VHP leader justifies murder of innocent Muslim; urges Hindus to support killers

coastaldigest.com news network
January 28, 2018

Mangaluru, Jan 28: Even though Muslim community have openly condemned the murder of Deepak Rao, a Hindu youth, Vishwa Hindu Parishad has openly endorsed the killing of Ahmed Basheer, an innocent Muslim man who was hacked to death on January 3 in Manglauru by communal goons.

Speaking at a function to release a book, Hadedavvana Shaapa, here on Sunday, Dakshina Kannada district president of VHP, Jagadish Shenva, called upon the Hindu society to support the accused persons involved in the murder of Ahmed Basheer.

Mr Shenva said that the VHP believed that an innocent Basheer was murdered in retaliation to the murder of another innocent Bharatiya Janata Party activist Deepak Rao on the same day.

He said that an innocent Sharath Madiwala was murdered (on July 4, 2017) a few days after the murder of Social Democratic Party of India activist Ashraf in Bantwal taluk. “Then why not Basheer be murdered in revenge for the murder of Deepak Rao,” he asked.

Mr Shenva said that there was a sense of anguish in a section of society following the murder of Deepak Rao. “We are not of the kind who will react like this. But there are a section of people who are prepared for it (to murder a person in revenge). As a society it’s our responsibility to protect such persons,” he said.

The hardline Hindutva leader also predicted that his statement will be widely reported and there would be cases filed against him. “But I will stand by this statement,” he said.

Meanwhile, a video clipping of Mr. Shenva’s speech was widely circulated on Facebook and WhatAspp groups. The police said that they are taking legal opinion on Mr. Shenva’s speech.

Also Read: PFI, SDPI, Cong, DYFI demand arrest of Shenava for justifying killing of the innocents

Comments

True Indian
 - 
Wednesday, 31 Jan 2018

Because of these bastards people are killing and torturing each other.  Blast these RSS BJP bastards 

ganesh
 - 
Monday, 29 Jan 2018

nimmanthavarinda papada makkala prana hogtha erodu. nivu suthradararu, nivu elladiddare yenu akolla, shanthi inda erthave.

shanvafan
 - 
Monday, 29 Jan 2018

hooch munde magane! yenu bogalthaediya.

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
June 9,2020

Bengaluru, Jun 9: A 42-year-old founding director of an engineering consultancy firm lost Rs 65,000 to online fraudsters who posed as representatives of a mobile service provider and lured him with the offer of a fancy number recently.

Asif (name changed) received a text message on May 19, informing him that a platinum number, 9099999999, was available and interested people could dial a mobile number to avail it.

“Asif, who runs a mechanical, electrical, plumbing (MEP) engineering consultancy near Shivajinagar, decided to get the fancy mobile number. He called the number and the receiver said they would generate an invoice for his request. After a fake invoice for Rs 64,900 was generated, Asif paid the money through online transaction that day. Asif waited for two weeks for the SIM card with the fancy number to reach him,” an officer said.

East CEN Crime police registered a case of cheating under section 420 of IPC and sections under the Information Technology Act after Asif lodged a complaint on June 6.

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 10,2020

Bengaluru, Jan 10: The Special Investigation Team (SIT), probing the murder case of journalist-activist Gauri, arrested absconding suspect Rushikesh Devdikar alias Murali (44) from Dhanbad district in Jharkhand on Thursday evening and is bringing him to the city.

Rushikesh is the 18th suspect arrested in the case, Chief Investigating Officer M N Anucheth said. The investigation has revealed that he was primarily involved in the conspiracy to murder Gauri.

Rushikesh, who was hiding in a house in Katras, Dhanbad, will be produced before the local Judicial Magistrate in Dhanbad on Friday, said Anucheth, adding that the SIT had searched his house for clues. "We will obtain a transit warrant from the court and then bring him to Bengaluru," the officer said.

Originally from Aurangabad in Maharashtra, Rushikesh's family still lives there.

Gauri Lankesh was shot dead near her residence at around 8.20 pm on September 5, 2017, by two bike-borne men.

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.
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.