselves to others. That is one of the most important issues, something that is indispensable to the Nagas. In short, if the Government of India asked us to be a part of the Indian unit, that is not possible for us. But then again if we are to be totally out of India, the government will not accept it. So we have to find a middle path. It will not be easy to outline it, but we have to. We want a solution that will last long, and honour it because it respects the wishes of both parties.
For example, we say, yes Nagalim can have a joint defence structure with India. Why? Because, if an external force were to raid and occupy Nagalim, it would naturally compromise India’s security. We know that interdependence is already there. The security of Nagalim will involve the readiness of India to defend herself. How can Nagalim be the base for an external force to attack India? So, we must be rational and in the same way the Government of India must be rational. That is our approach now. We have told them time and again, the Nagas are not your enemy.
‘If the Government of India is prepared, and if we are prepared, many things are possible’
But land, people and politics cannot be separated. That is our philosophy
When you talk of a special relationship, are you looking at something like Article 370? We don’t think we would like to copy that. Something that suits the Naga situation would have to be worked out; something that is not dangerous to the free existence of the Nagas. I don’t mean complete independence, I don’t mean complete sovereignty. But this is to be worked out. India is also not completely independent, dependences are there. However, the question is does the Government of India have the will to work out a solution along those lines. I think it would be better if you put the questions you have put me, to them.
What system of governance would you follow in Nagalim? Historically, most of the Nagas live in some form of a republic. For instance, village republics based on a federal clan and sub-clan structure. People in every village, in almost every tribe, will democratically decide what is best for them. So, right from the start, the Nagas have followed democracy and the people’s decision has always prevailed. That kind of system is the best and we would go for such a system.
Do you think an independent Nagalim would survive in a globalised world when Nagalim's infrastructure is so poor? Your question is prudent. One has to admit the actual realities around us. These are the problems that we would have to solve through negotiation. The Nagas will not be fanatics, the Nagas will be realists and that realism would have to be interpreted in rational terms. This is what we want.
You cannot stop us from buying arms because we cannot say what would happen eventually
You talk of being realistic, but central to your movement has been the idea of establishing Nagalim by bringing Naga-dominated areas of Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Myanmar under a single administrative umbrella. With mounting opposition from Manipur, Assam and Arunachal, is it a realistic goal? The basic point here is that the Nagas were never divided by themselves. This fact must be admitted. Who divided the Nagas? We were first divided by the British and then by India. Say another force comes, on a whim the Nagas will be divided again. We cannot accept that. The Nagas never decided to become a part of the Meiteis (Manipur), Assam, or Arunachal Pradesh. The Naga people are sovereign, so the Naga people must decide. Land, people and politics cannot be separated. That is our philosophy and we are not demanding anything that doesn’t belong to us. We cannot accept an artificial division on a map. The Nagas will have what is theirs and there is nothing wrong in standing up for that.
Is it justice if Nagalim is created at the cost of three states and a country? The Government of India is saying there should be consensus between the states, but where was the consensus when the Naga land was divided? Were the Naga people asked when they divided our land between Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh? They didn’t. How can they talk about consensus today?
Whatever we do, whatever we stand for, is seen as wrong; while they are always right. This is monster logic. The Nagas cannot accept monster logic. We will not take anything that belongs to other people. There was no Arunachal Pradesh until 1972 but a large chunk of Naga-dominated area has been given to them. The government wants to please everyone at the expense of the Nagas.
Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh cannot have feelings against us. They cannot deny that there are Nagas in those areas. They cannot deny that there is a Nagaland. We are not against them. If we demand Imphal, yes, they can feel bad and we will accept that we are wrong. But what is ours, give it to us. Let us not quarrel over these things. The Nagas must have their due share.
The movement has been on for so many years but despite popular support, development is close to zero. Corruption is huge. There are no facilities outside the towns – no schools, no hospitals, no roads. Why? I appreciate these kinds of questions. In order to have the correct perspective, we have to go back to the so-called Indian policy makers. Different parties want to rule the so-called Nagaland state. That is the problem. Corruption has started from there. There was no corruption among the Nagas, but today there is corruption everywhere, along with the authority the Centre imposes on the Nagas. This is the problem. Give the Nagas the power to rule themselves. Let us see if the Nagas are really corrupt. Today, there is no doubt that corruption exists. Let the solution come. Let the Nagas look after themselves. If there is still corruption, then blame the Nagas.
It is believed that the NSCN(IM) collects taxes but is not part of development activities. Is it not part of your agenda? At the moment we don’t have that. We have many programmes for the welfare of the people, but the situation affects our authority to implement them. The situation restricts our programmes. Once the problem is solved, we would be able to freely work on the welfare of the people.
Of all the Naga factions, you are the only group to have engaged with the Centre in talks. Wouldn’t a permanent solution need you to reconcile with the other factions? One cannot say that. There is nothing wrong if we try to understand each other and if we try to forgive each other. But if there is no possibility, what to do? Though theoretically it sounds good, it is wise if we go down to the situation on the ground. The NSCN(IM) stood its ground through bitter days and several crises. The Khaplang group was on the Indian side, as were the Shillong Accordee group and the NNC. They did not fight against each other. All of them came together to fight us. Even the Burmese were with them. We were left alone. We fought furiously and by the grace of god, we were able to re-establish ourselves. When the time for talks came, the Centre realised that the real force is the NSCN(IM). So they approached us for negotiations. We did not approach them.
Where were the other groups, and what did they do? We have always fought for the Naga cause, while they have been working with the Indian Government. If they join in the talks, do you think a solution would emerge? Don’t you think it would allow these people to come in and wreck things for us? Are we to go in for that? Anyway, we want reconciliation. Because we are all Nagas, we can forgive each other. But first I must admit my mistakes. Are they prepared to admit their mistakes? If they don’t, reconciliation is not possible.
The NSCN(IM) is known as the mother of all insurgencies. You have supported and created most of the other insurgent groups. What was your reasoning? It can be interpreted from different perspectives. Sometimes, it was not about ideology. Tactical or strategic necessities were there. At the same time, you have the moral obligation to help with problems faced by some people because if you don’t, they will be in danger. From the point of strategy, operations should not be left to the opposition alone. Right or wrong, we have to see that the field is not occupied by the opponent and I think that is expedient. It is not necessarily a question of right and wrong. It about what is needed.
Recent media reports spoke about Anthony Shimray, an arrested leader of your group, revealing that the NSCN(IM) is purchasing arms. Are you? You cannot stop us from buying arms. The reason is that we cannot say what would eventually happen. Also, we need to protect ourselves against the groups the Government of India has used against us. But we have not brought those arms into the country, not even a bullet. After the ceasefire, we have not killed a single Indian solider. Show me the proof; give me one instance if you can. We have kept our word. We have returned all arms that we have captured, but the government has not honoured its ceasefire commitments. They continued to attack our camps, capture our arms and cadres.
How are we to understand the Government of India’s logic when they keep changing the rules to suit themselves? We cannot sit and wait for an opponent to kill us just because we have signed a ceasefire with the government. We have to defend ourselves. Anytime, anywhere. The Government of India must appreciate this.
Last year, you were prevented from entering Manipur en route to your home town. How did it affect you? Is it not proper on my part to visit my birthplace and my native town? I had not been home for 38 years. When the Indian Government agreed to let me go, I was stopped at the Manipur–Nagaland border. People were not happy so they launched a rally. Then the Manipur commandos attacked and two innocent Nagas were killed. How am I to understand your government? Where is the sincerity? How can they back out when they have given their commitment? Are they under the control of Ibobi (Chief Minister of Manipur)? We don’t want to create problems, but the government keeps creating hurdles.
We have been patience. We have waited 13 years. We are not fearful of India. We don’t fear anyone but is this how you handle the situation? We believe India is taking matters seriously, and they will talk in a more serious way. If the government is prepared and if we are prepared, many things are possible. It is up to the wisdom of the Indian Government, how they treat the Nagas. If they treat us the same way Nehru did, it would be a blunder on their part.
Investigation reports show that the Assam Rifles had shot an innocent tribal last July
By Ratnadip Choudhury
Guwahati, Feb 12 : New Delhi tends to err on the side of quashing sustained insurgency in the Northeast with an iron hand. Armed with a draconian law in the form of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFPSA) the security forces, at times, have committed gross human rights violation in the name of counter insurgency. Always, it has been the poor and the innocent who were caught in the crossfire.
On 23 and 24 July 2010, local newspapers from Assam and Tripura reported that the Assam Rifles carried out successful operations and killed a hardcore Reang militant in Gutguti village in Hailakandi district of Assam. The suspected slain militant was identified as Jatan Kumar Reang. Media reports also stated that three other Reang militants were nabbed with firearms during the operation.
Seven months after this incident, TEHELKA has accessed a special investigation report of the Assam Police, the post-mortem report, a detailed report sent to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and other classified government documents that speak of a different story.
Four Reang boys were returning home after receiving their respective payment from a bamboo merchant
While Koya Ram Reang, father of Jatan Kumar Reang, lodged an FIR at the Katlicherra police station in Hailakandi district, human rights groups, informed by the locals, brought the matter to the notice of NCPCR, since the locals said the deceased was around 15 years old. His post-mortem report says the boy should not be more then 20 years old. The NCPCR took it up with the Assam Police.
On 8 September 2010, the Assam Police sent a detailed report on the extra-judicial killing of Jatan Kumar Reang to the NCPCR. The report was prepared after detailed investigation led by Hailakandi’s Superintendent of Police. A copy of this report is available with TEHELKA.
The report sent by the Assam Police is based on the investigation of two cases lodged in Katlicherra police station with regard to the incident that created tension in the area at that time. The cases are – Case No. – 148/2010 U/S 35 Arms Act and Case No.- 149/2010 U/S 302 IPC.
Here is a section of the report: “At about 3:30 am on 22/07/2010, one person identifying himself as the CO (commanding Officer) of 14, Assam Rifles, called me up stating that his party had come to Gutguti area and someone has sustained bullet injury, who was being carried by his personnel to hospital and requested to render necessary help. The CO of Assam Rifles was asked as to why he failed to inform any of the security agencies /Civil Administration/District Police about the arrival of his force in the area. He had no satisfactory reply. The O/C (Officer-In-charge) of Katlicherra PS was directed to render necessary help. But till 11 am of 22/7/2010, when neither the Assam Rifles reported or communicated anything, the police contingent was sent to the spot.
“In the night of 21/07/2010, a group of 14, Assam Rifles, camp Kanchanpur, Tripura under the leadership of Lt Col V Gaikwad consisting of Major Joseph, six JCOs and 73 jawans entered in Gutguti area of Hailakandi district of Assam in search of undesirable elements and launched operation in the area. Around 7 pm , four Reang boys namely –Jatan Reang,17, Muktajoy Reang, 20, Adyaram Reang, 30, and Biro Singha Reang, 26, all residents of West Gutguti Village , under Katlicherra PS of Hailakandi in Assam, were returning home from Gharmurah after receiving their respective payment from Tuta Mia, the bamboo merchant. Bamboo cutting was their main source of livelihood.
Around 10:30 pm when they reached west side Nallah below Gutguti BOP manned by 6th battalion AP, they were asked to stop by Assam Rifles personnel who were in ambush and the Reang boys were cordoned off. The Assam Rifles personnel caught hold of Biro Singha Reang, Muktajoy Reang and Adyaram Reang. One jawan fired at Jatan Reang and injured his right thigh.”
The report next points out what the Assam Rifles did. “The Assam Rifles then enquired from the boys if there was a doctor in the village. When they replied that there was no doctor and only a quack, some of the Assam Rifles personnel rushed to the village for the quack named Nabaram Reang and brought him to the spot. After the incident the Assam Rifles brought two havaldars from the nearby Gutguti BOP to the spot as well. The quack gave an injection to the injured Jatan Reang. After which the Assam Rifles troopers took the injured Reang and the other boys to Agrem in Mizoram on foot. From Agrem they started for Damcherra but the injured Reang succumbed to his injuries around 3 am of 22/07/2010. The Assam Rifles contingent returned to Agrem in Mizoram after Jatan’s death and stayed the whole of 22/07/2010 there. They left Agrem at about 6 pm via Damcherra of Tripura on 22/07/2010 and arrived at Katlicherra PS at about 7 am on 23/07/2010 and handed over the body. They also handed the other three Reang boys and deposited two country made guns that they stated to have recovered from them during the search operation.”
The boys had no criminal record and there was no mention in any intelligence report that they had links with armed militant groups
The report points out that the Reang boys were engaged in bamboo cutting for their livelihood and nowhere mentions them as suspected militants. The report also spells out that the Assam Rifles did not have a satisfactory reply to the queries of the Assam Police. The text of the Assam Police report itself explains that it is an open and shut case of extra judicial killing committed by the troopers of the oldest paramilitary force of the nation. A copy of the post-mortem report available with TEHELKA states: “Death was due to hypovolumic shock following hemorrhage from ruptured right femoral artery resulted from grievous firearm injury on the right thigh caused by a firearm projectile fired at a close range.”
The Assam Rifles had filed a complaint in the same police station under the Arms Act, filed by Subedar Hoshiar Singh of 14, Assam Rifles. But the Assam Police investigation report at no point says that the four Reang boys were carrying firearms. Assam Police sources have informed TEHELKA that investigations in both cases are on and the chargesheet is yet to be filed. “The Reang boys had no criminal record and there was no mention in any intelligence report from the area that they had links with armed militant groups,” a top ranked intelligence officer from Assam Police added.
The 14, Assam Rifles, is one of the most potent battalions that the paramilitary has. It has immense success in counter insurgency operations in the region but this incident now raises doubts on the credibility of the force. “The Battalion calls themselves The Fighting 14, but in reality they must be called The Faking 14. They are experts in staging fake surrenders and have been involved in many fake encounters. We do have information regarding their involvement in some extrajudicial killings,” reveals a senior special branch sleuth from the Tripura Police.
With the Assam Police report putting the fact threadbare and indicting the Assam Rifles, the ball is in NCPCR’s court. “Since the FIR has been filed, it would mean that they had to submit the report to court. We wanted NCPCR to follow the proceedings in the court,” said noted human rights activist Suhas Chakma.
Sources in the NCPCR have informed that it is waiting for the action from the Assam Police side and would take the matter up with the Ministry of Home Affairs in due course.
By reading out the Portuguese Foreign Minister's speech for 'three to five minutes' at the UN Security Council, External Affairs Minister SM Krishna has once again invited the barbs he has so long tried to avoid. He says his mistake is no big deal, but the rest of the country is having a field day lampooning India's favourite 78-year-old scapegoat.
