Home India Ex CBI Invest...

Ex CBI Investigation Chief in Dera Chief Rape Case Reveals that Manmohan Singh backed the CBI Investigation

M Narayanan reveals some important facts about the case

0
Rape convict Gurmeet Ram Rahim
Rape convict Gurmeet Ram Rahim. Twitter
  • The then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stood by the CBI and ordered them to go by the law
  • When powerful MPs asked him to drop cases against Ram Rahim, then CBI chief Vijay Shanker refused to do so
  • The head Sadhvi would get an order from Gurmeet Ram Rahim- to send a Sadhvi to his bedroom

Bengaluru, August 30, 2017: M Narayanan, Chief Investigating Officer in the rape case of Dera chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh has revealed how Manmohan Singh, the former Prime Minister resisted political pressure from Punjab and Haryana and supported Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in their investigation.

Narayanan hails from Kasaragod, Kerala and was in Mysore, the day Ram Rahim was finally jail sentenced for 20 years. He expressed satisfaction over the Dera Chief’s punishment and said that Ram Rahim should also be convicted for other pending cases- murdering two people in the past (Dera follower Ranjit Singh and journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati).

He revealed that Ram Rahim was very careful of his abominable deeds, he behaved like a seasoned criminal and who never used to leave any traces behind. The investigating officer said “He had a collection of condoms and contraceptives in his room. He was a maniac, a real beast.”

Manmohan Singh backed CBI

M Narayanan, who is now a retired Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of CBI. He was the Chief Investigating Officer in Dera Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim’s rape case. According to News 18 report, Narayanan said, “The then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stood by the CBI and ordered us to go by the law. He went through the statement made by 2 Sadhvis before a judge and did not succumb to the pressures from Punjab and Haryana MPs.”

Narayanan also spoke about what the former Prime Minister did, “After a lot of pressure from these MPs, Manmohan Singh had summoned the then CBI chief Vijay Shanker to his office to discuss the case against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. After seeing the victim’s statements before a judge, Singh backed us.”

He lauded his boss Vijay Shanker for taking a stand for the right cause in spite of pressure from politicians of Punjab and Haryana. “When powerful MPs asked him to drop cases against Ram Rahim, Vijay Shanker refused to do so. He backed us fully,” said Narayanan.

Also Read: Why Dera Sacha Sauda Followers Ready To Die For Rapist Ram Rahim Singh?

How CBI conducted the investigation?

Narayanan also talked about how he along with his team carried out the investigation and said, “The complaint was sent in 2002. But nothing had happened till 2007. Expressing serious concerns over the progress of the investigation, the Punjab & Haryana High Court enquired CBI. It had also summoned the Chief Vijay Shanker to court seeking an explanation. After that, he gave us Sadhvis letters, files of the murder of journalist Ramachandra Chatrapati and Dera volunteer Ranjit Singh. He ordered us to go ahead and complete the investigation in just 57 days as ordered by the High Court,” mentions News 18 report.

According to Narayanan, it was a tough task to accomplish as Sadhvis letters were anonymous. He said that they came to know that over 200 Sadhvis had left the Dera between 1999 and 2002, due to sexual harassment. But they could trace only 10 victims. Many of them were married and thus didn’t come forward to file a complaint. But, they were successful in persuading 2 victims to take an action against him and filed the charge sheet before a court in Ambala on the 56th day“.

He said that it was a tough job for them to even enter Dera Sacha Sauda headquarters, Sirsa as the CBI team was constantly threatened by Ram Rahim’s goons. They had to suffer a lot of hostility in the quest for justice.

Decoding King sized life of a Godmen

Narayanan said that Dera Chief Ram Rahim was living the life of a king in what he called an ashram, he would be in a cave like room, with Sadhvis around (who were made to be at his beck and call). It was a daily occurrence as on every night around 10 PM, the head Sadhvi would get an order from him- to send a Sadhvi to his bedroom and so, she used to force one of the Sadhvis chosen by him to sleep with the “pitaji“.

Also Read: Quick View on Dera Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Case: 20 Years of Imprisonment enough for a Rapist in India?

When will Dera follower Ranjit Singh get justice?

“Ranjit Singh was a prominent volunteer at the Dera. After his sister was raped by Ram Rahim, both of them had left Sirsa. A few days later an anonymous letter reached Punjab and Haryana High Court. Suspecting that Ranjit Singh was behind it, Dera chief ordered his men to murder him. It has been proved that the pistol used by his murderers belonged to Dera manager. They had also left a walkie-talkie at the scene of the crime. I am sure Ram Rahim will be convicted in these heinous cases too,” said Narayanan (he retired in 2009).


NewsGram is a Chicago-based non-profit media organization. We depend upon support from our readers to maintain our objective reporting. Show your support by Donating to NewsGram. Donations to NewsGram are tax-exempt.
Click here- www.newsgram.com/donate

Next Story

Why Did China Not Invite WHO for Coronavirus Investigation?

China Did Not Invite WHO to Join COVID-19 Investigation

0
China COVID-19
The World Health Organization (WHO) said Thursday that it has not been invited by China to join the investigation into the cause of the coronavirus pandemic. Pixabay

The World Health Organization (WHO) said Thursday that it has not been invited by China to join the investigation into the cause of the coronavirus pandemic.

WHO’s representative in Beijing Dr. Gauden Galea said he expected China would discuss collaborations with the organization in the “near future.”

“We know some national investigation is happening but at this stage we have not been invited to join. We are expecting to get, in the near future, a briefing on where that is and to discuss possible collaboration,” Galea said.

China COVID-19
A logo is pictured outside a building of the World Health Organization (WHO) during an executive board meeting on update on the coronavirus outbreak, in Geneva, Switzerland. VOA

The coronavirus disease COVID-19, which originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan, has taken over 230,000 human lives worldwide, according to a collection of data compiled by Johns Hopkins University, and confirmed infection cases have reached 3.2 million.

Please follow NewsGram on Instagram to get updates on the latest news

Beijing has been criticized for lack of transparency in its handling of the pandemic, with the United States investigating whether the virus might have gotten out from a Wuhan biosecurity laboratory.

The official tally of infections in Wuhan has been questionable from the very beginning with the government frequently changing its counting criteria at the peak of the outbreak.

Also Read- In Photos: Healthcare Workers Around the World Fighting COVID-19

Meanwhile, China has dismissed the possibility that the coronavirus pandemic originated in that lab and it was not transmitted from animals to humans in Wuhan as commonly believed.

Although the origin of COVID-19 is yet to be determined, some scientists suspect the virus was transmitted to humans from animals at a wet market in Wuhan. (VOA)

Next Story

EU Antitrust Regulators Investigate Data Collection of Google

European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager has handed down fines totaling more than 8 billion euros to Google in the last two years and ordered it to change its business practices

0
Google
Google has said it uses data to better its services and that users can manage, delete and transfer their data at any time. Pixabay

EU antitrust regulators are investigating collection of data by Google, the European Commission told Reuters Saturday, suggesting the world’s most popular internet search engine remains in its sights despite record fines in recent years.

Competition enforcers on both sides of the Atlantic are now looking into how dominant tech companies use and monetize data.

The EU executive said it was seeking information on how and why Alphabet unit Google is collecting data, confirming a Reuters story Friday.

“The Commission has sent out questionnaires as part of a preliminary investigation into Google’s practices relating to Google’s collection and use of data. The preliminary investigation is ongoing,” the EU regulator told Reuters in an email.

Google
EU antitrust regulators are investigating collection of data by Google, the European Commission told Reuters Saturday, suggesting the world’s most popular internet search engine remains in its sights despite record fines in recent years. VOA

A document seen by Reuters shows the EU’s focus is on data related to local search services, online advertising, online ad targeting services, login services, web browsers and others.

European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager has handed down fines totaling more than 8 billion euros to Google in the last two years and ordered it to change its business practices.

ALSO READ: The Fiend Never Forgets, as Evident from the People he Attacks

Google has said it uses data to better its services and that users can manage, delete and transfer their data at any time. (VOA)

Next Story

“Legalize Torture? It’s Tortured Logic”

Though, The torture could not proceed without medical supervision

0
Torture
Torture is admittedly an extremely difficult issue to confront. It is so morally reprehensible that we are understandably reluctant to even consider the possibility that it could ever be justified, under any circumstances. Pixabay

By Sam Ben-Meir 

Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty (2013) starred Jessica Chastain as Maya, a tough, brilliant and single-minded CIA agent who is prepared to use Torture in the interrogation of suspected terrorists. There was nothing sadistic about her character, and she comes to doubt the efficacy of torture – though in the end she is able to learn the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, which she could not have done, the film suggests, had she been unwilling to employ “enhanced interrogation techniques.” This assertion, that the use of torture did in fact produce useful intelligence that helped lead the U.S. to bin Laden, sparked debate as well as outrage.

The Report (2019) is, among other things, writer-director Scott Z Burns’ answer to Zero Dark Thirty. It is largely about another single-minded individual, Daniel J. Jones (Adam Driver), lead investigator of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who spent five arduous years doggedly uncovering the CIA’s suspect detention and interrogation program following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. His investigation eventually culminated in a 6,700-page report, a damning exposé of the CIA’s methods of “enhanced interrogation” and the psychologists who helped design them – methods which included walling, cramped confinement, stress positions, waterboarding, the use of insects, and mock burial – despite having no interrogation experience. Like Jones, the film is unwavering not only in its moral condemnation of torture, but in its claim that torture is not effective and never produces real, actionable intelligence.

Torture is admittedly an extremely difficult issue to confront. It is so morally reprehensible that we are understandably reluctant to even consider the possibility that it could ever be justified, under any circumstances. The problem is that the world is a messy place – it isn’t morally tidy – and sometimes the right thing to do is not available to us. According to the American Field Manual, rulebook of military interrogators, “The use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.” However, if we are to deal honestly with this issue, we must recognize the fact that there is substantial evidence that sometimes torture is effective in eliciting information and, indeed, it has been known to save innocent lives.

In Why Terrorism Works (2002), Alan Dershowitz writes, “There can be no doubt that torture sometimes works. Jordan apparently broke the notorious terrorist of the 1980s, Abu Nidal, by threatening his mother. Philippine police reportedly help crack the 1993 World Trade Center bombings by torturing a suspect.” If, in certain dire situations, something like nonlethal torture may be justifiable then it appears we should at least consider Dershowitz’s suggestion that if and when torture is practiced, that it is done in accordance with law and with some kind of warrant issued by a judge.

“I’m not in favor of torture,” Dershowitz writes, “but if you’re going to have it, it should damn well have court approval.” His claim is that if we are, in fact, going to torture then it ought to be done in accordance with law: for tolerating torture while pronouncing it illegal is hypocritical. In other words, democratic liberalism ought to own up to its own activities, according to Dershowitz. If torture is, indeed, a reality then it should be done with accountability.

There are, however, significant problems with the reasoning behind torture-warrants. For one, the legalization of torture would significantly distort our moral experience of the world, corroding the very notion of law itself, which does not rule through abject terror: law is, after all, meant to replace sheer brutality as a way of getting people to do things. Indeed, the rule against torture is paradigmatic of what we mean by law itself. In short, to have torture as law is undermining of what we take the very rule of law to signify.

Torture
When Torture is practiced, one should ensure that it is done in accordance with law and with some kind of warrant issued by a judge. Pixabay

Such considerations are closely connected with the following concern which is addressed in The Report: namely, what are the consequences of institutionalizing torture? That is clearly what the introduction of torture-warrants would imply – and once you institutionalize torture you then have to elaborate on all aspects, including the training not only of would-be torturers but also medical personnel. In other words, the legalization of interrogational torture would apparently require the professionalization of torture; that is, the acceptance of torture as a profession.

This normalization is especially disquieting when we stop to consider in particular the role of doctors and medical professionals in torture: for nothing is more antagonistic to what we mean by medicine then its utilization in the prolongation of a person’s agony and brutalization. Sadly, the participation of medical practitioners in torture is nothing new; and we would do well to remind ourselves of that history, for we are now most certainly part of it.

In his book Torture, Edward Peters observes that it was under the Third Reich that torture was “transformed into a medical specialty, a transformation which was to have great consequences in the second half of the twentieth century.” Medical involvement in torture first came to world attention with the disclosure of practices in Nazi concentration camps. The Nuremberg trials revealed that physicians had, for example, placed prisoners in low-pressure tanks simulating high altitude, immersed them in near-freezing water, and had them injected with live typhus organisms.

It is likely that hundreds of doctors and nurses participated in these experiments, although only twenty-one German physicians were charged with medical crimes. What needs to be emphasized is a point that Robert Jay Lifton, M.D. makes with what he calls an “atrocity-producing situation” – by which he refers to an environment “so structured, psychologically and militarily, that ordinary people can readily engage in atrocities.” As Lifton observes, many Nazi doctors were engaged not in cruel medical experiments, but directly involved in killing. To get to that point, however, they had to undergo a process of socialization; first to the medical profession, then to the military, and finally to the concentration camps: “The great majority of these doctors were ordinary people who had killed no one before joining murderous Nazi institutions. They were corruptible and certainly responsible for what they did, but they became murderers mainly in atrocity-producing settings.”

Referring to the CIA program, Atul Gawande, a surgeon and author, observed that “The torture could not proceed without medical supervision. The medical profession was deeply embedded in this inhumanity.” In fact, the program was developed by two psychologists, Jim Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who – as the film relates – based their recommendations on the theory of “learned helplessness,” which essentially describes a condition in which an individual, repeatedly subjected to negative, painful stimuli, comes to view their situation as beyond their control and themselves as powerless to effect any change. The crucial point is that medical professionals were an integral part of the program. Referring to American doctors that were involved in the torture at Abu Ghraib, Robert Lifton points out, “Even without directly participating in the abuse, doctors may have become socialized to an environment of torture and by virtue of their medical authority helped sustain it.”

We can hardly underestimate the significance of the process of socialization in facilitating participation in torture. Certain factors are decisive in terms of weakening the moral restraints against performing acts that individuals would normally find unacceptable. Following Harvard University professor of social ethics, Herbert Kelman, we can identify three forces that are particularly important. Kelman was particularly interested in what he described as “sanctioned massacres” – such as occurred at My Lai during the Vietnam War – but his observations are relevant to the torture setting as well.

The first factor is authorization: rather than recognizing oneself as an independent moral agent, the individual feels that they are participating in a mission that relinquishes them of the responsibility to make their own moral choices. The presence of medical professionals helps to lend a sense of legitimacy to the enterprise.

Routinizaton is another factor, which speaks directly to the establishment of torture as a profession – so that the torturer perceives the process not as the brutal treatment of another human being but simply as the routine application of a set of specialized skills; or as Kelman puts it, “a series of discrete steps most of them carried out in automatic, regularized fashion.”

Finally, dehumanization, whereby the victim is deprived of identity and systematically excluded from the moral community to which the torturer belongs: it becomes unnecessary for the agents to regard their relationship to the victim as ethically significant – in short the victim is denied any inherent worth and therefore any moral consideration.

Torture
For one, the legalization of Torture would significantly distort our moral experience of the world, corroding the very notion of law itself, which does not rule through abject terror. Pixabay

Medical personnel who act as advisors, as it were, on torture techniques are directly implicated in the practice of torture. But if we were to follow Dershowitz’s suggestion and effectively institutionalize torture, this medical involvement would be an inevitable result – for it was present already when torture was being practiced clandestinely. It seems strange that Dershowitz, who finds the current hypocrisy so outrageous, would attempt to remedy the situation not by eliminating the hypocrisy but rather legitimizing it. For what could be more hypocritical than doctors, sworn to do no harm, taking a more or less active role in the systematic and scientific brutalization of another human being? But such would be the unavoidable outcome of legalizing torture through “torture-warrants.”

ALSO READ: Majority Of Indians Favour Complete Ban On Single Use Plastics: Survey

In closing, institutionalizing torture would have very bad consequences – far worse than the hypocrisy that so troubles Dershowitz. Not only would the practice of torture likely metastasize – instead of being limited to one-off cases – its professionalization would contribute to the formation of “atrocity-producing situations,” and we have seen how this relates in particular to the complicity of doctors in the torture situation. Physicians, nurses and the medical establishment itself would be severely ethically compromised by the institutionalization of torture. All of which is to say that the legalization of torture should be avoided. Best to then uphold the absolute ban on torture, even if that ban will be subject to violation under extraordinary circumstances.

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City.