On a link of a report on Batla house encounter in 2008 immediately after posting it on fb. my comments in reply:
Belief is a religious dogma, nothing can be done with reason to that. Please read the report and then comment. Do not make un-thought instant comments on serious issues.
Vibhas Awasthi TAKE PAIN OF READING THE REPORT. INSTANT COMMENT ON SUCH SERIOUS ISSUES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE. ITS LONG REPORT AND WITHIN A MINUTE OF ITS POSTING, YOU BEGAN QUESTIONING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY A GROUP OF ACTIVIST SCHOARS. IF YOU READ THE REPORT YOU WILL FIND THE ARGUEMENTS OF AUTHETICITY WITHIN THE REPORT. COMMENTING WITHOUT READING IS LIKE A KHEINIETE FATAVA
Vibhas Awasthi मैंने आप पर कोइ आरोप नहीं लगाया. २ जाने-माने मानवाधिकार संगठनों के गंभीर और प्रातिबध शिक्षाविदों-वकीलों-पत्रकारों की टीम जब रिपोर्ट बनाती है तो हवा में नहीं, ठोस तर्कों और तथ्यों के आधार पर.. मैंने आपसे सिर्फ इतनी गुजारिश किया की रिपोर्ट पढ़ कर उसकी प्रामाणिकता पर प्रश्नचिन्ह लगाएं. और यदि आप प्रकाश की गति से न पढ़ते हों तो यह असंभव है कि पोस्ट करने के एक मिनट के अन्दर आपने पढ़ लिया हो. किसे भी राज्य की न्यायपालिका का वही चरित्र होता है जो राज्य का.
Sorry Vibhas, no intention to hurt you. My insistence on questioning the authenticity of the report after reading it was on the basic assumption that it should be assumed by any rational individual that if some responsible intellectuals belonging to Democratic Rights Organizations with impeccable credentials of integrity are making a public statement, must be having some basis for their conclusions and a healthy debate could taken place on the facts and arguments provided by us. Without reading the report, only after seeing the title you made comments with implications of doubts on our intellectual integrity. I assumed with my common sense that being a seasoned and senior journalist must be etymologically aware of the methodology of fact finding teams. We visited to the places concerned talked to people and officials concerned. The core committee consisted of 2 prominent lawyers of Supreme Court with impeccable integrity; 1 retired and 3 serving professors of Delhi University. Many other senior members including the prominent journalist Gautam Navlakha were involved in finalising the report that took over a month. The report was released to media by Justice(rtd) Rajinder Sachchar and prominrnt journalist Kuldip Naiyar.
Belief is a religious dogma, nothing can be done with reason to that. Please read the report and then comment. Do not make un-thought instant comments on serious issues.
Vibhas Awasthi TAKE PAIN OF READING THE REPORT. INSTANT COMMENT ON SUCH SERIOUS ISSUES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE. ITS LONG REPORT AND WITHIN A MINUTE OF ITS POSTING, YOU BEGAN QUESTIONING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY A GROUP OF ACTIVIST SCHOARS. IF YOU READ THE REPORT YOU WILL FIND THE ARGUEMENTS OF AUTHETICITY WITHIN THE REPORT. COMMENTING WITHOUT READING IS LIKE A KHEINIETE FATAVA
Vibhas Awasthi मैंने आप पर कोइ आरोप नहीं लगाया. २ जाने-माने मानवाधिकार संगठनों के गंभीर और प्रातिबध शिक्षाविदों-वकीलों-पत्रकारों की टीम जब रिपोर्ट बनाती है तो हवा में नहीं, ठोस तर्कों और तथ्यों के आधार पर.. मैंने आपसे सिर्फ इतनी गुजारिश किया की रिपोर्ट पढ़ कर उसकी प्रामाणिकता पर प्रश्नचिन्ह लगाएं. और यदि आप प्रकाश की गति से न पढ़ते हों तो यह असंभव है कि पोस्ट करने के एक मिनट के अन्दर आपने पढ़ लिया हो. किसे भी राज्य की न्यायपालिका का वही चरित्र होता है जो राज्य का.
Sorry Vibhas, no intention to hurt you. My insistence on questioning the authenticity of the report after reading it was on the basic assumption that it should be assumed by any rational individual that if some responsible intellectuals belonging to Democratic Rights Organizations with impeccable credentials of integrity are making a public statement, must be having some basis for their conclusions and a healthy debate could taken place on the facts and arguments provided by us. Without reading the report, only after seeing the title you made comments with implications of doubts on our intellectual integrity. I assumed with my common sense that being a seasoned and senior journalist must be etymologically aware of the methodology of fact finding teams. We visited to the places concerned talked to people and officials concerned. The core committee consisted of 2 prominent lawyers of Supreme Court with impeccable integrity; 1 retired and 3 serving professors of Delhi University. Many other senior members including the prominent journalist Gautam Navlakha were involved in finalising the report that took over a month. The report was released to media by Justice(rtd) Rajinder Sachchar and prominrnt journalist Kuldip Naiyar.
No comments:
Post a Comment