Bengaluru abattoir raid: What’s the truth behind attack on Nandini?

coastaldigest.com news network
October 19, 2017

Bengaluru, Oct 19: Nandini M, a city-based software engineer, who prefers to be identified as an “animal rights activist” hit the headlines earlier this week after she was allegedly attacked by a mob under the limits of Talaghattapura police station.

The woman had claimed that she was attacked and her car was damaged by a mob after she lodged a formal complaint with the jurisdictional police against the illegal slaughter of cattle at Avalahalli near Talaghattapura.

According to her, two police constables aslo had accompanied her to the spot but they ran away when the mob attacked her. In her second complaint, she went on to claim that the mob raised pro-Pakistan slogans.

The woman gained popularity overnight thanks to the media and saffron forces that not only glorified her but also seized the opportunity to target the state government for failing to curb illegal cattle slaughter.

However, the police later clarified that there was no connection between the alleged attack on Nandini and her fight against the cattle slaughter.

DCP (south) SD Sharanappa was quoted by the report as saying that the police had immediately acted on the complaint filed by Nandini and stopped the illegal slaughter of cattle. The police arrested three people for allegedly slaughtering cows under the cow protection law and rescued some cattle.

However, without trusting the police, Nandini went the lane to personally inspect whether they acted on her complaint. A few people pelted stones at her car for causing accident. The police have also detained seven persons for allegedly pelting stones.

Narrating the sequence of events Bengaluru police commissioner T Sunil Kumar said that Nandini and her two woman assistants had lodged a complaint about cows being illegally slaughtered at Talaghattapura on October 14.

Kumar said Nandini also visited the spot even though police had asked her not to go there when police raided the abattoir.

The police officer said that Nandini’s car had allegedly dashed against an auto-rickshaw and also a petty shop in the area, which irked the residents. The violence was because of the accident. Some of the miscreants pelted stones at Nandini’s car for her rash driving.

On the other hand the local residents, who witnessed the incident, have rubbished the allegation of raising pro-Pakistan slogans as a blatant lie.

Also Read: Bengaluru: Woman techie attacked after complaining against cow slaughter

Comments

True Indian
 - 
Saturday, 21 Oct 2017

The woman who damaged poor people's property would be normally pelted with stones and have her face trashed 

Harish
 - 
Thursday, 19 Oct 2017

CD always trying to turn the actuall news into favour to other relegion issue, if she caused accident also nobody has the right to stone pelt on the car "logic"

fadi
 - 
Thursday, 19 Oct 2017

Ajit..... .....Suvar na NEWS

PK
 - 
Thursday, 19 Oct 2017

Cheddi minds alwz have dirty thought to create tension between hindus and muslims.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com web desk
June 16,2020

New Delhi, Jun 16: Despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi led government’s attempt to downplay the border dispute with China, matters have heated up unprecedentedly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC)- the effective Sino-India border in Eastern Ladakh. 

The country has lost three precious lives – an army officer and two soldiers. The last time blood was spilled on the LAC, before the latest episode, was 45 years ago when the Chinese ambushed an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La.

India had lost four soldiers on October 20, 1975 in Tulung La, the last time bullets were fired on the India-China border though both the countries witnessed bitter stand-offs later at Sumdorong Chu valley in 1987, Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014 and Doklam in 2017.

Between 1962 and 1975, the biggest clash between India and China took place in Nathu La pass in 1967 when reports suggest that around 80 Indian soldiers were killed and many more Chinese personnel.

While three soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, were killed in the latest episode in Galwan Valley, the government describes it as a "violent clash" and does not mention opening fire.

New Delhi described the locality where the 1975 incident took place as "well within" its territory only to be rebuffed by Beijing as "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong".

The Ministry of External Affairs had then said that the Chinese had crossed the LAC and ambushed the soldiers while Beijing claimed the Indians entered their territory and did not return despite warnings.

The Indian government maintained that the ambush on the Assam Rifles' patrol in 1975 took place "500 metres south of Tulung" on the border between India and Tibet and "therefore in Indian territory". It said Chinese soldiers "penetrating" Indian territory implied a "change in China's position" on the border question but the Chinese denied this and blamed India for the incident.

The US diplomatic cables quoted an Indian military intelligence officer saying that the Chinese had erected stone walls on the Indian side of Tulung La and from these positions fired several hundred rounds at the Indian patrol.

"Four of the Indians had gone into a leading position while two (the ones who escaped) remained behind. The senior military intelligence officer emphasised that the soldiers on the Indian patrol were from the area and had patrolled that same region many times before," the cable said.

One of the US cables showed that former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought details of the October 1975 clash "without approaching the host governments on actual location of October 20 incident". He also wanted to know what ground rules were followed regarding the proximity of LAC by border patrols.

A cable sent from the US mission in India on November 4, 1975 appeared to have doubts about the Chinese account saying it was "highly defensive".

"Given the unsettled situation on the sub-continent, particularly in Bangladesh, both Chinese and Indian authorities have authorised stepped up patrols along the disputed border. The clash may well have ensued when two such patrols unexpectedly encountered each other," it said.

Another cable from China on the same day quoted another October 1974 cable, which spoke about Chinese officials being concerned for long that "some hotheaded person on the PRC (People's Republic of China) might provoke an incident that could lead to renewed Sino-Indian hostilities. It went on to say that this clash suggested that "such concerns and apprehensions are not unwarranted".

According to the United States diplomatic cables, Chinese Foreign Ministry on November 3, 1975 disputed the statement of the MEA spokesperson, who said the incident took place inside Indian territory.

The Chinese had said "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong". In its version of the 1975 incident, they said Indian troops crossed the LAC at 1:30 PM at Tulung Pass on the Eastern Sector and "intruded" into their territory when personnel at the Civilian Checkpost at Chuna in Tibet warned them to withdraw.

Ignoring this, they claimed, Indian soldiers made "continual provocation and even opened fire at the Chinese civilian checkpost personnel, posing a grave threat to the life of the latter. The Chinese civilian checkpost personnel were obliged to fire back in self defence."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson had also said they told the Indian side that they could collect the bodies "anytime" and on October 28, collected the bodies, weapons and ammunition and "signed a receipt".

The US cables from the then USSR suggested that the official media carried reports from Delhi on the October 1975 incident and they cited only Indian accounts of the incident "ridiculing alleged Chinese claims that the Indians crossed the line and opened fire first".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Charan Kumar | coastaldigest.com
June 24,2020

Bengaluru, June 24: City-based I Monetary Advisory (IMA), which duped thousands of families, mostly Muslims, in the name of halal investment, has become a bitter reality of "we were robbed by our own people". All the accused except its CEO Mohammad Mansoor Khan have been released on bail in this ponzi scam worth thousands of crores of rupees.

The scam has not only been investigated by SIT and CBI, but it has reverberated many times in the Assembly, corridors of power, and in the courts.

Around 80,000 investors are in trouble after the Monetary Advisory (IMA) scam came to light. Many investors have left this world, many families have split, many marriages have broken down and many have become unemployed, homeless, helpless and hapless. One of the senior IAS office, who had faced arrest in the scam, reportedly killed himself just a day ago.

It has been more than a year since this multi-billion scam came to light. But the affected families still do not see any ray of hope. The government, led by senior IAS officer Harsh Gupta, has set up a special competent authority to address investor grievances in the matter.

According to information provided by Harsh Gupta, investors have to be paid Rs 2,900 crore. But the value of the company's assets seized so far could be around Rs 450 crore. The process of auctioning the assets has not started yet. The authority has developed an online portal for submission of claim forms from investors. But the process of taking applications has not started yet. Syed Gulab, a social worker overseeing the case, says that after all the claim forms have been submitted, we will get a clear picture about the exact number of investors and the total amount of arrears. But this process may take a few more months to complete.

Senior journalist Maqbool Ahmed Siraj says that IMA has systematically deceived people in the name of halal investment through capital scheme. In 2006, Muhammad Mansoor Khan, a one-time small businessman, set up a company. He began to attract large number of investors by creating the greed for more profit among middle class and poor people.

By 2015, the company had received money from more than 12,000 investors and continued to pay monthly profits. By the time the company closed in 2019, 80,000 people had invested their hard-earned money here. In Bengaluru, the company expanded its reach by investing in two major gold showrooms, hospitals, schools, several medical stores, a publishing center, a supermarket, and real estate firm.

Mr Siraj says that Mansoor Khan and his team not only lured the poor and middle class to pursue their own interests but also created a favourable atmosphere for their so called business by winning the hearts of politicians, government officials, clerics, religious institutions and media.

Unsuspecting people invested their money in a bid to make more profit in less time. When the company stopped making profits and Mansoor Khan suddenly fled on June 9, 2019, the investors woke up the to the reality.

Apart from residents of Bengaluru and other parts of Karnataka, people from Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra other states also have invested their money.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 18,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 18: A 26-year-old Kannada singer committed suicide over alleged dowry harassment on Monday. Sushmitha, a playback singer who got married to Sharath Kumar about one-and-a-half years ago, hung herself from the ceiling at her parent's home in Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru on Monday.

The singer sent a Whatsapp to her brother and mother before hanging herself early morning on Monday. She accused her husband and his relatives of dowry harassment in her death note.

According to Bengaluru Police, the singer has accused her husband, his sister and his aunt of harassing her for dowry in her death note. On Monday morning, Sushmitha's brother alerted the police after he found her dead body hanging from the ceiling. She used her dupatta to hang herself.

Sushmitha had lent her voice for Kannada songs in films like Haalu Thuppa and Srisamanya.

Police informed that Sushmitha sent a Whatsapp message to her brother, Sachin, at around 1 am on Sunday and explained that her husband Sharath and her relatives have been harassing her since the time she got married. Sachin read the message at around 5:30am and rushed to her room where he found her hanging from the ceiling.

In the text message, Sushmitha wrote that her husband, Sharath, his sister, Geetha, and his aunt, Vydehi, harassed her and they were the reason behind her ending her life. She also stated that she did not want to end her life in their house and hence came to her parents’ house.

The Annapoorneshwari Nagar police have registered a case of dowry death, charging her husband and his sister and aunt based on complaint filed by Sushmitha’s mother Meenakshi. The three accused are on run after hearing about her death and police said that efforts are on to trace them.

Sushmitha's husband Sharath Kumar is a manager in a car showroom and a resident of KS Nagar in Bengaluru.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.