Blast triggers war of words ahead of Karnataka polls

[email protected] (Imran Khan, Tehelka)
April 21, 2013

Blast_triggersJUST A day after the Boston Marathon terror attack and less than a month after twin blasts rocked Hyderabad, 17 people were injured in a low-intensity blast near the Karnataka BJP's office in Bengaluru. Among the injured were 11 policemen who had been deployed there as it was the last day of filing nominations for the upcoming Assembly election on 5 May.

While the police are yet to ascertain who is behind the blast, suspicions are now being raised about the timing of the blast and who might possibly benefit from it.

“I was in my kitchen cooking, when I heard a deafening noise,” says Nanjamma, 43, who lives near the blast site. The explosion shattered the window panes of her house. “When I rushed outside, I saw cars engulfed in flames and bits of broken glass everywhere.”

Nine vehicles were damaged in the blast and the fire that followed. Police officials informed the media that the blast was caused by an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) mounted on a 100cc Yamaha motorcycle (chassis number: 1108F001-568/ registration number: TN-22R- 3769). The police, however, are yet to fathom whether the blast was triggered by a timer mounted on the vehicle or through a remote device.

A police van parked close to the blast site too was damaged. The explosion occurred in the Malleswaram residential area of north Bengaluru, about 100 metres from the newly inaugurated state BJP office, christened Jagannath Bhavan. “There were 20 of us on duty when the blast happened. Eight of us were in the van, but the rest were outside,” says Vishweshwaraiyya, 50, a head constable with the Karnataka State Reserve Police Force who was admitted at the KC General Hospital along with 10 of his colleagues.

Among the injured was Assistant Sub-Inspector BC Kunyappa, who received several cuts from shards of glass on the left side of the body, from neck to ankle. “I was reading the newspaper inside a police jeep when I heard a sound, like the bursting of crackers, followed by thick smoke,” he says. “I jumped out from the vehicle, otherwise I would have been dead.” Asked whether he saw anybody parking the bike, he says he has no idea.

Besides the policemen, six others, including three women, were also injured.

An unseemly blame game has broken out between the BJP and the Congress over the blast with both sides politicising the issue. Karnataka Home Minister R Ashok, who reached the spot immediately after the blast, declared it an act of terror intended to hurt the state BJP leaders. He even speculated that it might have been intended to “celebrate” the third anniversary of the Chinnaswamy Stadium blasts of 2010 as both of the incidents occurred on 17 April while the Indian Premier League season was on.

BJP state spokesperson S Prakash too said the bomb was definitely intended to hurt party workers and state BJP leaders as it was nomination day and activists of the party would be milling around the party office.

Opposition leaders, however, slammed the BJP for the remarks. Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Siddaramaiah called the blasts a political gimmick and held the state government responsible for it. Raising suspicion about the timing of the blast, Congress MP H Vishwanath said the role of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh could not be ruled out and demanded an inquiry that should submit its findings before the Assembly election.

So was it an act of terror? “Though no shrapnel or splinters were found in the bodies of the injured, nothing conclusive has come out so far,” says Joint Commissioner of Police (Law & Order) Pranab Mohanty. The only fact that seems to support the Congress' view is that the bike was parked 100 metres away from the BJP office and seemed designed for minimum damage.

While all interpretations of the blast are premature, it's interesting to note that past experiences have shown that similar acts were used for a political purpose. In the thick of elections in May 2008, a low-intensity bomb exploded in the district court of Dharward, 429 km west of Bengaluru. Initially, the Students Islamic Movement of India was deemed to be behind the blasts but later investigations showed the hand of extremist Hindutva groups. However, given that there have been blasts elsewhere in the country that have involved Muslim extremists, the sanest course might be to rush to no conclusions.

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.
Agencies
March 3,2020

Facebook on Monday launched a new consumer marketing campaign in India titled 'More Together'. India is the first country in the Asia Pacific region where such a campaign is being rolled out.

It is also the first time that Facebook is rolling out a 'high decibel campaign of this stature in India', the company said in a statement.

It is also the first time that Facebook is rolling out a 'high decibel campaign of this stature in India', the company said in a statement.

"India is at the heart of Facebook and one of our focus areas this year is to tell the exciting story of a service that is deeply embedded in the fabric of India," said Ajit Mohan, Vice President and Managing Director, Facebook India.

The campaign would have multiple campaigns over the next few weeks in eight languages and the one will be set in the context of Holi.

Facebook in 2019 introduced a new company logo to further distinguish the company from the Facebook app.

The company recently announced the appointment of Avinash Pant as the Marketing Director for India operations, to drive the consumer marketing efforts across the family of apps.

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.
Agencies
February 27,2020

Feb 27: With the window to submit comments on India's proposed personal data protection law closing on Tuesday, a period of anxious wait for final version of the Bill started for social media firms.

This comes even as global Internet companies have called on the government for improved transparency related to intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules and allay fears about the prospect of increased surveillance and prompting a fragmentation of the Internet in India that would harm users.

As per the proposed amendments, an intermediary having over 50 lakh users in the country will have to be incorporated in India with a permanent registered office and address.

When required by lawful order, the intermediary shall, within 72 hours of communication, provide such information or assistance as asked for by any government agency or assistance concerning security of the state or cybersecurity.

This means that the government could pull down information provided by platforms such as Wikipedia, potentially hampering its functioning in India.

In the open letter to IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, leading browser and software development platform like Mozilla, Microsoft-owned GitHub and Cloudflare earlier called for improved transparency by allowing the public an opportunity to see a final version of these amendments prior to their enactment.

According to a Business Insider report, Indian users may lose access to Wikipedia if the new intermediary rules for internet and social media companies are approved.

Since the rules would require the website to take down content deemed illegal by the government, it would require Wikipedia to show different content for different countries.

Anusha Alikhan, senior communications director for Wikimedia told Business Insider that the platform is built though languages and not geographies. Therefore, removing content from one country, while it is still visible to other country users may not work for the company’s model.

India is one of Wikipedia’s largest markets. Over 771 million Indian users accessed the site in just November 2019.

Also read: Explained: What is the Personal Data Protection Bill and why you should care

The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, which was introduced in Lok Sabha in the winter session last year, was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) of both the Houses.

The government last month decided to seek views and suggestions on the Bill from individuals and associations and bodies concerned and the last date for submitting the comments was on Tuesday.

Prasad, while introducing the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, in the Lok Sabha on December 11, announced that the draft Bill empowers the government to ask companies including Facebook, Google and others for anonymised personal data and non-personal data.

There was a buzz when the Bill's latest version was introduced in the Lok Sabha, especially the provision seeking to allow the use of personal and non-personal data of users in some cases, especially when national security is involved.

Several legal experts red-flagged the issue and said the provision will give the government unaccounted access to personal data of users in the country.

In their submission to the JPC, several organisations also flagged that the power to collect non-personal and anonymised data by the government without notice and consent should not form part of the Bill because of issues regarding effective anonymisation and potential abuse.

"Clauses 35 and 36 of the Bill provide unbridled access to personal data to the Central Government by giving it powers to exempt its agencies from the application of the Bill on the basis of various broad worded grounds," SFLC.in, a New Delhi-based not-for-profit legal services organisation, commented.

The Software Alliance, also known as BSA, a trade group which includes tech giants such as Microsoft, IBM and Adobe, among others said that the current version of the privacy bill pose substantial challenges, including the sweeping new powers for the government to acquire non-personal data, restrictions on data transfers, and local storage requirements.

"We urge the Joint Parliamentary Committee, as it considers revisions to the Bill, to eliminate provisions concerning non-personal data from the Personal Data Protection Bill and to remove the data localisation requirements and restrictions on international data flows," said Venkatesh Krishnamoorthy, Country Manager-India, BSA.

The Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill, 2019 draws its origins from the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee on data privacy, which produced a draft of legislation that was made public in 2018 ("the Srikrishna Bill").

The mandatory requirement for storing a mirror copy of all personal data in India as per Section 40 of the Srikrishna Bill has been done away with in the PDP Bill, 2019, meaning that companies like Facebook and Twitter would be able to store data of Indian users abroad if they so wish.

But the bill prohibits processing of sensitive personal data and critical personal data outside India.

What is more, what constitutes critical data has not been clearly defined.

As per the proposals, social media companies will have to modify their application as they are required to have a system in place by which a user can verify themselves.

So legal experts believe that some system to upload identification documents should be there and something like the Twitter blue tick mark should be there to identify verified accounts.

"The 2019 Bill introduces a new category of data fiduciaries called social media intermediaries ('SMIs'). SMIs are a subcategory of significant data fiduciaries ('SDFs') and will be notified by the Central government after due consultation with the DPA, or the Data Protection Authority. Clause 26(4) of the Bill defines SMIs as intermediaries who primarily or solely enable online interaction between two or more users," SFLC.in said.

"On a plain reading of the definition, online platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, ShareChat and WhatsApp are likely to be notified as SMIs under the Bill," it added.

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.
Agencies
June 27,2020

Mumbai, Jun 27: The Bombay High Court observed that COVID-19 patients from poor and indigent sections cannot be expected to produce documentary proof to avail subsidised or free treatment while getting admitted to hospitals.

The court on Friday was hearing a plea filed by seven residents of a slum rehabilitation building in Bandra, who had been charged ₹ 12.5 lakh by K J Somaiya Hospital for COVID-19 treatment between April 11 and April 28.

The bench of Justices Ramesh Dhanuka and Madhav Jamdar directed the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in the court.

The petitioners had borrowed money and managed to pay ₹10 lakh out of ₹12.5 lakh that the hospital had demanded, after threatening to halt their discharge if they failed to clear the bill, counsel Vivek Shukla informed the court.

According to the plea, the petitioners were also overcharged for PPE kits and unused services.

On June 13, the court had directed the state charity commissioner to probe if the hospital had reserved 20% beds for poor and indigent patients and provided free or subsidised treatment to them.

Last week, the joint charity commissioner had informed the court that although the hospital had reserved such beds, it had treated only three poor or indigent persons since the lockdown.

It was unfathomable that the hospital that claimed to have reserved 90 beds for poor and indigent patients had treated only three such persons during the pandemic, advocate Shukla said.

He further argued that COVID-19 patients, who are in distress, cannot be expected to produce income certificate and such documents as proof.

However, senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas, who represented the hospital, said the petitioners did not belong to economically weak or indigent categories and had not produced documents to prove the same.

A person who is suffering from a disease like COVID-19 cannot be expected to produce certificates from a tehsildar or social welfare officer before seeking admission in the hospital, the bench noted and asked the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in court within two weeks.

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.