Mumbai Police asks victims of MNS attacks to Adjust

वाह। क्या मंत्रणा है। When regional chauvinists like Raj Thackery of MNS with secessionist ideology do goonda gardi (hooliganism) by attacking other citizens to suppress their fundamental right of movement for their own unjust cheap political benefit, what does Mumbai Police do? Instead of charging such attackers with Sedition charges, they suggest the victims or supposed victims to adjust and give in to the pressure of the goondas (hooligans).

The local police were informed but, instead of assuring protection, officials said it would be "better" if the shop changed its name and avoided any confrontation with MNS activists. The MNS shakha office is just 100 m from the shop.

However, the police have a different view. "We suggested that the owner should rename his shop as Mumbai Sweet House," a Mulund police station officer said. "That will attract more customers to the shop." Another similarly helpful suggestion came from the policemen who met the owner; they asked him to apply to the BMC's shops and establishments department for a change of name on a priority basis.

Another officer admitted the police station had received a letter from the MNS, informing them about an agitation against the signboard. "We wanted to prevent a problem and advised the shop owner to take a quick decision on renaming the shop," he said.

Inspector Subhash Kshirsagar denied officers had put any "pressure" on the shop owner. "We just asked him to take precautions. There is a major MNS rally in Thane on Saturday and activists are likely to pass by the shop. There may be some stone-pelting," he said.

This is exactly what they did when Muslim extremists attacked a woman in a Mumbai Mall in broad day light. The assaulters slapped her and dragged her for bearing a tattoo in Urdu. Let alone having mutual respect for others, there is not even any sort of tolerance in these good for nothing uncivil parasites.

'Why categorize N Indians when we're all Indians?'

The Supreme Court on Monday will chart the course of action it will adopt on two PILs on violence against north Indians in Maharashtra, one seeking protection for the migrants and the other urging legal action against MNS chief Raj Thackeray.

While questions remain whether the Vilasrao Deshmukh government discharged its duties in protecting migrants from violence unleashed by MNS activists, the court appeared to focus on the Centre's role.

The hints were loud that the court would look to fasten some accountability on the UPA government as Article 355 casts an obligation on the Centre to protect every state from "external aggression and internal disturbances".

The Bench also had some reservations to the PILs making repeated reference to migrants to Maharashtra from Bihar, Orissa and UP as north Indians. "We thought we are all Indians and equal citizens of this country. How does this north Indian classification come about?"the Bench asked. The question could be innocuous at first glance, but did convey the anguish of the court at the divisive forces classifying citizens according to regions.

PIL petitioner Singh tried to get some interim relief by telling the court that the postmortem report suggested that Rahul Raj was possibly shot at close range by Mumbai police. This required high-level judicial probe, he said.

The PIL, while seeking cancellation of bail granted to MNS chief Raj Thackeray in connection with the cases relating to assault of outsiders, requested transfer of all cases against Raj outside Maharashtra alleging that he was let off on bail despite pendency of non-bailable arrest warrants issued against him by a Jharkhand court.

Congress led UPA has not done anything to protect the nation from external aggression, does the Honorable Court really thinks it will give two hoots about internal aggression/succession/disturbances?

For more on this racism and discrimination, read "North Indians feel the chill in Mumbai" and "Jharkhand court gives no relief to MNS chief".