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
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.
News Network
January 27,2020

Mumbai, Jan 27: The country's largest car maker Maruti Suzuki India (MSI) on Monday said it has increased prices of select models by up to Rs 10,000 with immediate effect to offset the impact of rising input costs.

The price change varies across models and ranges up to 4.7 per cent (ex-showroom Delhi) and are effective from January, 27 2020, MSI said in a statement.

The price of entry level model Alto range has gone up in the range of Rs 9,000-6,000, S-Presso between Rs 1,500 to 8,000, WagonR between Rs 1,500 and Rs 4,000.

The company has also increased the price of its multi purpose vehicle Ertiga between Rs 4,000-10,000, Baleno by Rs 3,000 to 8,000 and XL6 by up to Rs 5,000 (all prices ex-showroom Delhi).

Currently, the company sells a range of vehicles starting from entry-level small car Alto to premium multi purpose vehicle XL6 with price ranging from Rs 2.89 lakh to Rs 11.47 lakh (ex-showroom Delhi).

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 5,2020

With the scrapping of Mitron and Remove China Apps from its Play Store gaining a lot of attention in India, Google on Thursday said that it removed a video app "for a number of technical policy violations", while adding that it also does not allow an app that "encourages or incentivizes users into removing or disabling third-party apps".

Both the apps became immensely popular in India within a short span of time due to the prevailing anti-China sentiment amid border tensions between India and China in Ladakh and calls by Indian activists to boycott Chinese products.

Reports suggested that the Mitron app is a repackaged version of TicTic, which is a TikTok clone.

The Remove China Apps was designed to help users identify applications of Chinese origin.

Without naming the apps, Google hinted that the Mitron app may make a comeback on the Play Store once it fixes some technical issues, but the chances of the Remove China Apps are thin.

"We have an established process of working with developers to help them fix issues and resubmit their apps. We've given this developer (of the video app) some guidance and once they've addressed the issue the app can go back up on Play," Sameer Samat, Vice President, Android and Google Play, said in a statement.

Google said that its Android app store was designed to provide a safe and secure experience for the consumers while also giving developers the platform and tools they need to build sustainable businesses.

Samat said that Google Play recently suspended a number of apps for violating the policy that it does not allow an app that "encourages or incentivizes users into removing or disabling third-party apps or modifying device settings or features unless it is part of a verifiable security service".

"This is a longstanding rule designed to ensure a healthy, competitive environment where developers can succeed based upon design and innovation. When apps are allowed to specifically target other apps, it can lead to behaviour that we believe is not in the best interest of our community of developers and consumers," Samat said.

"We've enforced this policy against other apps in many countries consistently in the past - just as we did here," he 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.